We live and/or work near the Northern Iron foundry, an industrial facility in St. Paul that is currently fighting an enforcement action over air quality violations. We write in response to a recent article in the Pioneer Press (“Northern Iron Foundry owner hopes to expand production,” Page 1A, Aug. 18) and other public statements recently made by Northern Iron.

Before learning of the enforcement action by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), we knew our neighborhood had poor air quality. Clinic data shows high asthma rates and elevated child blood lead levels. At times there is a manufacturing smell in the air.

After learning that the foundry had been operating unpermitted equipment for many years, we became concerned and gathered public documents on the facility. We are following the court proceedings closely. Some of us have attended meetings with Alex Lawton, the foundry owner. We write to respond to statements that appear incorrect or could be misleading without more context. A meaningful dialogue between Lawton and the community must begin with full transparency.

First, it stood out to us that Lawton says he wants to conduct outreach because says he cannot “pretend to know what the community needs.” But Lawton did speak with the community at a well-attended meeting in April, with a diverse audience. Community members made specific requests, including that Northern Iron sponsor lead testing for residents living near the foundry.

This seems like a reasonable request, and it was made by a respected community member. But Northern Iron has yet to respond. And Lawton apparently has not mentioned it to the press. Instead, Lawton suggests he might fund a Little League team. In our opinion, collecting community health data would be far more useful than a team sponsorship.

The article contains other questionable statements. For example, it says that “two years ago, state authorities came calling, requiring greater monitoring of air quality and particulate matter in the surrounding area.”

To be clear, Northern Iron’s permit already required modeling emissions for equipment that the company had installed on its own initiative. The modeling and reporting requirements were not new, or “greater,” than before. Only the enforcement and compliance were new.

The statement also conflates modeling and monitoring, which are two different processes. Modeling calculates how pollutants spread across a neighborhood vertically and horizontally. It uses various inputs, including the type and amount of pollution, local meteorology, and other factors. The modeling for Northern Iron was developed based on emissions tests collected directly from the foundry stack.

By contrast, monitors collect readings at specific locations. Monitors do not inherently account for wind directions or other events. Instead, those factors must be accounted for by the regulators and engineers who design monitoring plans.

After the enforcement action began, Northern Iron chose to install low-cost Purple Air monitors. It has also chosen to cite those monitors as proof that it is not violating the law. But this kind of monitor is not considered appropriate for regulatory purposes. Northern Iron is only beginning to install regulatory-grade monitors.

However, we do have a vetted model, developed using a stack test from the foundry itself. MPCA scientists determined that the model was accurate enough to warrant an enforcement action.

This brings us to another point: Northern Iron claims a court victory against the MPCA. This should not be taken to mean that Northern Iron has won its challenge to the enforcement action. What Northern Iron did win is a temporary court order. This type of order preserves the status quo until the case has been resolved. Court documents confirm that the judge has not issued a decision resolving Northern Iron’s claims, and more hearings are already scheduled.

We are disappointed that Northern Iron is making questionable statements. And we are discouraged to see community requests unacknowledged. If Northern Iron wants a community dialogue, the first step is to build trust with full transparency.

Patricia Enstad, Clarence White, Rebecca Nelson, Jim Mondoux, Chelsea DeArmond and Peter Rachleff also contributed to this column.

Related Articles

After 17-year-old wounded in shooting near Fairgrounds, two more teens arrive at hospitals with gunshot wounds

Local youth spent part of their summer immersed in journalism. Here’s their take on the state of it.

Students at St. Paul’s Hidden River Middle School relocate during $43 million renovation

Artist profile: Budding St. Paul playwright saw own choreopoem for Black teens produced this summer

St. Paul: A hard look at the struggling corner of Snelling and University avenues