Michaelsen thought he had won. But when TCEQ commissioners addressed the issue several months later, they once again rejected all of the judge’s findings.
In a 19-page order issued in September, the commission concluded that “faults within 2.5 miles of the proposed disposal wells are not sufficiently transmissive or vertically extensive to allow migration of hazardous components out of the injection zone.” Old oil wells nearby, the commission found, “are likely adequately capped and will not provide a path for fluid movement.”
“The UEC has demonstrated that the proposed disposal wells will prevent the movement of fluids that could cause pollution” of an underground source of drinking water, reads the ordinance granting the injection disposal permits.
“I felt like it was rigged, a setup,” Michaelsen said, holding his 4-inch-thick binder of research and documents from the case. “It was a canned decision.”
Permits still need to be renewed before the Goliad mine can come into operation, and local authorities are also objecting. In August, the Goliad County Commissioners Court passed a resolution against uranium mining in the county. The groundwater district plans to challenge the permits again in administrative court. And in November, the district sued TCEQ in Travis County District Court, seeking to overturn the agency’s permit approvals.
Because of the lawsuit, a TCEQ spokesperson declined to answer questions about the Goliad County mine site, saying the agency does not comment on ongoing litigation.
A final set of permits still need to be renewed before the mine can begin production. However, after years of frustration, district leaders are not optimistic about their ability to influence the decision.
Only about 40 residences immediately surround the Goliad mine site, according to Art Dohmann, vice president of the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District. Only they could be affected in the short term. But Dohmann, who has served on the groundwater district board for 23 years, fears that the uranium, radium and arsenic produced in the mining process will drift away from the site as the years pass.
“The groundwater is moving. It’s a slow process, but once the arsenic is released, it stays there forever,” Dohmann said. “In a generation, it will affect downstream areas.”
The UEC did not respond to a request for comment.
Currently, TCEQ is evaluating options to expand and incentivize additional uranium production in Texas. It follows instructions issued last year, when lawmakers in the Nuclear Caucus added a line item to the TCEQ’s semiannual budget ordering that a study of uranium resources be produced for state lawmakers by December 2024, ahead 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.”