Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project

Comment Search Mobile

Comment Search

Report Comment

Are you sure you want to report this comment for review?
Skip to filters
Sort By: Best Match Most Recent Submitted By

929 results

Attachment To have or not to have, that’s the dilemma

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Redon Hoxhaj
  • Reference Number: 742
  • Submitted: 2026-04-14 - 2:33 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Please pardon my use of the Adapted line from Hamlet, but thought that he was very appropriate in this case. First of all, I would like to declare that there might be some conflict of interest: I work in the Nuclear Medicine industry, which uses radioactive isotopes for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Canada is one of the biggest producers of medical isotopes in the world, since the CANDU reactors were invented in our country. Usually, nuclear reactor, typically at an older facility, is repurposed from energy production to that of medical isotopes. Now to speak to the matter at hand: The debate weather nuclear energy should exist, or not, I think has been exhaustively discussed and settled. Alas, one of the aspects of nuclear energy is the waste that it produces, which is very difficult to manage. One of the best solutions is to bury the fuel rods,deep underground, as the layers of soil will act as protective shields from the radiation that is ...

Report

Attachment Get it done

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: William Turner
  • Reference Number: 739
  • Submitted: 2026-04-12 - 8:17 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Nuclear energy is by far the safest and cleanest method of power generation currently available. It is also the only method we have with the potential to generate the amount of power we are going to need for the future. We need someplace to store depleted fuel rods and I have to trust the experts that this proposal represents the best available option. I fully support this project with two qualifications. First, the material must remain recoverable. The technology exists to use spent nuclear fuel to produce further energy and some day it will likely become economical to do so. Secondly, there needs to be an ongoing monitoring system to detect radiation in the environment in unlikely event that it finds its way into the environment through some mechanism we don't yet understand.

Report

Attachment Comment on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel, April 10, 2026

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Concordia University
  • Reference Number: 738
  • Submitted: 2026-04-12 - 8:07 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • The April 10 draft package makes an important correction to NWMO’s earlier effort to treat off-site transportation as external to the project. The draft integrated tailored impact statement guidelines now require that “transportation of both nuclear and non-nuclear materials outside of the project site” be included among the project components and activities considered in the Impact Statement, and they state that project-related transportation has the potential to result in adverse effects within areas of federal jurisdiction. That change should be retained in the final guidelines. What the package does not yet do is say clearly enough what follows from that change.
  • Attachment Included
  • Comment on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel, April 10, 2026 Dr. Peter C. van Wyck Professor of Communication Studies Concordia University, Montréal April 12, 2026 The April 10 draft package makes an important correction to NWMO’s earlier effort to treat off- site transportation as external to the project. The draft integrated tailored impact statement guidelines now require that “transportation of both nuclear and non-nuclear materials outside of the project site” be included among the project components and activities considered in the Impact Statement, and they state that project-related transportation has the potential to result in adverse effects within areas of federal jurisdiction.1 That change should be retained in the final guidelines. What the package does not yet do is say clearly enough what follows from that change. The same draft guidelines also state ...
Report

Attachment If it’s so safe ….

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Lance McKillop
  • Reference Number: 737
  • Submitted: 2026-04-11 - 9:56 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • It's not so much the nuclear waste as it is the added trucks on Northern Ontario'santiquated Highways. Almost daily our highways are closed due to transports driving off the roads. There will be added trucks during construction and added trucks after construction carrying Nuclear waste.  Also if the nuclear waste is so safe why not leave it where it is? Why do you need to bury it as deep as the CN tower if it's so safe? If it's so safe why do you have an emergency plan in the event of a accident ? They test drop the containers from a height of three stories why are they not tested in the back of a transport doing 100km crashing into a another transport doing 100km?  Once again Northern Ontario gets the short end of the stick. 

Report

Attachment No Stop

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Barbara Bulmer
  • Reference Number: 736
  • Submitted: 2026-04-11 - 8:48 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • For the safety of our land and water, every community in between, keep your spent fuel rods near the power plants, its too dangerous to be sending them north, the highways are not safe, trains derail all the time, do you really want to leave a mess for generations to come, stop the madness,  use your common sense 

Report

Attachment Comments on IAAC’s Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Jaro Franta
  • Reference Number: 735
  • Submitted: 2026-04-11 - 12:11 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Thanks to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for inviting comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project, proposed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (the NWMO).
  • Attachment Included
  • Comments on IAAC’s Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines, ref. #166000E Jaro Franta, 11 April 2026 Thanks to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for inviting comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project, proposed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (the NWMO). On April 10 IAAC published their Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p88774/166000E.pdf Among other things, it states that “the roads and highways on which used nuclear fuel, construction materials, and personnel would travel are under municipal and provincial jurisdiction, and as a result are not included in the impact assessment as it is outside of IAAC’s mandate. Any operations, maintenance, improvements ...
Report

Attachment Human futility

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: m s
  • Reference Number: 734
  • Submitted: 2026-04-10 - 9:31 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • This is a flush down the toilet and forget solution to the real life ramifications of utilizing uranium for nuclear power and attempting to store the refuse safely. Whether it ends up in the water table sooner or later, it will and will deem any site this refuse touches uninhabitable for millions of years. Convenient solution for those who don't live anywhere near this repository site, only.  I think the selfish form of humanity needs to take a step back and think about its reliance on such futile and impossibly sustainable first world luxuries. 

Report

Attachment Please Further Improve Transportation Procedures

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Deborah Webb
  • Reference Number: 733
  • Submitted: 2026-04-10 - 5:51 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • While transportaion plans have niw been added, they are not in any way adequately detailed. Please add much more specific details on the transportation plans and procedures, ways to verify these procedures are being adhered to and ways to report any issues.

Report

Attachment Opposition to DGR

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: none
  • Reference Number: 731
  • Submitted: 2026-04-10 - 3:27 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • To whom it may concern, I have been a resident of North Western Ontario since 1976 and have experienced the nuclear industry's tactics over the last 4 decades in their quest to find a place to dump their toxic waste.  In the 1980s 2 mines closed here in Atikokan with the loss of 1200 good paying jobs, a major blow to the community which is 130 kilometers south and east of the present day Revel Lake proposed DGR site.  At that time in the 1980s there was no Nuclear Waste management Organization(NWMO) .  Atomic Energy of Canada(AECL) was the organization who came to Atikokan to try convince us they could bury their toxic radio active waste forever safely and provide good  paying jobs for decades in to the future . Fortunately the community was given access to funding to provide a balanced debate of the subject both pro and con on the matter.  After a public forum and debate the community rejected the proposed DGR by over 80% of the population ...

Report

Attachment Environmental Incompetence!

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Our Grandchildren’s Future
  • Reference Number: 721
  • Submitted: 2026-04-09 - 10:30 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Transporting nuclear waste from eastern and southern Ontario all the way to Ignace—mainly along Highways 11 and 17—raises some serious concerns. These are long, often dangerous routes with harsh weather, frequent accidents, and limited emergency response, yet they’d be used for decades to move highly hazardous material.   Even if the risk is considered “low,” the consequences of a single incident could be devastating—especially for northern ecosystems and waters connected to Lake Superior, the world’s largest freshwater lake, where contamination would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to clean up. Calling it safe overlooks the reality of repeated, long-term exposure to risk.   In a time when we’ve had to become increasingly protective of the environment, choosing to transport nuclear waste through such a critical and vulnerable region feels especially ...

Report

Attachment Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation regarding NWMO's mischaracterization of the consultation record

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation
  • Reference Number: 740
  • Submitted: 2026-04-08
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment Included
  • <Original signed by>

Report

Attachment Needs deeper review

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Mike Walker
  • Reference Number: 720
  • Submitted: 2026-04-07 - 1:52 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Someone in the organization needs to make a more thorough project plan and publish it transparently ASAP. There is a serious gap in the transportation and processing risks assessment. Suggest you employ a LMM tool like Claude or Gemini, these tools are meticulous and scrupulously honest when used correctly... 

Report

Attachment Northwatch Review of the NWMO’s Consolidated Information on the Transportation of Used Fuel - Plain Language Summary

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Northwatch
  • Reference Number: 719
  • Submitted: 2026-04-03 - 7:51 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • On January 6, 2025 the Impact Assessment Agency invited comments (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/164641) from the public and Indigenous people on the summary (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/164740) of an Initial Project Description (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/164492) prepared and submitted by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) with respect to their proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88774?culture=en-CA). Northwatch was one of more that 600 individuals and organizations who provided comments (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88774/contributions) on that Initial Project Description, with more than 95% of those intervenors being critical of or opposed to the NWMO’s project and the NWMO’s presentation of the project in the Initial Project Description. On February 16th ...
  • Attachment Included
  • Northwatch Review of the NWMO’s Consolidated Information on the Transportation of Used Fuel - Plain Language Summary Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project IAAC Ref# 88774 www.northwatch.org northwatch@northwatch.org Northwatch Review of the NWMO’s Consolidated Information on the Transportation of Used Fuel - Plain Language Summary 1 1. Introduction On January 6, 2025 the Impact Assessment Agency invited comments from the public and Indigenous people on the summary of an Initial Project Description prepared and submitted by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) with respect to their proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project. Northwatch was one of more that 600 individuals and organizations who provided comments on that Initial Project Description, with more than 95% of those intervenors being critical of or opposed to the NWMO’s project and ...
Report

Attachment Reference No.88774 - We The Nuclear Free North Comments on NWMO's Response to Summary of Issues

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Canadian Environmental Law Association, on behalf of We The Nuclear Free North
  • Reference Number: 718
  • Submitted: 2026-04-02 - 4:21 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Please see attached.
  • Attachment Included
  • Canadian Environmental Law Association T 416 960-2284 • 1-844-755-1420 • F 416 960-9392 • 55 University Avenue, Suite 1500 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7 • cela.ca April 2, 2026 Deep Geological Repository for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Email: nuclearwaste-dechetsnucleaires@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Re: Reference No.88774 - We the Nuclear Free North Comments on Nuclear Waste Management Organization's Response to the Summary of Issues We the Nuclear Free North (“WTNFN”) has reviewed the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (“NWMO”) Response to the Summary of Issues.1 Despite the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (“Agency”) instruction to NWMO to ensure it had reviewed all submissions on the Initial Project Description (“IPD”) on the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry site, the NWMO has not done so and many of the serious issues raised in public ...
Report

Attachment Comments on NWMO’s Consolidated Information on the Transportation of Used Fuel – Plain Language Summary

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Jaro Franta
  • Reference Number: 714
  • Submitted: 2026-03-18 - 9:58 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Thanks to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for inviting comments on the Initial Project Description for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project, proposed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (the NWMO), per Canadian Impact Assessment Registry reference number 88774.
  • Attachment Included
  • Comments on NWMO’s Consolidated Information on the Transportation of Used Fuel – Plain Language Summary, IAAC registry reference number 88774 Jaro Franta, 18 March 2026 Thanks to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for inviting comments on the Initial Project Description for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project, proposed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (the NWMO), per Canadian Impact Assessment Registry reference number 88774. On March 17 IAAC published NWMO’s Consolidated Information on the Transportation of Used Fuel – Plain Language Summary. https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p88774/165474E.pdf Among other things, it states that “NWMO is including in the project two physical changes associated with transportation: construction of a new Hwy 17 turn-off with accompanying access roads to the site and construction of a potential rail spur. The NWMO is making ...
Report

Attachment Reference No.88774 - We The Nuclear Free North Comments on Summary of Issues

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Canadian Environmental Law Association, on behalf of We The Nuclear Free North
  • Reference Number: 711
  • Submitted: 2026-03-11 - 4:59 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Please see attached.
  • Attachment Included
  • Canadian Environmental Law Association T 416 960-2284 • 1-844-755-1420 • F 416 960-9392 • 55 University Avenue, Suite 1500 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7 • cela.ca March 11, 2026 Deep Geological Repository for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Email: nuclearwaste-dechetsnucleaires@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Re: Reference No.88774 - We the Nuclear Free North Comments on Summary of Issues We are counsel for We the Nuclear Free North (“WTNFN”) in relation to the above-noted matter. Please be advised that WTNFN has closely reviewed the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s (“Agency”) Summary of Issues. Our client has instructed us to provide the Agency with the following comments in order to ensure a credible, rigorous, and evidence-based impact assessment of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (“NWMO”) proposal to emplace 5.9 million used fuel bundles of ...
Report

Attachment Barriers to Accessing Project Information and Engagement Notices

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Melgund Recreation, Arts and Culture
  • Reference Number: 709
  • Submitted: 2026-03-11 - 10:56 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • A recurring issue raised by local residents and in public impact assessment comments concerns the lack of accessible printed copies of the project documentation for the proposed Revell Site Deep Geological Repository (DGR).  Many residents living closest to the proposed NWMO Revell site reported significant difficulty obtaining hardcopies of the Initial Project Description (IPD) and related technical materials. Although the IPD was announced publicly in early January 2026, printed versions were not made unavailable outside of the designated host communities of Ignace, Dryden and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. Residents in surrounding communities, including Dryden and those living along the Highway 17 transportation corridor, repeatedly noted that other local public institutions did not receive sufficient printed materials for meaningful review. Several commenters documented that when printed copies were made available, they were extremely limited in number and ...

Report

Attachment Social License and Regulatory Integrity

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: The Arts Incubator Winnipeg
  • Reference Number: 707
  • Submitted: 2026-03-02 - 1:03 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Our latest review of public submissions regarding the Revell Site Deep Geological Repository (DGR) reveals a profound and overwhelming opposition to the project in its current form. While a minority of submissions—primarily from industry-adjacent professionals or residents anticipating economic revitalization—support the initiative, the vast majority of stakeholders express deep distrust in the regulatory process, the proponent (NWMO), and the technical safety of the proposal. The opposition is not merely ideological but is heavily rooted in specific logistical concerns, particularly the exclusion of transportation risks from the assessment scope and the perceived violation of Indigenous sovereignty and Treaty rights. Even among neutral submissions, there is a consistent demand for a more rigorous, federal-level impact assessment, suggesting that the current "Initial Project Description" has failed to secure broad social license. Procedural Fairness ...

Report

Attachment Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste on Our Highways

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Jessica Wick
  • Reference Number: 708
  • Submitted: 2026-02-26 - 3:47 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment Included
  • Box 282, North Bay ON P1B 8H2 | 705 497 0373 | northwatch@northwatch.org | www.northwatch.org Date: January 9, 2026 To: Municipalities of Northeastern Ontario From: Brennain Lloyd, Northwatch Re. Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste on Our Highways Register Your Community's Concern by February 4th Earlier this week a federal review of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s plan to transport, process, bury and eventually abandon all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario was launched, with the first comment period closing on February 4th. Over these next several weeks it is important that municipalities register their interest with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and comment on the Initial Project Description now posted on the IAAC web site. Of key importance: the NWMO is seeking to exclude the transportation of the high-level radioactive wastes through from the impact assessment process. In effect, that is ...
  • Attachment Included
  • Please see the attachment to view the content.
Report

Attachment Critique of Summary of Issues

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Charles Faust
  • Reference Number: 706
  • Submitted: 2026-02-25 - 3:26 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Critique of Summary of Issues (DGR for Used Nuclear Fuel Project) Annex A - Additional Comments, Guidance and Recommendations My biggest concern with the Summary of Issues for this proposed project is the relegation to Annex A of many of the most serious issues underlying the development of this proposal. Many of these serious issues, included in the Summary for “information purposes only” are fundamental to the public understanding of critical parts of the proposal. As set out in “Additional Comments, Guidance and Recommendations” these concerns can be ignored rather than given a balanced discussion allowing the public to decide the extent to which their concerns may or may not be met. Project Need The question of permanent disposal versus interim storage pending better options, has not been seriously considered by the industry in over 20 years. During this time much has changed. A discussion on this principal topic is critical to ...

Report

Attachment Grand Council Treaty #3 Response to IAAC Summary of Issues

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Grand Council Treaty #3
  • Reference Number: 705
  • Submitted: 2026-02-25 - 11:03 AM
  • Updated: 2026-03-24 - 10:22 AM
  • Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Please see attached. 
  • Attachment Included
  • February 24, 2026 Mr. Terence Hubbard President, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 22nd Floor, Place Bell 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Ms. Laurie Swami President and CEO, Nuclear Waste Management Organization 22 St. Clair Avenue East, Fourth Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2S3 Via Electronic Submission Re: The Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3’s comments on IAAC’s Summary of Issues Dear Mr. Hubbard and Ms. Swami: I am writing to you again on behalf of the Government of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3 (the “Nation” or “GCT3”) regarding the Initial Project Description (“IPD”) prepared by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (“NWMO”). The IPD proposes a facility in the Territory of the Nation in Treaty #3 (“Treaty #3 Territory”) to manage all Canada’s existing high-level used nuclear fuel for the duration of its toxicity, estimated to be 1 million years (the “Project”). On February 4th, the Nation provided detailed comments on ...
Report

Attachment Initial Project Description - DGR for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Paul Hader
  • Reference Number: 697
  • Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 10:59 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • 1. The comment period of one month is too short a time to enable a complete review of the submission and make informed comments about this submission.  I would suggest the comment period be extended for an additonal 60 days. 2. Regarding project need, there is very little discussion of the alternative methods of managing used nuclear fuel.  While the construction of a deep geological repository is an option, improvements in used fuel recycling technologies are also an option which could be applied to significanlty reduce the volume of used nuclear fuel while also providing additional clean (carbon emission free) electricity for future generations.   The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publication "Waste from Innovative Types of Reactors and Fuel Cycles" provides an initial study of the various used fuel recycling techniques that can be implemented.   There needs to be a serious review of the feasibility of recycling used nuclear ...

Report

Attachment Regarding the transportation of nuclear waste across Northwestern Ontario

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Caro Whipp
  • Reference Number: 690
  • Submitted: 2026-02-10 - 12:22 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • To Whome It May Concern:  I would like to submit my comments for consideration regarding the Deep Geological Repository for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project. As a resident of the City of Thunder Bay, I am concerned by the unknown factors of this project and the severe repercussions they could pose for years to come. Most notably, I am alarmed by the lack of attention towards the transportation routes and corridors and the communities along the way. The City of Thunder Bay is one such community along the transportation route that could be impacted should there be a spill. This is even more concerning given the number of transportation truck accidents that have been occuring along our highways. I would therefore like to urge that more attention be placed on the risks of transporting nuclear waste and insist that this be included within the project scope. Additionally, I am concerned this project tramples over the rights of impacted First Nation communities by not ...

Report

Attachment stong opposition to bury nuclear waste on Treaty #3 lands

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Takwana Nhau
  • Reference Number: 685
  • Submitted: 2026-02-06 - 11:07 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • i am one of many canadians that vehemently oppose this project. this project will affect millions of people in northwestern Ontario in permanent ways. stop pretending that nature is cheap and that it is going to be here forever. for once, consider that your own children will be affected by this. money is not gonna buy you out when teh devastation eventually reaches you too. please dont go through with it

Report

Attachment Second comment: Nuclear Waste Management Organization proposal

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Sustainable Energy Group – Carleton Chapter
  • Reference Number: 674
  • Submitted: 2026-02-06
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment Included
  • To: Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) Date: 02.02.26 From: Sustainable Energy Group, Carleton County, New Brunswick – Second Comment RE: Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) proposal for an underground deep geological repository (DGR) system near Ignace, Ontario. By email: nuclearwaste-dechetsnucleaires@iaac- aeic.gc.ca The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague issued its Advisory Opinion July 23, 2025: OBLIGATIONS OF STATES IN RESPECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf ~~~~~~~~~~~~ The ICJ Advisory Opinion would be breached by the IAAC with the approval of the transport of high-level nuclear waste by road or rail to the deep geological repository (DGR) near Ignace, ON, resulting in CO2 emissions accelerating global warming. The same applies to the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change signed by Canada. Transporting hazardous nuclear waste would certainly ...
Report

Attachment Ignace resident in support of the project

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Debbie Hart
  • Reference Number: 672
  • Submitted: 2026-02-05 - 9:35 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • I am in support of the DGR project as a whole.  Nuclear energy has been proven to be one of the cleanest sources of energy.  The regulations and safety protocols that are in place for dealing with nuclear energy are extremely well monitored with safety and environmental impact being at the forefront of decision making.   The NWMO was put in place to ensure that the public was educated in what was being proposed with safe long term storage for used nuclear fuel, as well as ensuring that communities' concerned were heard.  I believe that the NWMO did a. Dry good job to ensure those goals were met. I feel privileged that Ignace and WLON was the selected site for this Canada wide project.  As a resident of Ignace, I am hopeful that an endeavour as innovative as this will be the economical boost that my community so much needed.   There was quite of bit of hopefulness during the site selection process, and NWMO was supportive of community ...

Report

Attachment Poor handling in transportation of dangerous goods

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Jacob Carr
  • Reference Number: 671
  • Submitted: 2026-02-05 - 8:54 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • The thought of transporting nuclear waste across Northern Ontario to dump is unbelievable. The amount of pollution that is already pumped out into the earth this does not need to happen. If you need to get rid of the Waste find a proper acceptable way of doing so. There needs to be boundaries put in place and this is not one of them. Why does this world need to suffer anymore than it already is. There will be multiple people that will be affected by this, water will be affected, the soil will be affected by this. This has to he stopped from transporting waste and dumping the waste. 

Report

Attachment Grand Council Treaty #3 Response to Initial Project Description by NWMO

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Grand Council Treaty #3
  • Reference Number: 660
  • Submitted: 2026-02-05 - 3:45 PM
  • Updated: 2026-02-24 - 12:32 PM
  • Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Please see the attached Grand Council Treaty #3 Comments on NWMO's IPD. This version addresses minor clerical errors and replaces the version that GCT3 originally filed on February 4th at 11:40 p.m., submission Reference Number 594, as an administrative change. For greater certainty, the Schedules are also included, which are unchanged from the original filing.   
  • Attachment Included
  • Appendix: GCT3 Letter to IAAC re NWMO IPD February 4, 2026 (corrected February 5, 2026) Appendix 1: Detailed comments on omissions and deficiencies in the Initial Project Description (re Issues #1 through #4) GCT3 Comment Relevant excerpts and references GCT3 is virtually ignored in the 1,233-page IPD. The IPD provides only one reference to GCT3 as an “Indigenous organization” that was part of NWMO engagement. The IPD does not acknowledge GCT3’s status as a traditional governance structure of the Nation that has jurisdiction and authority. The IPD contains no discussion of the Nation’s role in Treaty #3 Territory or the years of engagement between GCT3 and NWMO. It ignores information provided by GCT3 to NWMO regarding the Nation’s governance structure, laws, protocols and ceremony. GCT3’s engagement with NWMO extends back to 2011, not 2022. Other IPD references to GCT3 are passing references to GCT3 as a source of ...
  • Attachment Included
  • February 4, 2026 (corrected February 5, 2026) Mr. Terence Hubbard President, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 22nd Floor, Place Bell 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Via Electronic Submission Dear Mr. Hubbard, I am writing to you on behalf of the Government of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3 (the “Nation” or “GCT3”) to express fundamental concerns with the Initial Project Description (“IPD”) prepared by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (“NWMO”). The IPD proposes a facility to manage all Canada’s existing high-level used nuclear fuel for the duration of its toxicity, estimated to be 1 million years (the “Project”). Your Agency introduced the New Year by posting the 1,233 page IPD on your Registry on January 5, 2026, with the demand that comments be provided on the IPD Summary by the end of day February 4, 2026.1 This is an unreasonable timeframe and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (“IAAC”) should seek ...
  • Attachment Included
  • Nation to Nation Decision-making Agreement Proponent Submits PA Application Federal Government Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3 Review Panel Manito Aki Inaakonigewin Gr an d Co un ci l T re at y #3 Harmonized Regulatory Process Visioning Scouting Hunting/Gathering Feasting Tr ea ty # 3 Co m m un iti es Harmonized Knowledge Sharing Agreement IA AC/CN SC IA Report Treaty #3 Co m m unities Reports Decision-making Tre aty #3 Process Federal Process 1 3 Vi si on in g Sc ou ti ng H un ti ng & G at he rin g Fe as ti ng • Relationship and Capacity Building • Manito Aki Inaakonigewin Education • Project Learning • Application of Project to Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3 • Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3 Determination of Project Leads • Creation of and Support for Leadership Framework and Joint Working Group Structures • Creation of and Support for Project Evaluation and Assessment Plan • Creation of and Support for Project ...
Report

Attachment Yes to DGR, ensure Canada's energy future

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Andrew DeMarco
  • Reference Number: 653
  • Submitted: 2026-02-05 - 2:39 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Where: 1. Nuclear energy is essential to Canada's energy future. 2. Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest form of stable baseload energy we ahve 3. Climate change is a significant and growing threat that will cost many lives and money, and nuclear energy is very low carbon emissions (zero for operation, low total lifecycle emissions) 4. Nucelar energy is required to meet global cliamte targets 5. Electrification of transporatation, heating and heavy industry are essential to fighting climate change 6. DGRs are, based on solid geographical and scientific facts, a safe way to store sued nuclear fuel for the long term. 7. Canada's growing nuclear industry will require a long term solution to storing used fuel 8. The site selection process was thourgh, the right type of rock formation was chosen, and the proposed site has gotten community buy-in for consideration. 9. Transortation of spent fuel has been ...

Report

Attachment options

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Judith N. Brooke
  • Reference Number: 641
  • Submitted: 2026-02-05 - 1:31 PM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • You may think that by securing nuclear waste in tight containers will work, they won't last forever and just by their size, they will pollute  the earth/water, as well as disturbing the animal life within, from the smallest insect to the Orcas. But in time, those containers will leak. There are many options that science has created. Use those. They don't pollute or cause safety issues. 

Report

Attachment A transportation issue

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Susan Cullen
  • Reference Number: 623
  • Submitted: 2026-02-05 - 11:21 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • We live on the English River in Northwestern Ontario.  We have been here for almost 50 years.  We know the value of this water system because we fish on it and draw our water from it.  Nothing can convince us that burying nuclear waste upstream from our home will be foolproof.  We wonder why the researchers would be certain that the highways coming from eastern Ontario will be safe for the vehicles carrying such waste.  Today we have three accidents between Dryden and ThunderBay that have caused disruptions to traffic.  Sometimes these events cause highway closures for up to the better part of a day.  I wonder the time involved if a truck carrying nuclear waste should be involved in an event such as this?  I say again - nothing is foolproof so we need to be prepared for the absolute worst, always.  I shudder to think of the consequences for everyone.  We are always hearing of events from eastern Ontario - new highways, subways, big ...

Report

Attachment opposed

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Kenora Bed 'n' Bale - campground & farm
  • Reference Number: 614
  • Submitted: 2026-02-05 - 9:30 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • Hauling waste across Ontario is too risky by either road or rail, as accidents are inevitable. Storing it in pristine NW Ontario is too high a risk to our valuable natural resources - water and food production, necessary for survival. Renewable, clean energy and efficient use need to the prioritized and move away from energy sources that can poison us all.

Report

Attachment First Nations Communities Matter

  • Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
  • Author: Erin Pomanti
  • Reference Number: 613
  • Submitted: 2026-02-05 - 9:24 AM
  • Project Phase: Planning
  • Participation Notice: N/A
  • I stand behind First Nations Communities and the viewpoint of Erica Tropea (Masters in Environmental Science) : "Given that the public has been given the minimum amount of time to comment under the Impact Assessment Act, which is 30-days, the comments here should be considered preliminary and more time should be given to the public and First Nations to comment on such an important and impactful topic.  Eagle Lake First Nation traditional territory overlaps with the project area, and part of that is shared with Wabigoon Lake First Nation. Yet, Eagle Lake First Nation has been systematically left out of the consultation process and has made it publicly known that as a result, they are now being forced to participate in the assessment in order to protect their lands. It is essential that an impact assessment does not take place until Eagle Lake First Nation is recognized as a host community. Grassy Narrows First Nation has also been excluded from the ...

Report
Report a problem on this page
Date modified: