Sierra Club v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Waste Control Specialists, 03-11-00102-CV

Sierra Club files a motion for rehearing en banc in the Third Court of Appeals challenging TCEQ's denial of Sierra Club's request for an evidentiary hearing on a by-product disposal facility permit.
The case concerns whether a hearing request can be denied based on a standing analysis and an evidentiary record deemed adequate by the agency, without allowing an evidentiary process for the protestors.
The court had previously affirmed TCEQ’s decision under a substantial-evidence review and deferred to the agency’s technical record and staff conclusions.
Sierra Club contends that relying on staff and applicant assertions to deny standing improperly circumvents constitutional standing analysis and prevents adequate challenge to the record.
The motion argues that the appropriate standard of review is constitutional standing analysis, as adopted in City of Waco, rather than a broad substantial-evidence standard when no evidentiary hearing was held.
The brief discusses distinctions between by-product disposal facilities and other permit types, and cites relevant Texas Water Code and Health and Safety Code provisions regarding standing and public hearings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard of review for standing	Sierra Club argues constitutional standing applies.	TCEQ argues substantial-evidence suffices for reviewing record.	Constitutional standing analysis should govern.
Effect of record developed by agency	Record cannot support standing without independent testing/evidence.	Record information supports the agency's decision to deny hearing.	Agency-created record cannot substitute for evidentiary hearing.
Whether City of Waco/Bosque River Coalition control	Those decisions require constitutional standing review and proper analysis.	Those decisions do not control this case.	They do not control; constitutional standing is still appropriate here.
Right to a hearing for radioactive by-product facilities	Affected residents deserve an evidentiary hearing.	Public hearing rights may be limited by statutory exceptions for amendments.	No broad exception; hearing right appropriate under constitutional standing analysis.
Relation of standing to evidentiary burden	Standing requires presentation of facts showing injury; denial erodes recourse.	Record provides sufficient basis to deny standing.	Standing analysis must be employed with opportunity to present evidence.

City of Waco v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013) (public hearing rights depend on statutory and standing analysis)
Bosque River Coalition v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 413 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. 2013) (public hearing rights and standing considerations in water permits)
United Copper, Indus., Inc. v. Grissom, 17 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (analysis focusing on standing under procedure and merits)
Heat Energy Advanced Tech., Inc. v. West Dallas Coal. for Envtl. Justice, 962 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (standing and evidentiary review considerations)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury, causation, and redressability elements of standing)
Nuclear Information & Resource Service v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 509 F.3d 562 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (environmental standing near facilities; injury-in-fact and redressability)
Nuclear Energy Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standing and procedural rights in nuclear repository case)