NWMO nuclear waste burial proposal

As a resident of northern Ontario, who has been following the process of looking for a site to bury nuclear waste in northern Ontario for more than 30 years, I continue to have concerns with the proposal through its latest iteration with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NMWO). For me, the list of red flags in the project itself is extensive, but here, I will focus on my greatest concerns which are transportation and the time allotment of the review process for concerned and affected citizens to participate.

I live in North Bay, Ontario and the transportation plan is of grave concern to me. Having multiple transport trucks daily through dozens of northern communities including mine, drive thousands of kilometres while transporting highly toxic materials is, in my opinion, a very real and dangerous risk.

Though worry of security may have in the past seemed like a far-fetched and unlikely possibility, in today’s world of high international political tension, it does seem like a worthy consideration.

As everyone who lives here knows, our northern roads are dangerous in the winter. Northern Ontario roads remain among the most dangerous in all of Canada:

“All over northern Ontario, these sorts of catastrophes and dangerous situations do occur on highways,” Jake Pastore, outreach communications for the Town of Ignace, acknowledged. In total last year (2024), there were 21 fatal collisions in the remote area — the majority of them, 13, involved trucks. Overall, there were 213 crashes on the route that injured people during 2024.

"The two-lane Trans-Canada Highway through northern Ontario isn’t just the weak link in our national transportation system—it’s dangerously unsafe,” said MPP John Vanthof (Timiskaming – Cochrane).

"Highways 11 and 17 are the lifelines of Northern Ontario; yet they remain some of the deadliest roads in the country,” said MPP Guy Bourgouin.

Yet, transportation has been recommended to be left out of the review by the Impact Assessment Agency.

*Transportation of the nuclear waste needs to be included in the Impact Assessment Agency review.

The scale and impact of this project is beyond imagination. In fact, I believe we cannot predict the impact of a project of this scale. How can we imagine what the world will be like in 160 years never mind tens of thousands of years? The feasibility of this project is purely speculative. The truth is that no one can know the long-term impact of this project. There is an over emphasis on the short-term gains.

There is not an ease of inclusion for concerned citizens’ input on the project. We cannot be heard clearly and we do not have sufficient time to consider it because of the size of the project and timeline left to do so. More time needs to be allotted for people to understand the complexity and scope of the project. As Canadians, we expect a democratic, open forum for issues that have such a potential impact as this. Is this ethical or democratic? Is this reasonable? This is a very short-term solution for a very long-term problem that needs so much more consideration.

*A full impact assessment that includes a public hearing should be instituted. And, a reasonable timeline (not 30 days) that allows people time to consider the complexities of the proposed repository needs to be offered.

Kelly Allan

North Bay, Ontario