Michaelsen thought he had won. But when TCEQ commissioners addressed the issue several months later, they again rejected all of the judge’s findings.
In Order on 19 pages issued in September, the commission concluded that “damage within a 4.5 km radius of the proposed storage wells is not sufficiently permeable or vertically extensive to allow migration of hazardous components beyond the injection zone.” The commission concluded that elderly nearby oil wells “are likely to be adequately plugged and do not provide a path for fluid flow.”
“UEC has demonstrated that the proposed discharge wells will prevent the movement of fluids that could cause contamination” of the underground drinking water source, the order issuing wastewater injection permits said.
“I felt like it was rigged, a set up,” Michaelsen said, holding a 4-inch-thick binder containing research and records from the case. “It was a canned decision.”
Before the Goliad mine can begin operations, several permit extensions remain, which local authorities are also struggling with. In August, the Goliad County Commissioners Court issued its ruling resolution against uranium mining in the district. The groundwater district is wanting to challenge permits again in the administrative court. And in November, the district defendant TCEQ is seeking to have the agency’s permits invalidated in Travis County District Court.
In connection with the lawsuit, a TCEQ spokesman declined to answer questions about the Goliad County mine, saying the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
Before the mine can begin production, the last set of permits must be renewed. But after years of frustration, district leaders aren’t positive about their ability to influence the decision.
According to Art Dohmann, vice president of the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District, there are only about 40 residential buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Goliad mine. Only these are likely to be affected in the near future. But Dohmann, who has served on the groundwater district’s board for 23 years, is concerned that uranium, radium and arsenic produced by the mining process will drift away from the mining site over the years.
“Groundwater is moving. It’s a slow rate, but the arsenic released stays there forever,” Dohmann said. “Within a generation, this will impact downstream areas.”
UEC did not respond to a request for comment.
TCEQ is currently evaluating opportunities to expand and encourage uranium production in Texas. This follows instructions issued last year, when Nuclear Caucus lawmakers added one line item to TCEQ’s semiannual budget order test uranium resources to be extracted for state lawmakers by December 2024, in advance of next year’s legislative session.
According to the budget item, “The report must include recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes and potential economic incentive programs to support the uranium mining industry in this state.”