About What I'm Doing

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION AND INTENT TO OBTAIN A NEW UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PERMIT PERMIT NO. UR03075

APPLICATION. Uranium Energy Corp., 100 East Kleberg Suite 210 Kingsville, Kleberg County, Texas 78363, has applied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a new Class III Underground Injection Control Permit proposing to conduct in situ recovery of uranium at their facility. The facility is located 13.3 miles north on U.S. 183 from the city of Goliad to FM 1961, then two miles east to the site. The application was submitted to the TCEQ on August 7, 2007. The application is available for viewing and copying at the Goliad County Courthouse, P.O. Box 677, Goliad, Goliad County, Texas.

ADDITIONAL NOTICE. TCEQs Executive Director has determined the application is administratively complete and will conduct a technical review of the application. After technical review of the application is complete, the Executive Director may prepare a draft permit and will issue a preliminary decision on the application. Notice of the Application and Preliminary Decision will be published and mailed to those who are on the county-wide mailing list and to those who are on the mailing list for this application. That notice will contain the deadline for submitting public comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT / PUBLIC MEETING. You may submit public comments or request a public meeting on this application. The purpose of a public meeting is to provide the opportunity to submit comments or to ask questions about the application. TCEQ will hold a public meeting if the Executive Director determines that there is a significant degree of public interest in the application or if requested by a local legislator. A public meeting is not a contested case hearing.

OPPORTUNITY FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARING. After the deadline for submitting public comments, the Executive Director will consider all timely comments and prepare a response to all relevant and material, or significant public comments. Unless the application is directly referred for a contested case hearing, the response to comments, and the Executive Directors decision on the application, will be mailed to everyone who submitted public comments and to those persons who are on the mailing list for this application. If comments are received, the mailing will also provide instructions for requesting reconsideration of the Executive Directors decision and for requesting a contested case hearing. A contested case hearing is a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial in state district court.

TO REQUEST A CONTESTED CASE HEARING, YOU MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN YOUR REQUEST: your name, address, phone number; applicant's name and permit number; the location and distance of your property/activities relative to the facility; a specific description of how you would be adversely affected by the facility in a way not common to the general public; and, the statement "[I/we] request a contested case hearing." If the request for contested case hearing is filed on behalf of a group or association, the request must designate the groups representative for receiving future correspondence; identify an individual member of the group who would be adversely affected by the facility or activity; provide the information discussed above regarding the affected members location and distance from the facility or activity; explain how and why the member would be affected; and explain how the interests the group seeks to protect are relevant to the groups purpose.

Following the close of all applicable comment and request periods, the Executive Director will forward the application and any requests for reconsideration or for a contested case hearing to the TCEQ Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled Commission meeting.

The Commission will only grant a contested case hearing on disputed issues of fact that are relevant and material to the Commissions decision on the application. Further, the Commission will only grant a hearing on issues that were raised in timely filed comments that were not subsequently withdrawn.

MAILING LIST. If you submit public comments, a request for a contested case hearing or a reconsideration of the Executive Directors decision, you will be added to the mailing list for this specific application to receive future public notices mailed by the Office of the Chief Clerk. In addition, you may request to be placed on: (1) the permanent mailing list for a specific applicant name and permit number; and/or (2) the mailing list for a specific county. If you wish to be placed on the permanent and/or the county mailing list, clearly specify which list(s) and send your request to TCEQ Office of the Chief Clerk at the address below.

AGENCY CONTACTS AND INFORMATION. All written public comments and requests must be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105, TCEQ, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087. If you need more information about this application or the permitting process, please call TCEQ Office of Public Assistance, Toll Free, at 1-800-687-4040. Si desea información en Español, puede llamar al 1-800-687-4040. General information about TCEQ can be found at our web site at www.tceq.state.tx.us.

Further information may also be obtained at Uranium Energy Corp., at the address stated above or by calling Mr. Harry Anthony, COO, at (361) 592-5400.

Sierra Club
National Headquarters
85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
USA
Phone: 415-977-5500
Fax: 415-977-5799

Sierra Club
Legislative Office
408 C St., N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
USA
Phone: 202-547-1141
Fax: 202-547-6009

Link to: Sierra Club's Lone Star (Texas) Chapter

http://lonestar.sierraclub.org/

Link to: Victoria Advocate Article http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/840/story/297069.html

Formal Comment/Complaint

Thursday June 20th 2008

I received my Article of Intent from TCEQ for the

Notice Of Application And Preliminary Decision For Class lll Injection Well

(Proposed Permit No. UR03075)

On the situ uranium mining proposal by (UEC) Uranium Energy Corp this week.

I am at the present time standing firm in my Protest against this procedure, for the main reason, I feel strongly that our water sources could possible become compromised, and that I am not willing to risk the chance in that the uncertainty in regard to specified contaminated by-products mixing into the flow of material underground are not currently detailed in the underground complete representation of the geographical layers of sediment in the areas that do not even doctrine specifics to precise coordinate location at the well sites, policy covering the amount that is to be considered within volume of the natural local and description in references to why such water representing possible cause by contamination, is not and the number of wells considered appropriate.

Right now, as I see it, the application presents it self to be assumed in to many areas that compromise the rights of nearby landowners.

Be with the current plan involved in protecting the rights of underground water sources that are being reconsidered as only possible and unforseeingly likely. I firmly believe that due to the lack of respectable and reliable information on these allowances being omitted. There can be no reason to allow such a devastation without the regard to adequate representation and maintaining accuracy.

There fore my very reason against the allowance on the continuation of the application should be considered,

until obtaining properly satisfied and with out reasonable doubt these indifferences are documented and completely satisfying, as the need for protecting the underground water rights of nearby communities surely dictates as the ordinance of pre examination, covered by the regulating administration of our reviewers in the judiciary and executive procedure for policy dictates of TCEQ to hold as the objective. Technical illustration, implementation of procedure in detailed specified areas in representation to numerical values implied to layers and location, are never allowable to be assumed by an incomplete set of plans, which are eligible by any person requesting, and always in hardcopy in no regard to expense for the right of the review by affiliate action representatives, and are at the cost of the applicant to provide. Furthermore, until such said documents establishing these qualifications are met, there is no reason to allow any pretence on the assumption that policy is not for the protection of these evidences.

I regard this as request at the expense of landowners, to update the interpretation, without representation, and consider it illegitimate, in a legal standpoint on these grounds.

If EUC can not insure our protection from damages related to unforeseeable 'acts of nature' involving

unknown underground transfer of contaminants, then they have no right to assume any prosperity in

regard to possible injunctions holding them liable for exploring such habitation having the same natural

recourse, established as with regard to a working doctrine of ethical & moral values, the same undeniable

principles held in accumulation of evidence on exploration. If EUC, can not properly insure, financially,

and be held accountable for damages, then the right to explore undocumented regions insecurely endangering

the unknown layers of sediment which could promote the travel of any contamination , what so ever, to be

released, then either denial of application should be established or financial obligation to damages of their

accountability should be included in at NO LIMITATION to expense. What we have now, is reliable living,

within our natural limits, to explore to the extent, possible damages could rational produce any thing other than

change in pretense, as non foreseeable, or in excuse by natural occurrence incompletely unpredictable, yet

undeniably relevant, is the intention to contradict under the assumption there is doubtful reason in its secure

application, and in presumption, as in likely evidence to natural circumstance is likewise pretentious, the

rational exclusion from such liability, be likewise, and as such, displacement in volume by extraction, eventually, replacement of volume, will likely occur, and in an unknown direction, as from where to where, the occurrence takes place, is assumed, thus doubtful in its pretense in reliability of assumed formation, thus cause for the concern where fluid transfer transitions into the replacement of volumes left to unperceivable sedimentary layers, thus is the foreseen possible contamination, irradiating* into irresponsible, the unreliability of the nature, and compromising our existence. There is no reason for the excuse that the water is not presently being currently used or as being relocated as its' worth in description to the future growth even comparable in value, in the near future, for causing possible damage to the very most important resource we need to sustain Life, as we know it. To merely ascertain or presume, that we change our values to allow possible contamination to a presently unconditional water resource, to one that is totally detrimental to the environment or grounds of manageability of these assets rebuts the statement we should be aiming to avoid, in that contamination in any sort, is still contamination, and not valuable as a gainful endeavor on future presumption in the recycling of energy to another level of distinction. It does not represent intelligent design in that it could be considered allowable, while there are conceivable flaws in its proposed altercation for allowances. I ask that this statement be contested by complete facts in a flawless detail to attest otherwise. As this statement represents that examination for further detailed description be forth sustainable and therefore retained for reference in future acquisition on appeal of similar applications. If the applicant (UEC) cannot prove these instances of contamination will not occur inevitably, there it proves room for error, and as such, contamination is possible, and therefore contesting the decision, thereby holding TCEQ accountable for its insecurity evident to this perceivable understanding of this statement. NOTICE: A copy of this Protested Application Proceeding is being filed in the Federal Division on Environmental Protection.

MAXIMS OF LAW

He who does not deny, admits.
A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved.
The presumption is always in favor of the one who denies.
All things are presumed to be lawfully done and duly performed until the contrary is proved.
It is in the nature of things, that he who denies a fact is not bound to prove it.
The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies.
The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.
Upon the one alleging, not upon him denying, rests the duty of proving.
What is not proved and what does not exist are the same; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof.

signed:

Robin M. Holy

In that I feel it is important that the citizens of Victoria County become responsible, I suggest that individual Notice of the exact or a similar worded statement be presented by each concerned citizen, for review to TCEQ during the next 30 days as a Formal Comment/Complaint in hardcopy faxed then signed and mailed to:

fax number is 512-239-3311

All comments received via fax must be followed up in writing, signed, dated and submitted to TCEQ in hardcopy by mail to:

Office Of The Chief Clerk, MC 105, TCEQ

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

if you need more information about this application or the process, please call TCEQ

1 (800) 687-4040

On a personal note, I've found it useful to share multiple signatures on a single Formal Comment/Complaint, in that one signature serves as witness to each other and so on, all witnessed and representing accountability.

I sent this to Mr Torres, we did get along real well, and I explained to him these reasons as per our untimely request for consideration through local publication as legal recourse for public comment. As I feel I was welcome to show my true concern for the welfare of everyone, I explained in every heart felt delivery of my sentiment, all our goals should orient for the benefit of Love and the security it represents. I will be hearing back from many Fed. Offices this coming week, and I hope to get this message, deeply embedded into their consciences, and the flow to their heart, back on track in a healthy manner.

GOD Bless

Mr. Torres,

It was a real pleasure getting to talk to you, today. I have sent messages to some of my constituents that have been more involved than I on water issues, requesting information on the City wells, their designated usage, aquifers in the nearby underground counties, including Victoria, our river usage documents, underground water districts, in the Victoria vicinity, information on what has happened already in the City of Goliad, Tx, in regard to the underground well damages, and other issues directly pertaining to the very reason, we should not leave behind sources of contamination for some generation down the line in the future to discover, just to wonder, what the hell happened underground here, and why such a travesty was allowed after the concerns were documented. I would like to remind you, at this time, of my immediate position of the strong implication referring to the EPA being pro 'for' the protection of the environment, and not in the biz of allowing infractions or what could or would, perhaps be considered as a minor in discrepancy, for the convenience of insufficient consensus where industrial management toward representation is merely the personal influence of what is environmental truths, as the public, being misrepresented and plagiarized by insufficient usage of evidence. The people put their TRUST in this office, and they should not have to be asked whether its ok in their area, to allow for lax policy on pollution control. We construe this as an attempt to disregard your main duties, and in time, we will see to it that this office is rearranged in an attempt to secure members who can understand what needs to be done, for sake of environmental quality, not . . . . . eTc. . . .

Please allow me a little time, and I will get back to you on the water levels, tables and any structured water usage that is established in the Victoria area, or what the people should be able to acquire, under the assumption they weren't mislead by the GOV Committees that regulate, not deregulate, their authorities !

Respectfully

Robin M. Holy

http://www.VictoriaTexas.org

Wednesday June 25th 2008

re: proposed UIC permit No. UR3075 TCEQ

----- Original Message -----

From: Torres.Jose@epamail.epa.gov

To: rmholy@sbcglobal.net

Cc: Dellinger.Philip@epamail.epa.gov ; Leissner.Ray@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:54 AM

Subject: Re: Your "Urgent Attention Required" Message

Dear Robin M. Holy:

Thank you very much for your e-mail message addressed to EPA, Region 6
concerning an application for obtaining the new UIC permit No. UR3075,
now before the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Your
message has been referred to my Section, the Ground Water/UIC Section,
and I am eager to visit with you to learn the details of what has
prompted your concerns.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to give me a call at
(214) 665-8092 or e-mail me at torres.jose@epamail.epa.gov providing a
telephone number where you can be reached. I will be more than happy to
give you a call at a time that is convenient for you.

I look forward to hearing from you. Have a nice day. Sincerely,

Jose Eduardo Torres - 6WQ-SG
EPA, Region 6
(214) 665-8092

Multiple Answers for the Challenge

Whether the sediment layers are oceanic, mountainous or injecting on a new planet that hasn't yet been properly surveyed ~ contamination is still contamination. It is reckless to say there is absolutely no value for the underlying property, shall we continue to make an ASS-U-ME the same as we predict the future? Intelligent design, is such that we present wastlessness. What is presumably in the processes, similar in development the liquification and injection of radioactive waste? Stop the contamination, it is non beneficial , although there are many things that represent great design, such as paleochannel storage or replacement, in proposal, testing and demonstration, even actual productiveness, that isn't the reason such products or procedures are taken out of the hands of consumers. Natural Law it self presents the known possible extent of damage that shift in underground strats occur frequently, and without regard to popularity or a consensus opinion to area. Which insurance acquaints to an act of GOD for reasons unaccountable. In all, practical situations like these fail because of their contamination, that is left to the environment. Compare it to credit, if you live beyond your means, and you don't have the immediate assets to back your purchases, then you lead without conscientious indignation, at the expense of others. To draw a conclusion, production to supply the demand of a product, is met, but at the cost of credit to contaminating the environment, the payment for the cleanup, will be charged upon this planet, and "eventually", the balance must be paid in full. Hiding behind the possibility of flawless consent to a procedure that justifies the reclassification of underground exploration to meet the supply to demand, without regard to the confinement for spills to contaminated by-products, is in all regard forsaking current policy. The extent of realism, that is left to manageability, is not within a degree of accuracy, called upon, and open to an obligation of future habitants demand and responsibility, not unlike requesting the future pay for our current needs, its somewhat deniable credibility as an issue, as I see it. The precluded easement is not sustainable to the extent it satisfies no limit or boundary in both areas of this context, and leaves behind remote 'insecurity' for contamination, to who or what it effects. Although the evidence of contain ability are presumably inconclusive to the contraire, the immediate presence is not within an accurate representation in whole of the after effects of the procedure, thus the margin for error, is not insurmountable, its below, in that eventually, its not only what's on the surface, that we can see, it's evident of projection, is discriminating in correlation to the deeper comprehension that is misrepresented in the deregulation of guidelines to satisfy the immediate need for the product, misrepresenting the demand as justifiable cause. The leniency promoted in the authorization, is not in synch, with the nature of circumstance on environmental quality, keeping up with the technology. Thus a proposed in discrepancy, astray to consensus, the decision indiscreetly aims to mock its own outlook, in an attempt to oppress & deceive it's existing requirement, that contamination is not presumable, and there is no current contradicting evidence that justifies the left over by-product be concluded as such. What is concluded, is evidence, to the contrary, that more than kinetic theory will present itself as our futures develop in realistic exploration as the exploration to our environment, as the need for energy grows, so should we in a faith that what we give, is not evident more to the waste we leave behind., to conceive someday, waste is all we have left to explore, therefore contamination, as it emerges as a non enhanced value for future advancement, where achievement is left replaced by continuing the need for energy development, but as energy in human potential.

And in the Future, when the environment is tired of processing waste, without acknowledgement for the necessity to recycle in its inevitable benefit, just maybe new values will develop for what we once had, and in that greater wealth of foresight, we'll gain bigger advancements toward rational productivity with higher goals. And Nuclear development wont be an expense , but an achievement, we took on more than as an opportunity, we can say we met it responsibly.

Robin M. Holy

Well, what's next Administrative Engineers, will you fence off this Section of Texas, with signs every 20' stating the land is not suitable for habitation by humans. And YOU think this is Ok' ~ huh.

Link to: Victoria Advocate Article http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/847/story/276934.html

Mother Earth, you will always be Radiant in my boo:k

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Turbine Generated Energy is a pre-requisite to Nuclear Power

Get it, and do it 1st

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

I am 100 % FOR the immediate implementation to set a path toward water protection and its' immediate development to provide a Nuclear Power Reactor in Victoria Texas. Nuclear Power development is essential to sustain energy growth in lieu of a depletion of natural sources. The time is now, for serious action on planning water recourses.

Please quit playing dodge ball with the urgency at hand on issues of water potentials.

by: Robin M. Holy

I swear, "you people" especially the peons' that do not even seem to be able to represent anything other than arguing over inconsistencies, will never ever be able to understand that this is the very demeanor needing change, to acquaint to acceptable debate over development ~ MORONs

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Turbine Generated Energy is a pre-requisite to Nuclear Power

Get it, and do it 1st

Simple, Plans are available online for at home construction for individual use. An invaluable source for household energy.

Sure, a man can build a self contained working natural methane source turbine generator in his garage, to make his family, self efficient, easily ! There are many origins of compatible opportunity to distinguish between potential distribution of turbine generating energy as there are possible reasons for being alive, or living. To rationally turn the ideas into functioning working platforms usable to build the restructuring , and as a potential for growth through out the Universe, is the aim to compel change, redirected through,

Nuclear Power

Make NO mistake about the USGBC.

The original doctrine acknowledged these facts.

The USGBC is just using modeling of many types, to help educate the public toward

potential spin-thrift energy usage. Everything about us is true blue, to the bone.

Modeling, in effect, such as the influence of the Son Of GOD, to polar bears as a marketing platform, as a baron range land food source, or What/ever: is only efficient in its'

onset if the delivery is maintained. Our outline is clear.

And our hopes for a better tomorrow are certain.

We did not start out without considering every detail, on possible restructuring in the

view differences upon which the common man perceives his immediate, outlook

of potential energy sources, to provide the contingency plans, to bring the

consensus together, is our personal promotion. To change the habits of the

entrenched practitioners. Adding to individual achievement, to benefit mankind, is the basis of our foreseeable outcome, and more so, toward the gainful outlook.

GOD Bless

Robin M. Holy

p.s. I noticed you had'nt signed the Guestbook yet at www.VictoriaTexas.org

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

You are a click on the clock, of wasted time, your time !

Link to Victoria Advocate Article: Voters should get to decide if they want a nuclear power plant
Jeff W. Eerkens You are a wise man (Sheffrey) Pay ATTENTION, Victoria

DEMAND OUR LOCAL ENGINEERS PROVIDE FOR FULL TIME LOCAL ACCESS FOR WATER PROTECTION DURING DEVELOPMENT. THEY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES AND POLICIES AND UPDATING THE PROCEEDINGS, ON A FREQUENCY, TO ORIENT PUBLIC CONSENSUS. When, When, When !

Maggie the Maggot Lifestyles and Love Life . . . Pitiful

Lazy Cowardly THIEVES

Do Yourself A Favor

U.S.A. NUCLEAR DATA

http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html

Link to: U.S. Nuclear Reactors

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

The Proposed Nuclear Power Project

I'm just wondering if there is a presence of mind as to what the US Federal mandates on each State that establish a by-county tap on the allowance from river water establish in the event it could be reached, and if provided the authority to drill underground for a reserve, what form of protection by engineering will the county citizens have for protecting their water resource from becoming dwindled to the point that in the event, we won't be able to get efficient produce from the very source of the hand that feeds us. Does this contribute any thought? Or am I in an instance by myself? And is the availability of good useable water in the out lying counties, not a major contributing factor in the inflation of cost in referral of the demand? I believe if we can SAFELY justify a limited margin of protection on both these circumstances in this development on the construction & post maintenance end of Nuclear Power, we could be in for a good reliable, AND feasible proposition that it would be un-doubtful, on an ecological, and economical standpoint, a benefit. Time to examine uses for spent rods, and contaminated coolant, collectivity would increase, however, it needs to be understood this is only past policy, and if consensus policy dictates otherwise an illegitimacy in it, the buck should stop here. It is a decision, I myself don't represent lax policies. I further more feel, that if the City Planning Comm. can not properly address the legality of this issue, that there is intent to mislead and jeopardized the economic health of our county.

by: RMHOLY

The generosity of a heart, tells a fair tale.

Link to:

Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States :

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html

Existing U.S. Nuclear Power Plants by STATE	Plants
Alabama	Browns Ferry
	Farley (Joseph M. Farley)
Arizona	Palo Verde
Arkansas	Arkansas Nuclear One
California	Diablo Canyon
	San Onofre
Connecticut	Millstone
Florida	Crystal River 3
	St Lucie
	Turkey Point
Georgia	Hatch (Edwin I. Hatch)
	Vogtle
Illinois	Braidwood
	Byron
	Clinton
	Dresden
	LaSalle County
	Quad Cities
Iowa	Duane Arnold
Kansas	Wolf Creek
Louisiana	River Bend
	Waterford
Maryland	CalvertCliff
Massachusetts	Pilgrim
Michigan	Donald C. Cook
	Enrico Fermi (Fermi)
	Palisades
Minnesota	Monticello
	Prairie Island
Mississippi	Grand Gulf
Missouri	Callaway
Nebraska	Cooper
	Fort Calhoun
New Hampshire	Seabrook
New Jersey	Hope Creek
	Oyster Creek
	Salem Creek
New York	Fitzpatrick (James A. Fitzpatrick)
	Indian Point
	Nile Mile Point
	R.E. Ginna (Ginna, or Robert E. Ginna)
North Carolina	Brunswick
	McGuire
	Shearon-Harris(Harris)
Ohio	Davis-Besse
	Perry
Pennsylvania	Beaver Valley
	Limerick
	Peach Bottom
	Susquehanna
	Three Mile Island
South Carolina	Catawba