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.
Web Updates
Keep informed with the latest news and developments from the NDA
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
Documents for...
White Paper: Managing the Nuclear Legacy - A Strategy for Action
(914kb)
Environmental Assessment Process for Informing NDA Strategy: Outline Scoping Report May 2005
(123kb)
Memorandum of Understanding between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and The Environment Agency
(135kb)
Memorandum of Understanding between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and OCNS
(96kb)
Memorandum of Understanding between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and SEPA
(123kb)
Find more documents in our comprehensive Document Library.
Will the list be the same next time around?
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.
- future site selection process, evaluation criteria and their weight should be developed openly with stakeholders upfront.
- a siting process should enable communities to 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.
- 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 could be considered 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 years, so that complicated sites that could not be considered previously may now be brought into a 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.
