Decision draws mixed reaction at critical juncture
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO —In a landmark decision announced on November 30, 2024, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) selected the Municipality of Ignace in Northwestern Ontario as the site for Canada’s first deep geological repository (DGR) for spent nuclear fuel. The repository is to be located within the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Town of Ignace area, specifically in the Revell Batholith, a region chosen for its stable bedrock and geologic suitability. This decision marks a critical juncture in Canada’s approach to managing high-level nuclear waste, sparking both hope and concern across the country.
In the Wabigoon-Ignace area, the announcement has drawn mixed reactions. Local supporters point to the economic opportunities the project brings and highlight the NWMO’s extensive consultation process, which included a community vote to ensure majority support. NWMO’s rigorous scientific evaluations and ongoing Indigenous-led assessments are also cited as critical components of the decision-making process.
Al Douglas, a prominent climate and energy expert hailing from Manitoulin Island, emphasized the urgency of finding solutions to the twin challenges of energy and climate change. “With respect to climate change, we have to explore a range of energy alternatives to help wean ourselves off fossil fuel-based energy,” he says. He underscores the fact that nuclear energy, which produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels, will play a role in this transition.
However, skepticism lingers among environmental advocates and some Indigenous communities. The long-term safety of storing high-level nuclear waste underground remains a contentious issue, with concerns about groundwater contamination, seismic risks, and the ethical implications of burdening future generations with waste management.
Globally, countries like Finland and Sweden provide important case studies for deep geological repositories. Finland’s Onkalo repository is operational and widely regarded as a benchmark for nuclear waste storage. Built deep within stable bedrock, Onkalo is designed to contain nuclear waste for up to 100,000 years. However, critics highlight the repository’s high costs, reliance on unproven long-term stability projections, and challenges in maintaining intergenerational oversight.
In Sweden, the Forsmark repository has gained approval following decades of public debate and scientific scrutiny. While its robust risk assessments and transparent processes have been lauded, environmental groups continue to question the potential for groundwater contamination and the broader societal costs of nuclear energy.
These international examples demonstrate both the promise and pitfalls of deep geological repositories, offering Canada valuable insights while underscoring the challenges ahead.
The site selection process in Ignace has included the Regulatory Assessment and Approval Process (RAAP), an Indigenous-led initiative aimed at addressing cultural, environmental, and technical concerns. The RAAP will include a detailed fuel storage risk assessment to evaluate the likelihood and consequences of potential issues such as leaks, geological instability, and long-term environmental impacts.
While the RAAP’s inclusion of Indigenous leadership is a significant step forward, critics argue that no technical assessment can entirely eliminate the risks associated with nuclear waste storage. Some question whether the billions of dollars required for this project could be better spent advancing renewable energy solutions like wind, solar and hydroelectric power.
“Wind, water, and solar energy can be scaled and adopted by individuals more easily and quickly,” says Al Douglas. His comment reflects growing calls to prioritize renewable energy sources that pose fewer long-term risks.
The NWMO’s decision to build Canada’s first nuclear waste repository in the Town of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation is a pivotal moment for the nation’s energy and environmental policy. The community vote and ongoing consultations reflect a commendable commitment to transparency, yet the project remains deeply divisive.
