Identification of Sites within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume 3--Responses to Comments

This document responds to comments received by the U.S. Department<br/>of Energy (DOE) on the draft report entitled Identification of Sites Within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume I--Palo Duro Location A (in Deaf Smith County) and Volume II--Palo Duro Location B (in Swisher County), BMI/ONWI-531, February, 1984. The purpose of the report was to review existing geologic, environmental, and socioeconomic data for previously identified potentially acceptable sites consisting of approximately 200 square miles in Swisher County and 400 square miles in Deaf Smith County in the Texas Panhandle and to narrow them to preferred smaller sites for possible further study for a nuclear waste repository. The smaller sites thus identified within the two counties would then be more comparable in size to those in salt deposits in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah (see further description of the site identification process described in the executive summary and chapters 1 and 4 of volumes 1 and 2 of the final report).<br/>Seven salt sites in four states, along with a site in tuff at the Nevada Test Site and a site in basalt at the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington, are being considered for further study for a high-level nuclear waste repository. Each site nominated is to be evaluated in an environmental assessment, according to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982.<br/>The draft report was received by DOE from Battelle&#39;s Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation (ONWI) in March, 1984. It recommended two nine-square-mile sites for further consideration, one each in Deaf Smith and Swisher counties. As part of its decision-making process, DOE distributed the report for review to the Texas Nuclear Waste Programs Office (TNWPO) on March 19, 1984, and subsequently to the public for comment. Release of the draft report began an extensive DOE/state/public interaction process.<br/>• On March 19, 1984, DOE notified, by letter, those property owners within the recommended nine-square-mile sites of the content of the draft report and invited them to attend briefings on the report.<br/>• DOE briefed property owners within the nine-square-mile sites, local officials, media representatives, and the public on the report on March 20-21, 1984, in Amarillo, Tulia, and Hereford. Copies of the report were provided to property owners, local officials, and libraries in the Panhandle.<br/>• TNWPO distributed copies of the report to various state agencies for review and DOE, at TNWPO request, provided copies to more than 400 residents of the Panhandle on its public information mailing list.<br/>• TNWPO requested an extension of the 45-day review period for the report to allow time for additional public involvement; DOE agreed to the extension.<br/>• TNWPO conducted hearings on the report in Hereford, Texas, on April 26, 1984, and Tulia, Texas, on April 28, 1984. The hearings were attended by DOE and Battelle representatives.<br/>• DOE held public meetings to describe the report and answer questions in Vega, Texas, on May 1, 1984, and in Tulia, Texas, on May 3, 1984. These meetings were planned with area representatives in Canyon, Texas, on April 3, 1984.<br/>At the end of the public comment period, TNWPO submitted to DOE its written comments, as well as those of various state agencies and the public. Transcripts of the two hearings were also provided.