Michaelsen thought he had won. However, when TCEQ commissioners took up the matter several months later, they again rejected all of the judge’s findings.
In a 19-page order issued in September, the commission stated that “faults within 4.5 miles of the proposed disposal well are of sufficient permeability or vertical extent to allow migration of hazardous components from the injection zone. It was concluded that “we do not have this.” The committee found that older oil wells nearby were “likely to be properly plugged and do not provide a path for fluid migration.”
“The UEC has demonstrated that the proposed disposal well will prevent the movement of fluids that could cause contamination of underground drinking water sources,” the order granting the injection disposal permit states.
“I felt like I was set up, like I was set up,” Michaelsen said, holding a 4-inch-thick binder filled with research and records on the case. “It was a boilerplate decision.”
There is one more permit renewal remaining before the Goliad mine can begin operations, and local officials are also battling it out. In August, Goliad County Commissioners Court passed a resolution opposing uranium mining in the county. The groundwater district plans to challenge the permit again in administrative court. Then, in November, the district sued TCEQ in Travis County District Court, seeking to revoke the agency’s permit approval.
Because of the litigation, a TCEQ spokesperson declined to answer questions about the Goliad County mine site, saying the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The final permit must be renewed before the mine can begin production. But after years of frustration, district leaders are not optimistic about their ability to influence decisions.
There are only about 40 homes surrounding the Goliad mine site, said Art Dorman, vice president of the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District. Only they may be affected in the short term. But Dorman, who has served as a groundwater district commissioner for 23 years, worries that uranium, radium and arsenic stirred up during the mining process will drift from the site over the years.
“The groundwater moves. It’s slow, but once the arsenic is released, it’s there forever,” Dorman said. “In a generation, it will have an impact downstream as well.”
UEC did not respond to requests for comment.
Currently, TCEQ is evaluating the potential for further expansion and encouragement of uranium production in Texas. Last year, Nuclear Caucus lawmakers added a line item to TCEQ’s semiannual budget ordering a study of uranium resources produced for state lawmakers by December 2024 ahead of next year’s legislative session. This is due to what I did.
According to the budget item, “The report shall include recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes and potential economic incentive programs to support the state’s uranium mining industry.”
(Tag Translate) Climate Desk
