SWAMPSCOTT — Questions about air-quality monitoring and the Board of Health’s role in quarry processes dominated a public hearing as the Select Board reviewed Amrize’s annual operation permit for the Swampscott Quarry.
The hearing, held jointly with the Earth Removal Advisory Committee (ERAC), included representatives from Amrize and focused largely on questions surrounding public health oversight. ERAC Chair Joe Markarian said most of the proposed changes to this year’s permit are administrative, aimed at clarifying and streamlining language rather than making substantive policy changes.
“Each year now, we come to the Board with a proposed, recommended permit for Amrize,” Markarian said. “The process is that we recommend, and the Select Board approves.”
Much of the discussion focused on ERAC’s process leading up to the permit, rather than issues with the content itself. The joint body specifically spoke about the Board of Health’s role in the permitting process.
Markarian told members of the Select Board that this year’s proposed permit will no longer include signatures from the Board of Health, a departure from past practices. He said the town’s earth removal bylaw does not require the board to formally approve quarry permits.
“Really nobody knows why [their signatures] were put on,” he said. “The earth removal bylaw is article 13 of the general bylaws, and nowhere in there is there a requirement that the Board of Health sign off on ERAC permits, whether it’s a quarry or otherwise.”
Board of Health Chair Gargi Cooper, who was unable to attend the meeting, submitted a statement that was read aloud by Select Board Chair Katie Phelan. Because the Board of Health had not yet discussed the matter publicly, the comments were not presented as an official position of the board.
In her statement, Cooper pointed to provisions in the town’s earth removal bylaw that prohibit permits from being issued if an operation would endanger public safety or adversely affect residents’ health, quality of life, or environmental resources. She argued that those are areas that traditionally fall within the Board of Health’s expertise.
“This raises a fundamental question. If public health and environmental impacts are central permitting criteria, but the Board of Health has no meaningful role in evaluating or addressing those impacts, who is responsible for making those determinations?” she wrote.
Cooper also noted that the permit requires various monitoring reports to be submitted to the Board of Health, while providing little to no formal authority for the board to act on the information.
Markarian said that he would support greater involvement from the Board of Health throughout the permitting process, but cautioned against creating a more convoluted permit process.
“I would rather see [the Board of Health] having greater input than to set up a circumstance where two bodies are approving our permit,” he said. “That just sets up a conflict. That’s not good policy. That’s not good government.”
Several members of the Select Board and ERAC pointed to the Board of Health’s existing seat on the committee as a potential path forward.
“I’m fully supportive of the Board of Health having a more direct line of communication with ERAC,” Markarian said. “I do recognize the value of the Board of Health’s input into the issues that we deal with.”
Officials discussed allowing the Board of Health to appoint a new representative to the committee, a topic expected to be taken up at future meetings.
The hearing also featured comments from Board of Health member George Allen, who also did not speak on behalf of the Board, and raised concerns about the quarry’s air-quality monitoring program.
Allen, who said he has spent more than 40 years studying air pollution, told officials he reviewed recent monitoring reports from the quarry and believes the current testing methods may not provide enough information to determine whether air-quality standards are being met.
“The issue, as I see it, is that the sampling required by the existing permit and that was performed in 2025 is insufficient to be used for comparison to and determine compliance with health-based standards,” Allen said.
He emphasized that his comments should not be interpreted as evidence of a current health threat.
“This does not mean there is a health hazard due to quarry activities. I want to stress that,” he said. “It means we do not have sufficient data to demonstrate that there are no health hazards from quarry activities.”
Select Board members largely agreed that Allen’s concerns warranted further review but said the technical question should be evaluated by ERAC, the Board of Health and the consultants involved in the monitoring program before any changes are considered.
“[Allen] has pointed out some flaws,” Select Board member Wayne Spritz said. “I have to agree that needs some investigation.”
Markarian said Allen’s concerns had been noted by ERAC and that they planned to discuss them at a future meeting, along with continued discussions about the Board of Health’s role in the permitting process.
The Select Board ultimately voted to leave the public hearing open and is expected to revisit the permit on June 17, when ERAC will present its final recommendation. Board members indicated that discussions regarding air-quality monitoring and the Board of Health’s role are likely to continue beyond this year’s permit approval process.
