Northwestern Ontario Community Impact Assessment

What are people saying about the 30 day window/timeline for consultation and impact assessment participation? What are the key issues?

Executive Summary

Public feedback regarding the 30-day consultation window for the Revell Site Deep Geological Repository (DGR) is overwhelmingly negative. Commenters, including the Grand Council Treaty #3 and numerous local residents, characterize the timeline as fundamentally inadequate for a project with a 160-year regulatory lifecycle and a million-year hazard profile. The consensus among opponents is that the window is a procedural barrier that prevents meaningful public participation, effectively disenfranchising communities in unorganized territories and Indigenous Nations [Ref: 612, 607, 434, 590, 586, 583, 571, 562, 557, 552, 551, 538, 536, 424, 423, 419, 418, 416, 411, 284, 276, 256, 244, 243, 207, 200, 164, 140].

Detailed Analysis

The 30-day window is viewed as a systemic failure of the Impact Assessment process. Key issues include:

Evidence from Public Registry

The registry is replete with expressions of distrust. Commenters frequently use terms like “sham,” “fraudulent,” and “non-transparent” to describe the engagement process [Ref: 592, 604, 600, 207]. The Grand Council Treaty #3 explicitly states that the current process ignores their inherent authority and legal frameworks [Ref: 705, 660]. Residents of unorganized territories feel particularly marginalized, noting that they have no municipal voice and are being forced to accept risks without the protections afforded to host communities [Ref: 437, 391, 323, 294, 292, 286, 272, 266, 256, 255, 242, 238, 234, 231, 229, 228, 227, 226, 225, 224, 223, 222, 221, 219, 218, 217, 216, 215, 214, 213, 212, 211, 210, 209, 208, 207, 206, 205, 204, 203, 202, 200, 199, 198, 196, 194, 193, 192, 191, 190, 189, 188, 187, 186, 185, 184, 183, 182, 181, 180, 179, 178, 177, 176, 172, 165, 164, 161, 160, 159, 158, 157, 156, 155, 154, 153, 152, 151, 150, 149, 148, 147, 146, 145, 144, 143, 142, 141, 140, 139, 138, 137, 136, 135, 134, 133, 132, 131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 116, 115, 113, 112, 111, 109, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 99, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 75, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5].

About the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (the NWMO) is proposing a new underground deep geological repository system designed to safely contain and isolate used nuclear fuel. Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON) and the Township of Ignace have been selected as the host communities for the proposed project, which is located 21 kilometres southeast of the WLON and 43 kilometres northwest of the Town of Ignace, Ontario along Highway 17. As proposed, the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project would provide permanent storage for approximately 5.9 million bundles of used nuclear fuel. The project is expected to span approximately 160 years, encompassing site preparation, construction, operation and closure monitoring. The project assessment is being conducted in collaboration with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Learn more about the Integrated Impact Assessment process which is led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.