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
Bibliography
Radioactive Waste Management
(previously Nirex) Bibliography
Search for and request publications
related to waste management.
This note is designed to give a brief overview of the context surrounding the release of the old list of sites previously considered by Nirex in the late 1980's as potential hosts for an intermediate and low-level radioactive waste repository.
On the subsequent pages you will find
- the context;
- an explanation of the new process and the need for openness; and
- a section on whether the list will be the same next time around.
You will then find
- the old shortlist of sites along with maps and further information; followed by
- the full old long list of sites previously considered.