TCEQ refers Uranium Energy Corp. permit to contested-case hearing after residents qualify as affected persons

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on Aug. 20 voted to refer Uranium Energy Corp.'s application for renewal and amendment of Class III injection well permit UR3075 to a contested‑case hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).

The commission found that Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District and five individuals — David Michaelson, Linda Parker, Deborah Chapman, Gregory Chapman and Jesse Ortega — demonstrated they are affected persons and granted their hearing requests. The commission referred the hearing request of Kenneth Klenica back to SOAH for an effectiveness determination and denied all other hearing requests and all requests for reconsideration.

The commission directed SOAH to consider eight issues in the contested case, including whether the application provides adequate characterization of geology and hydrology, information on premining groundwater quality, assessment of artificial penetrations in the area of review, protectiveness of groundwater and surface water quality, adequacy of monitoring and amended control parameters, protectiveness of human health, wildlife and livestock, and whether operations authorized by the draft permit are in the public interest under Texas Water Code section 27.051(a). The commission set a hearing duration of 180 days from the date of the preliminary hearing to issuance of a proposal for decision.

Commission staff explained the two‑step statutory analysis used for these applications: first determining whether hearing requesters qualify as affected persons, and second, whether those affected persons raised issues within the commission's jurisdiction. Staff recommended the district and five individuals met the threshold because their properties lie roughly one‑half mile to one mile from the permitted facility boundaries and because the district has statutory groundwater authority.

Commissioners voiced agreement with staff's analysis. One commissioner summarized the issues to be referred and moved the motion; without named roll‑call tallies the panel announced the motion passed.

The referral means SOAH will hold a preliminary hearing to resolve effectiveness for the outstanding requester and then proceed on the enumerated issues. No schedule beyond the 180‑day hearing duration was adopted at the meeting.

Proponents and opponents will have the opportunity to present evidence at the contested case proceeding before SOAH, which will prepare a proposal for decision for the commission to consider.

No direct testimony or permit technical details were presented at the commission vote; staff framed the referral largely as a jurisdictional and issue‑referral decision.