In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified a reference repository location at the Hanford Site in Washington as one of the nine potentially acceptable sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The site is in the Columbia Plateau, which is one of five distinct geohydrologic settings considered for the first repository.

Index of Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Hanford Site

In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified a<br/>location in Deaf Smith County, Texas, as one of nine potentially acceptable<br/>sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level<br/>radioactive waste. The potentially acceptable site was subsequently narrowed<br/>to an area of 9 square miles.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the NWPA) (42 USC Sections 10101-10226) requires the environmental assessment to include a detailed statement of the basis for nominating a site as suitable for characterization. This detailed statement is to be an evaluation of site suitability under the DOE siting guidelines; the evaluation will be the basis for the comparison of sites reported in Chapter 7. Such an evaluation for the Richton Dome site is presented in Sections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 of this chapter, and is based in part on impacts associated with the reference repository design.

In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified a<br/>location in Deaf Smith County, Texas, as one of nine potentially acceptable<br/>sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level<br/>radioactive waste. The potentially acceptable site was subsequently narrowed<br/>to an area of 9 square miles.

The &quot;Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982&quot; (NWPA) (42 USC Sections 10101-10226) requires the environmental assessment to include a detailed statement of the basis for nominating a site as suitable for characterization. This detailed statement is to be an evaluation of site suitability under the DOE siting guidelines; the evaluation will be the basis for the comparison of sites reported in Chapter 7.

This appendix responds to the issues raised by Federal, State, and local<br/>governments, affected Indian Tribes, private citizens, and other organizations<br/>on the draft environmental assessment (EA) that was prepared pursuant to<br/>Section 112 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act). In addition to<br/>presenting the issues raised in the comments and the responses, it describes<br/>where changes were made in the final EA.

This appendix responds to the issues raised by Federal, State, and local governments, affected Indian Tribes, private citizens, and other organizations on the draft environmental assessment (EA) that was prepared pursuant to Section 112 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act). In addition to presenting the issues raised in the comments and the responses, it describes where changes were made in the final EA.

In December 1984, the Department of Energy (DOE) published draft environmental assessments (EAs) to support the proposed<br/> nomination of five sites and the recommendation of three sites for characterization for the first radioactive-waste repository. A chapter common to all the draft EAs<br/>(Chapter 7) presented rankings of the five sites against the postclosure and the preclosure technical siting guidelines.

This appendix responds to the issues raised by Federal, State, and local governments, affected Indian Tribes, private citizens, and other organizations on the draft environmental assessment (EA) that was prepared pursuant to Section 112 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act). In addition to presenting the issues raised in the comments and the responses, it describes where changes were made in the final EA.