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.

.
Home > Document Library > Old List of Potential Repository Sites > Will the list be the same next time around?  

Will the list be the same next time around?

The UK has not decided what long-term radioactive waste management strategy to implement. As part of the 'Managing Radioactive Waste Safely' programme, the Government's advisory committee, CoRWM, made a recommendation in July 2006 on which technical option (or options) should be taken forward.

No matter which option is chosen this old list will not form the starting point of any new site selection exercise and changes on or around the sites themselves (new building work, planning changes, etc.) may make them less suitable (or unsuitable) for consideration again. There have also been many developments in the area of radioactive waste management in the UK and internationally since the previous site selection process took place. These developments will affect any new site selection process that is undertaken and consequently the list of potential sites produced as a result.

  • The future site selection process, evaluation criteria and their weight should be developed openly with stakeholders upfront.
  • A different siting process could be used in which communities volunteer to have their areas investigated.
  • The environmental status and ownership of the sites on the old list may have changed since the previous exercise.

If the phased geological repository option was chosen from CoRWM's shortlist there would be a number of significant difference from the previous process:

  • The Nirex Phased Geological Repository Concept has been changed to include a period of underground retrievable storage, which could influence the geological setting sought.
  • More types of radioactive materials will be considered next time round i.e. high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, and separated plutonium and uranium, in addition to intermediate-level waste and low-level waste, which could influence the geological settings required.
  • Scientific understanding and computing capability have developed over the last 15 years, so that complicated sites that could not be considered previously may now be brought into a future process.

However, the geology in the UK has not changed, so sites that were considered to be potentially suitable previously on geological grounds could be considered suitable in a future site selection process. Equally, given the developments that have occurred, sites where the geology was viewed as less favourable previously could be included in the new site selection process. In short, the look of any future list cannot be predicted at this stage and no sites can be ruled in or out at this point.