City air-monitoring update shows elevated lead above pre‑facility baseline; council weighs keeping monitor

Logansport Common Council members heard an air-monitoring update showing that measured lead concentrations near the industrial park rose after the startup of a zinc-processing facility and have not returned to pre‑facility baseline levels, though they remain below the EPA regulatory standard.

The monitoring presentation summarized 235 24‑hour samples taken on an approximately one‑in‑six‑day schedule. Sample concentrations ranged from 0.0008 micrograms per cubic meter to 0.05 µg/m3, with an average of 0.003 µg/m3 and a median of 0.002 µg/m3. The presenter noted the EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead is 0.15 µg/m3 and that the community level of concern had been set at a lower threshold; the median value was about one‑tenth of that locally defined threshold. The presenter also said the monitoring shows “lead sources from multiple sources, not just from the industrial park.”

The report traced a sharp growth in plant production between 2022 and 2024 and explained the facility was permitted for two kilns but initially built with one, leaving infrastructure in place to add a second kiln later. The presenter said that if production continues to grow at the observed rate, a second kiln could be needed in 2025, which would affect emissions potential.

Council members and the presenter discussed the cost of maintaining the city’s monitoring program. The presenter said, “I I don't see the the benefit of it, especially in a year when when you're faced with other, you know, budget, uncertainties. It it it costs about 30,000 a year to operate the monetization.” Another council member urged continuity: “I would recommend that we continue to test as a safety precaution. We got a lot of people in this town that are susceptible to that.”

Staff and councilors noted the city’s monitoring data track closely with the company’s own monitoring at a site on High Street; the plant’s manager, Mike Engler, was described as providing regular updates and being open to council contact and facility tours. The presenter said the state would consider installing a regulatory lead monitor only if local measurements approached about 0.07 µg/m3 (roughly half the EPA standard), and the monitoring program had not produced regular values near that threshold.

No formal council vote was taken during the discussion; councilors expressed differing views about whether to continue the city monitoring. Some members said stopping now would risk missing changes if the facility expands production, while others flagged budget pressure and asked whether sampling frequency could be reduced. The presenter cautioned that the one‑in‑six‑day schedule is designed to avoid missing sporadic events and that chronic exposure comparisons rely on averages rather than single data points.

Public commenters raised broader concerns about the company’s record in Mexico and about long‑term disposal volumes cited in federal toxic‑release data. A resident summarized EPA Toxic Release Inventory figures and warned that local planning should account for potential future expansions.

The council did not adopt a formal resolution at the meeting. Members agreed to keep the monitoring question on the table and to seek further information about near‑term production plans at the plant before making a decision.

The monitoring data and cost figures cited in this article were presented to the council during the air‑monitoring update and are on file with the Common Council meeting materials.