Missouri DNR Advances Air Permits Without Public Hearings | The Locally Times
Public notices show Missouri regulators allowed 31-day comment periods for two industrial air permits to close in March 2026 without scheduling a single public hearing.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Missouri Soil and Water Districts Commission have allowed public comment periods for two industrial air pollution permits to close without scheduling any public meetings or hearings. and Consolidated Grain and Barge Scott City provided an opportunity for written comment but denied residents a formal, public venue to question regulators and company representatives about potential environmental impacts. This method of regulatory review, conducted largely outside of public view, raises fundamental questions about the transparency of the state's Air Pollution Control Program and the effectiveness of community participation in decisions that directly affect local air quality. ## A Process Without Public Assembly In the first quarter of 2026, two separate industrial facilities saw their draft air permits advance through a key regulatory phase with minimal public interaction. Records from both the DNR and the Missouri Soil and Water Districts Commission show an identical approach for both companies. For Consolidated Grain and Barge Scott City, the state opened a public comment period for a Draft Intermediate Operating Permit on January 30, 2026, which closed on March 1, 2026. The official notice for this 31-day period, posted on the DNR website, explicitly stated that no public meeting or hearing was scheduled. Five days after that comment period closed, the state began a similar process for a different company. A public notice dated March 8, 2026, shows the comment period for Superior Industrial Solutions Inc.’s Draft Intermediate Operating Permit began on February 6, 2026, and concluded on March 8. This notice, also from the DNR and the Soil and Water Districts Commission, contained the same declaration that no public meeting or hearing was scheduled. In both cases, the permits fall under the state’s Air Pollution Control Program. This pattern of using written-comment-only periods limits public engagement by preventing direct dialogue, follow-up questions, and the cross-examination of information presented by regulators or applicants. ## Critical Information Gaps The public notices that document this process omit critical information residents would need to assess potential risks. While the records confirm the existence of the draft permits and the comment periods, they do not specify the types or quantities of pollutants that Superior Industrial Solutions Inc. The public notices do not name the officials who made this determination, nor do they outline the specific criteria the Air Pollution Control Program uses to decide when a public meeting is warranted. Without this information, it is impossible for the public to know if these decisions followed an established, consistent standard or were made on an ad-hoc basis. The records also do not document the effectiveness of this limited public outreach. The notices were posted on the DNR’s website, but the records do not show how many residents were reached by this notification method. The number of written comments submitted during either 31-day period, if any, is not included in the available documents, leaving the extent of public awareness and response unknown. ## A Quiet Review Process By design, a review process limited to website notices and written comments receives far less public attention than a scheduled public hearing. Such notices are often posted alongside dozens of other routine government announcements, making it difficult for residents to track specific actions that affect their local environment. Without the focal point of a public meeting, opportunities for community-wide discussion and media coverage are significantly diminished, allowing potentially consequential decisions on air quality to proceed with minimal public scrutiny. The criteria for dispensing with public hearings have not been made public, and the specific pollution risks associated with the permits remain undefined in public records. The final decisions by the DNR will determine what these facilities can release into the air, a decision made after a process that limited the public’s role to submitting comments without the opportunity for a public dialogue.