Hundreds of individuals are voicing opinions on a proposed initiative to store Canada’s nuclear waste deep underground in northwestern Ontario, with safe transportation emerging as a primary worry. The site under consideration lies near the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, approximately 250 kilometers northwest of Thunder Bay. This $26-billion endeavor, put forward by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), aims to operate over 160 years and securely hold about 5.9 million bundles of used nuclear fuel, as detailed by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC).
Challenges of Long-Term Nuclear Waste Storage
Jacqueline Wilson, a staff lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), highlights the ongoing difficulty in managing highly radioactive waste that remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. “It’s always been an Achilles heel of the nuclear power industry about how to safely deal with this highly radioactive waste,” she stated. “The timeframe is hard to fathom.”
The project seeks final approval through a multi-stage process. The IAAC recently concluded a one-month period for public input on the initial project description, a document exceeding 1,200 pages that defines the initiative’s objectives and boundaries.
Calls for Comprehensive Transportation Review
Environmental advocates argue that the current project outline overlooks critical transportation aspects. Wendy O’Connor, a volunteer with Nuclear Free Thunder Bay and We the Nuclear Free North, emphasized in a January 26 statement the need for a thorough evaluation of how the NWMO plans to move, transfer, and handle high-level radioactive waste from southern Ontario and Eastern Canada. “It’s good to see many commenters pointing out that the assessment would be incomplete without a comprehensive examination,” she said.
NWMO’s Transportation Safety Measures
Vince Ponka, Indigenous and regional communications manager for the NWMO, notes that while this marks Canada’s first deep geological repository, transporting nuclear materials is a well-established practice regulated for over 50 years by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Transport Canada. Containers designed for used nuclear fuel must endure extreme conditions, including the most severe imaginable road accidents, Ponka explained.
Shipments would include round-the-clock monitoring from a command center and a lead security vehicle to alert other drivers. The plan calls for two to three daily transports over 50 years, limited to favorable weather and avoiding winter. Initial deliveries are not anticipated before 2043.
Unprecedented Scale of Movement
M.V. Ramana, a University of British Columbia professor specializing in nuclear waste challenges worldwide, points out that Canada’s nuclear waste currently stays at generating power plants. Movements typically involve less radioactive materials from research or small reactors. This project, however, involves transporting vast quantities of highly radioactive spent fuel from power plants over thousands of kilometers across provinces—a scale unseen in the country. “The amount of material that has to be transported is much, much larger, right? And the distances,” Ramana said. He views excluding transportation from the impact assessment as a significant gap.
Navigating the Impact Assessment Phase
Candida Cianci, director of the review panel division at the IAAC, stresses that the process remains in early planning, focused on public involvement and identifying key issues. “These comment periods are going to help inform the scope of the assessment, but we’re not at that stage yet,” she said. Regarding transportation, the agency plans to address it fully later in planning, avoiding any impression of exclusion.
Several environmental groups and the federal New Democratic Party urge extending the consultation period, a choice for the NWMO. The next phase involves deciding on a full impact assessment, potentially followed by another public comment round this spring.
Wilson underscores the value of a detailed analysis for such a consequential decision. “That’s a very good idea in this case to do a rigorous, broad, fulsome analysis because we’re talking about highly radioactive waste,” she said. “It’s one of the largest environmental decisions that we will ever make in this country.”
