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 > Need for Openness  

Need for Openness

Nirex reviewed the events that occurred in the past, spoke to their stakeholders, and tried to identify lessons that could be learned for the future. These are summarised below.

Nirex believed that the process used was technically sound, but it was conducted in secret and did not involve stakeholders, therefore it was not a legitimate process.

In summary:

  • The whole site selection process must be open and transparent and facilitate the involvement of stakeholders, the public and experts. This is key.
  • The site selection process, the criteria used to evaluate sites and the relative weight attached to each must be developed through national debate before any sites are looked at.
  • Any possible constraints on the sites to be considered should be identified at the outset and discussed openly with stakeholders and the public so that they can be considered as part of the definition of site evaluation criteria.
  • The role in the decision-making process of local communities in the areas being considered must be defined clearly at the beginning of the process, including rights such as veto and volunteerism.
  • Community benefits should be discussed and agreed including measures to enable communities to engage in the decision-making process.
  • The views of stakeholders on the important issues and the quantity of research undertaken on them must be taken into account.
  • There must be a clear decision-making process with clear reporting points to give stakeholders and the public access to the process and the research being undertaken.