More than 70 locals gathered during a recent public meeting hosted by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Huber Carbonates LLC representatives.
During the May 7 meeting at the Marble Falls High School Max Copeland Gymnasium, several attendees voiced concern and skeptical questions pegged to the pending renewal of Air Quality Permit No. 8252 for the Huber limestone crushing facility in Marble Falls at 849 U.S. 281.
Attendees included Marble Falls Mayor John Packer, City Manager Caleb Kraenzel, Economic Development Corporation Director (EDC) Lindsay Plante and Stacy Smith, District Liaison for Texas Rep. Ellen Troxclair (District- 19).
At the beginning of the meeting, TCEQ facilitator Brad Patterson indicated the Huber renewal application includes requests for increased operating hours, permission to crush “non-commercial rock” and the extension of air emission limits.
"No final decision has been made on the (Huber) application,” Patterson told the audience. “No decisions about the application will be made tonight.”
During the first hour of the meeting, more than 12 attendees stepped before a microphone to address a panel that included Huber Plant Manager Eric Simms, Huber Engineering Manager Nathan Fisk, also TCEQ representatives Katelyn Ding, Elijah Gandee, Joe Nicosia and Andres Targa.
“If approved, how does the (renewed Huber permit) improve the quality of life for local residents that live in Marble Falls from an air quality standpoint and from a water quality standpoint?” Gregg Ranch resident Christian Davis asked the panel.
“The permit will be evaluated against National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that define what is safe for human health and the environment,” Nicosia replied. “If the applicant (Huber) shows its application is above the NAAQS threshold, then the (Huber renewal application) will not be issued.”
“One of the glaring things you are asking for is an expansion of your operating hours,” Attorney Art Rodriguez asked. “Can you describe the need for that and why?”
Huber is not planning to operate 24 hours a day, Simms replied. However, the plant needs flexible hours to recover from downtime due to required maintenance.
Also, Plante raised technical concerns related to air monitors, enforcement and oversight.
TCEQ responses to Plante indicated the commission operates no air monitors installed in Burnet County. Instead, the commission relies on citizen complaints and visual inspections to ensure regulatory compliance, rather than con- tinuous scientific mea surement.
As she brought her laptop computer to the microphone, D.J. Yows drilled TCEQ representatives with astute questions related to measuring how much dust Huber does or could release into the air, a practice often known as “modeling.”
TCEQ representatives responded the commission does not record air emissions. Instead, Huber uses U.S. Environmental Protective Agency “Screen3” software to measure emissions, which TCEQ audits to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.
Patterson indicated the public may forward more comments or questions by phone to the TCEQ Public Interest Counsel at (512) 2396363.
“The last day of the public comment period is May 29, 2026,” Patterson said. “Nothing can move forward until after that date.”
What happens after May 29?
“The (TCEQ) executive director will prepare a document called the ‘response to comments or RTC,” Ding explained. “It can take three or four months to prepare.
TCEQ may release the RTC between late summer or early fall this year. After the RTC is released, there is a 30-day window to request a contested case hearing and the (TCEQ) commissioners’ review before a final decision."
A contested case hearing must be requested by a public official such as a county judge or a state representative. Otherwise, if the permit application is deemed “administratively complete,” the application will likely be approved.
