Analysis of Valued Components and Measurement Indicators
This article is part of a series exploring the views and perspectives of youth, artists and community members working with the Melgund Integrated Nuclear Impact Assessment Project. This initiative is a climate entrepreneurship and arts-based community recreation program, developed through community consultation, engagement participation in the integrated impact assessment process for the NWMO’s proposed Deep Geological Repository for nuclear waste fuel.
What is Proposed
In the Initial Project Description, specifically Table 19.1, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) outlines the framework for assessing the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the project. The proposal categorizes factors into “Intermediate Components” (such as Air Quality and Hydrogeology) and “Valued Components” (such as Fish Habitat and Human Health). The table provides the rationale for selection and the specific measurement indicators intended to track changes. Notably, the proposal distinguishes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous social and economic conditions, aiming to tailor the assessment to specific community needs.
Underlying Assumptions
- Deferred Definition: The document assumes that specific indicators and endpoints for Indigenous Physical and Cultural Heritage, as well as Health and Socio-Economic conditions, can be effectively defined at a later stage without compromising the current baseline data collection.
- Positive Economic Bias: The framework assumes that economic impacts on non-Indigenous populations should be measured primarily through “enhancing” participation and revenue, implicitly assuming positive outcomes rather than neutral observation of potential disruptions.
- Intermediate Component Relevance: There is an assumption that physical components like Air Quality and Hydrogeology do not require specific “Assessment Endpoints” (listed as “Not applicable”) unless they directly trigger a change in a biological Valued Component.
- Climate Isolation: A footnote suggests that project-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions do not directly affect other Valued Components in this context, potentially overlooking cumulative climate feedback loops.
Community Assessment
Our review of Table 19.1 identifies significant gaps that concern the community. First, the listing of “Not applicable” for assessment endpoints regarding Intermediate Components (Air, Noise, Hydrogeology) is problematic. Without specific regulatory thresholds serving as endpoints, there is a risk of reduced accountability for physical environmental degradation that does not immediately result in a visible biological impact. Second, and perhaps most critically, the indicators for all Indigenous-specific Valued Components are currently listed as “To be defined.” While collaboration is necessary, proceeding with an assessment framework where the criteria for measuring impacts on Indigenous rights and culture are unknown creates a vacuum in the scientific and ethical integrity of the process. Furthermore, the economic indicators focus heavily on “enhancing” opportunities, which may mask potential negative economic disruptions or inequalities that could arise from the project.
Path Forward
To ensure a rigorous and transparent assessment, the following corrective measures are recommended:
- Define Indigenous Indicators: The proponent must immediately transition from “To be defined” to a formal co-development framework. Preliminary indicators must be established now to ensure traditional knowledge is integrated into baseline studies.
- Establish Hard Endpoints: The assessment framework must be revised to include specific endpoints for Intermediate Components. Established federal and provincial environmental quality guidelines should serve as the baseline for compliance for Air Quality and Hydrogeology.
- Neutral Economic Metrics: Economic indicators should be adjusted to measure change neutrally, accounting for both benefits and potential negative socio-economic disruptions.
About the Integrated Assessment Process
The federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) has formally launched the integrated impact assessment process for the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project, a major national infrastructure initiative led by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).
The proposed underground repository is designed to permanently contain and isolate used nuclear fuel in a secure geological formation. Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Township of Ignace have been selected as host communities for the project. The site is located approximately 21 kilometres southeast of Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and 43 kilometres northwest of Ignace, Ontario, near Highway 17.
According to project materials, the repository would provide permanent storage for approximately 5.9 million bundles of used nuclear fuel. The full lifecycle of the project is expected to span roughly 160 years, including site preparation, construction, operations, closure, and long-term monitoring.
Integrated Federal Review
Major nuclear projects in Canada are subject to an integrated assessment process jointly led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). This “one project, one review” approach is intended to streamline regulatory oversight while ensuring rigorous evaluation of environmental, health, social, economic, and Indigenous rights impacts.
Under this framework, IAAC oversees the impact assessment requirements under the Impact Assessment Act, while the CNSC regulates nuclear safety under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The CNSC will issue the initial site preparation licence and manage all subsequent nuclear licensing for the project’s duration.
The integrated assessment also includes a focus on potential impacts on Indigenous Peoples, including rights, land use, cultural practices, health, and socio-economic conditions. Where potential adverse effects are identified, the process is intended to identify mitigation measures to reduce or avoid harm.
Public Comment Period Now Open
The first public comment period for the project is currently open and will run until February 4, 2026. During this phase, the public is invited to provide feedback on the Summary of the Initial Project Description submitted by the NWMO. Submissions received during this period will inform IAAC’s summary of issues, which will guide the next stages of the impact assessment. All comments submitted become part of the public project record and are posted to the federal Impact Assessment Registry.
This plain-language summary is provided by ECO-STAR North and Art Borups Corners to support public engagement.
Disclaimer: The views and perspectives expressed in this article are solely those of the independent arts program led by ECO-STAR North and Art Borups Corners. They do not reflect the official positions of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) or the Government of Canada.
About the Author
