Uranium mining contested case hearing nears its close
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
5 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
The hearing resumes at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the Goliad County Courthouse, 127 N. Courthouse Square.
WHAT'S NEXT?
After the hearing, the judge will write a recommendation to deny or grant the permit, which may take months.
The Texas Commission ...
- SHOW ALL »
The hearing resumes at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the Goliad County Courthouse, 127 N. Courthouse Square.
WHAT'S NEXT?
After the hearing, the judge will write a recommendation to deny or grant the permit, which may take months.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality may choose to follow or ignore his recommendation.
The company would then have to obtain an aquifer exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency.
GOLIAD - The aquifer from which Uranium Energy Corp. is applying to mine uranium is a source of drinking water, a geologist testified Monday.
The aquifer "has been a source of drinking water and it will be," said H.C. Clark, a retired Rice University geology professor.
Witnesses offered testimony on behalf of Goliad County, its groundwater district and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality as the state contested case hearing over uranium mining in Goliad resumed.
Groundwater quality near uranium ore bodies, such as the ones in Goliad, is typically too poor to be consumed. The uranium company and expert witnesses testifying on its behalf have said the areas it intends to mine are not sources of drinking water.
In pre-trial testimony, Clark said the aquifer is the only drinking water source in Goliad and is part of a larger aquifer system that stretches across the Gulf Coast from Mexico to Alabama.
He said water in the proposed mining site is unconfined and flows toward the coast.
On Thursday, a University of Texas geology professor testified clay formations surrounding the uranium ore bodies would prevent the migration of drilling fluids and protect drinking water sources from contamination.
Aquifers are federally protected from mining operations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A company wishing to mine from one must prove the water is not in human or agricultural use and will not be in the future in order to be exempted from this rule.
If the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality grants Uranium Energy Corp. a permit to mine, the company must then receive an aquifer exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency.
On Monday, each side waded through witnesses with little cross-examination by the uranium mining company's legal team, represented by Monica Jacobs.
Jacobs asked Goliad County and Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District witnesses, at most, two questions during cross-examination.
Many of Goliad County's witnesses were unavailable because its legal team anticipated lengthier cross-examination and told witnesses to arrive later in the day.
This spurred an early lunch recess from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Later, another recess lasted 45 minutes because a witness was again unavailable.
The hearing will likely end Tuesday with the final witness, David Murray, testifying on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Murray was also called to the stand Monday afternoon.
A reviewer of the company's permit applications, he was asked whether the company demonstrated public interest in the materials it submitted.
Murray took into account materials submitted in the applications to determine if the mining operations would be in the public interest, he testified.
He looked at the method of mining and the economic benefits, he said.
In-situ mining, he said, is less invasive than older methods, and jobs, as well as energy to power homes, would be generated.
Jim Blackburn, who represents Goliad County, asked Murray if he considered negative aspects, which were expressed during forums for public comment in Goliad.
"I considered them in a general way, yes," but "still came to the conclusion it was in the public interest," he said.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
5 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
Why was the final article removed? I thought JJ did a great job...or maybe it was me that upset someone? I certainly hope not. I guess somebody called CC whining...well, the truth hurts so get over it, Mr. or Ms. Whiner. JJ, you did a GREAT job covering the hearing. Keep up the good work!
May 13, 2010 at 7:03 a.m.If worst comes to worst, construction workers could agree to not work. Truckers could block roads, suppliers businesses (legally) disrupted, and people could be hired on to inflate cost. Not to mention using F.B.I. “group disorganization” tactics; I personally like listening to “Ozzy” but not so much bright lights in my face.
For the record, I’m just suggesting legal “organized counter” tactics.
We are talking about something, that is a real potential threat to everyone’s quality of life, especially the children.
South Texas has no need for this, the only motivation is greed and “someone’s” political agenda.
May 11, 2010 at 1:04 p.m.It’s like Alice in Wonderland; The further down the hole you go, the more things only make sense, if you are insane.
In this world Commons Sense, is whatever your “corporate masters” want.
There oath.
[I pledge my allegiance to the United Corporate State, and to the bottom line in which it stands, against all cost to the public good, for oppression of countering opinions to what it stands,…]
If the government gave Native Americans blankets, with small pox, so that they could clear the land for “development”. What’s contaminating the drinking water of an area predominately “Mexican-American”?
This “development’, threatens 100’s of years of Texas heritage and culture; because it threatens the drinking water of South Texas. Farmers and Ranchers know, without clean water, everything goes.
May 11, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.Amazing how the TCEQ has decided that mining is in the public interest, even though the public has mounted a legal defense and has challenged them in every way.
Negative aspects, such as the possible contamination of an entire aquifer were "considered ... in a general way.."?
When the public is screaming, "No in situ mining in our aquifer," I would think Murray would understand that the public interest lies in preventing the mining.
So, apparently Murray has not considered the public interest one whit and is focused on the mining business interest.
So much for working for the PEOPLE of Texas.
May 11, 2010 at 8:32 a.m.This is not in the "public interest". Mr. Murray has obviously been brainwashed by the system. I guess when you're stuck in a cubicle for that many years, you just lose touch with what's really out there. What part of "drinking water aquifer" or "Underground Source of Drinking Water" is hard to understand?
May 11, 2010 at 7:38 a.m.