Smith Foundry report shows need for scrutiny

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minnesotans should be able to trust that the state agency with “pollution control” as part of its name is actually doing just that — controlling pollution.

But since late 2023, questions have understandably lingered about whether the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) lived up to its charge and its moniker when it came to a foundry in south Minneapolis that had long triggered air quality complaints from those living and working nearby.

In findings made public in November that year, it was the federal government, not the state agency headquartered in St. Paul, that finally acted. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had made a surprise inspection of Smith Foundry, located in the East Phillips neighborhood. It concluded that the foundry had been “violating emissions laws since at least 2018,” according to Star Tribune news coverage, and demanded that the company comply with air pollution regulations.

Smith Foundry shuttered for good last summer. But that doesn’t erase the need to understand why the federal government found the problem before the state did.

Fortunately, a new review from the respected Office of the Legislative Auditor, which is a Minnesota version of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, sheds light on that. The findings from its characteristically thorough review, released last month, faulted the state agency for how it handled Smith Foundry air quality complaints and commendably delves into the scientific methodological differences that led to the EPA and not the MPCA detecting the compliance problem.

The review merits timely follow-up by state lawmakers. The contrast between the EPA’s assertiveness and MPCA’s lack thereof dealt a serious blow to the public’s trust in this important state agency. A high-profile public hearing at the Capitol focusing on the auditor’s findings is a necessary step to rebuild that confidence.

So far, a dedicated hearing has yet to be scheduled. That’s an oversight in need of remedy, even during a crowded, chaotic legislative session.

The auditor’s office deserves our collective thanks for tackling one of the most perplexing and complex Smith Foundry questions: Why did the EPA find violations that the MPCA did not?

The answer lies in the different scientific methodology used to determine compliance with emissions limits, which initially led to the MPCA contradicting the EPA’s conclusions.

A Star Tribune article from late 2023 quoted the agency’s commissioner as saying that “there is not a violation of the permit, there is not an exceedance of the air standards in that neighborhood,” and that the agency was “working with the EPA to understand the data that they are using to come to that conclusion.”

But a month later, the MPCA had backed away from that “tone of disagreement,” as the auditor’s report noted. In January 2024, the MPCA told the auditor’s office that it “does not believe that EPA’s findings are inaccurate or unsubstantiated.”

In September, as work continued on the review, the auditor’s office reached out to the MPCA again. The state agency said it was able to replicate the EPA’s findings based on additional information it received from the EPA earlier that year. The MPCA “described EPA’s approach, although different from MPCA’s approach, as a reasonable interpretation of state rules.”

The auditor’s team goes into far more technical detail about the differences. But it stops short of saying which approach is superior. While I understand the auditor not wanting to go there, policymakers should ensure that the agency is embracing the more proactive approach.

As recent coverage of Northern Iron in St. Paul illustrates, Smith Foundry is not the only legacy heavy industry in an urban neighborhood. The public needs details and reassurance that the MPCA’s methodology going forward will detect air quality violations elsewhere.

While the MPCA reports it has made laudable changes after the EPA’s Smith Foundry findings, the auditor’s report still notes there’s work to do reconciling the methodology differences. It urges the MPCA to “continue working with EPA to resolve any remaining ambiguity in the two agencies' approaches,” and notes that the “agency should clarify any relevant state rules concerning these calculations.”

The auditor’s report also recommends further improvements to the MPCA’s complaint tracking system.

A hearing would give lawmakers a chance to press MPCA Commissioner Katrina Kessler on progress on both. It would also give them an opportunity to drive home two key messages:

Kessler declined an interview with me but provided a statement saying that the auditor’s analysis “accurately describes the MPCA’s work with the Environmental Protection Agency and the East Phillips Neighborhood as it relates to Smith Foundry. The memo also reflects the changes the MPCA has made to its air permitting and compliance enforcement processes.”

Those improvements are welcome, and I don’t doubt that Kessler and the MPCA staff take the agency’s mission very seriously. But again, there’s work to do to rebuild the public’s trust in the MPCA. A letter to the editor published Monday in the Star Tribune, from an East Phillips resident about Smith Foundry, underscores this.

“For years, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) failed to respond to our complaints. They failed to double-check the foundry’s emission reports. They failed to conduct surprise inspections,” wrote Nicole Mason. “Where was the MPCA all this time?”

Minnesotans like Mason deserve the answers and the chance to weigh in that a hearing would provide. Legislators, make this happen.