|
Borups Corners – Public response to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for high-level nuclear waste delivered some loud and clear messages to the federal government agency managing the review process: there is overwhelming opposition to the project and a strong demand that long-distance transportation be included in a comprehensive impact assessment process that includes a public hearing.
Early analysis of the public comments
on the NWMO’s nuclear waste plan shows a very high level of public interest and concern with the NWMO’s plan to transport, process, bury and abandon all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste at a site the industry organization selected between Ignace and Dryden in late 2024. The submissions were made as part of a 30-day comment period
on the NWMO’s Initial Project Description which was posted by the Impact Assessment Agency on January 5th.
Over 600 comments were received, with the vast majority opposing the project or registering criticisms of the project and the NWMO’s “initial project description”. Fewer than 5% of those commenting indicated support for the deep geological repository, and among those there were concerns expressed by Ignace residents regarding the 2024 “hosting agreement” signed by the Township of Ignace and the NWMO or noting a shift in the relationship between the residents of Ignace and the NWMO since the signing of the agreement. One of the few supporting comments was the one-page letter from Ontario Power Generation, the provincial utility company which has generated 90% of the stock pile of high level waste and has majority control of the NWMO. Another was from a company NWMO has pre-selected to plan and design the DGR.
A major point of contention is the NWMO's attempt to omit the examination of risks associated with long-distance transport of high-level waste from the impact assessment. The NWMO had included transportation in their project descriptions over the last twenty years but explicitly excluded it from the document called the Initial Project Description, which is the starting point of the federal impact assessment process.
"Considerable
opposition to the NWMO's project appears to be driven by concerns over
transportation risks. This highlights the NWMO's failure to prove the
safety of their transportation plan. To align with proper impact
assessment standards, the proponent must examine alternatives to the
proposed deep geological repository", commented Mary Veltri, a board member with Environment North.
"A number of environmental advocacy
groups including Environment North advocate for 'rolling
stewardship'—long-term, hardened, storage on or near the reactor site to
enable continual monitoring in the event of a radiation leak—as the
superior, safer alternative that avoids transporting hazardous waste
thousands of kilometres across the country.”
"As I watched the comments pour into the federal Registry during the 30-day period, I noted the hundreds that were appalled that the NWMO – which presents itself as working for the safety of Canadians – was seeking to exclude transportation of the highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste from examination by the Impact Assessment Agency” commented Wendy O’Connor with Nuclear Free Thunder Bay.
“This reminds us that the NWMO represents business interests, not the public interest. I believe the hundreds who made these comments represent many thousands of Canadians who oppose the project."
Approximately 40 submissions were made by Indigenous people or Indigenous organizations, including Treaty 3, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Anishnabek Nation and a joint submission by several First Nations in the Robinson-Superior treaty area, as well as submissions from First Nation’s in the vicinity of the project site, such as Eagle Lake First Nation, Lac des Milles Lacs First Nation and Ojibway Nation of Saugeen. Key issues included the lack of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), the responsibility to protect water, and the risk of intergenerational harm. Some of the submissions expressed skepticism towards NWMO-led engagement and called for independent oversight.
Several local residents expressed criticisms of the NWMO’s initial project description as well as of the NWMO process and project, explaining how those living closest to the proposed site had been excluded from the site selection process decision-making. Submissions from the Local Services Board for the Township of Melgund – which includes Borups Corners and Dyment, the closest settlements to the project – called for specific changes to the way NWMO has approached the assessment process, writing “we challenge the Proponent's exclusion of Melgund from the collaborative design of baseline programs and demand the immediate inclusion of the Local Services Board and community resident participation in all future study designs”, and “the review must formally identify Borups Corners and Dyment as distinct receptors separate from the Township of Ignace to ensure that impacts on our property values, social cohesion, and community well-being are accurately measured rather than diluted by distant regional data”.
The NWMO has recognized the Township of Ignace, 45 km east of the site, as the “host community” on the basis of Ignace having volunteered in 2010 to enter into the NWMO’s “Learn More” program, which peaked in 2013 with 22 communities under investigation.
Detailed submissions were made by We the Nuclear Free North and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (representing We the Nuclear Free North) and members of the WTNFN alliance, including Northwatch
and Environment North, detailing deficiencies in the Initial Project Description and outlining the legal basis for including long-distance transportation and an examination of alternatives to the project and alternative means of carrying out the project in the impact assessment process.
“Frankly, the NWMO did an appalling job with their Initial Project Description, from the lack of copyediting right through to the large gaps in the information they provided and the very poor organization of the document” observed Brennain Lloyd, project coordinator with Northwatch.
“We do wonder why the Impact Assessment Agency let the process proceed when the Initial Project Description so clearly did not meet the requirements, but now that it has they have a mountain of work to do in ensuring that the Agency’s Summary of Issues – the next step in this phase of the impact assessment process – actually reflects what they have heard. The public stepped up and did their job and did it very well. Now it’s up to the Agency to do theirs.”
We the Nuclear Free North notes that the robust and rapid public response in opposition to the nuclear industry’s proposed project during the first federal comment period strongly indicates the unsuitability of the project for northern Ontario.
|
