Stage removed from
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.
The site was not in public ownership, and the private owner was not known or not thought likely to make it available.
The site was too small to accommodate the development of an underground repository.
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.
'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.
The site was not the most promising to be carried forward into a manageable shortlist (of nine) for more detailed multi-attribute decision analysis.
Old long-list of sites
The 537 names on this list were the first and preliminary set of named areas identified as potentially available for the siting of a radioactive waste repository. The main criteria for their inclusion on the list was land ownership and potentially suitable geology.