Stage removed from
long-list
1st Stage
The deep geology was considered unlikely to meet the identified geological requirements, or the site had an environmental status that would be likely to rule out development.
2nd Stage
The site was not in public ownership, and the private owner was not known or not thought likely to make it available.
3rd Stage
The site was too small to accommodate the development of an underground repository.
4th Stage
A more detailed evaluation of the deep geology than conducted at Stage 1 indicated that the geological and hydrogeological characteristics might be less favourable than for the remaining sites.
5th Stage
'The site was outside the best 3 or 4 in each hydrogeological category when evaluated against a range of criteria, covering radiological safety, geology, socio-economic and environmental issues, repository design concepts and transport.
6th Stage
The site was not the most promising to be carried forward into a manageable shortlist (of nine) for more detailed multi-attribute decision analysis.
Available Documents
Review of 1987-1991 Site Selection for an ILW/LLW Repository (638K)
Document Date: 2005
Description of Sites NC/88/40 (638K)
Document Date: 1988