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 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.

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.

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.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act) established a process for the selection of sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in geologic repositories. The first steps in this process were the identification of potentially acceptable sites and the development of general guidelines for siting repositories. In February 1983, the DOE identified nine sites in six States as potentially acceptable for the first repository. The Richton Dome site in Perry County, Mississippi, was identified as one of those sites.

By the end of this century, the United States plans to begin operating the first geologic repository for the permanent disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive Waste. Public Law 97-425, the Nuclear waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), specifies the process for selecting a repository site, and constructing, operating, closing, and decommissioning the repository.

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.

In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified the Davis Canyon site in Utah as one of the nine potentially acceptable sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. To determine their suitability, the Davis Canyon site and the eight other potentially acceptable sites have been evaluated in accordance with the DOE&#39;s General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for the Nuclear Waste Repositories.

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.

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.