An environmental coalition defends Environmental Justice (EJ) against the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) latest Deep Geological Repository (DGR) scheme.
February 5, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/enviro-coalition-defends-ej-against-nwmo-dgr/
An environmental coalition — Beyond Nuclear, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, Don’t Waste Michigan, and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) — has defended Environmental Justice (EJ) against the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) latest Deep Geological Repository (DGR) scheme.
The coalition submitted extensive comments on NWMO’s Initial Project Description Summary.
NWMO is targeting the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Township of Ignace, in northwestern Ontario, north of Minnesota and a relatively short distance outside of the Great Lakes (Lake Superior) watershed, for permanent disposal of a shocking 44,500 packages of highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel.
The Mobile Chornobyls, Floating Fukushimas, Dirty Bombs on Wheels, Three Mile Island in Transit, and Mobile X-ray Machines That Can’t Be Turned Off would travel very long distances, including on routes through the Great Lakes watershed, from Canadian reactors to the south and east, thereby increasing transport risks and impacts.
The watershed at the proposed Revell Lake DGR site flows through Lake of the Woods, Minnesota, sacred to the Ojibwe. Lake of the Woods contains many islands, some adorned with ancient rock art.
Indigenous Nations and organizations, including Fort William First Nation, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Grassy Narrows First Nation, Neskantaga First Nation, and the Land Defence Alliance rallied against NWMO’s DGR last summer in Thunder Bay, Ontario, on the shore of Lake Superior.
Beyond Nuclear’s radioactive waste specialist, Kevin Kamps, traveled to Thunder Bay last spring, to speak out against NWMO’s DGR at the Earth Day annual meeting of Environment North.
We the Nuclear-Free North organized the public comment effort, greatly aiding our coalition to meet the deadline.
Our coalition groups worked with Canadian and Indigenous allies for two decades to stop another DGR, targeted by Ontario Power Generation (which dominates the NWMO) at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Kincardine, Ontario, on the Lake Huron shore. Bruce is the largest nuclear power plant in the world by number of reactors — nine! The final nail in the Bruce DGR came from the very nearby Saugeen Ojibwe Nation, which voted 86% to 14% against hosting the DGR!
Will soaring electricity rates kill Ontario’s nuclear expansion?
At $20.9-billion, the Darlington SMRs are expected to cost nearly as much as larger reactors that would have generated far more power. The government is betting that the economic benefits will be worth it: by building the first-ever BWRX-300 reactor, it hopes to win export opportunities for Ontario-based nuclear suppliers.
Future plans include what would be two of the largest nuclear plants on Earth, which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And while the IESO holds competitive procurements for other forms of generation including natural gas, wind and solar, nuclear plants are exempted from that requirement………… “There’s no real competition and there’s no real incentive for them to deliver that power at the cheapest cost “
Matthew McClearn, The Globe and Mail, Feb 5, 2026
The Ontario government’s plans to more than double the capacity of the province’s fleet of nuclear power reactors is sprawling in its ambition – and has a price tag to match.
Last May, Energy Minister Stephen Lecce stood alongside Premier Doug Ford to announce that the government would spend $20.9-billion to build four new small modular reactors in Clarington, Ont. In November, they approved a $26.8-billion overhaul of four old reactors at Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, just east of Toronto.
Ontario’s electricity rates shot up 29 per cent in November, driven in part by rising nuclear generation costs. Further hikes are virtually certain: Ontario Power Generation (OPG) recently filed a rate application before the Ontario Energy Board, which it says will lay the foundation for the province’s energy supply over the next quarter century. The utility seeks roughly a doubling of the payments it receives for the electricity generated by its nuclear power plants. If granted, monthly bills would increase by an average of $3.50 each year for the next five years.
What comes next, though, promises to be even more expensive.
The Ford government asserts that Ontario will need roughly 18,000 additional megawatts of nuclear capacity by mid-century. (Ontario’s existing Darlington, Bruce and Pickering stations represent about 12,000 megawatts.) They’re ready to embark on what they describe as “the largest expansion of nuclear energy on the continent,” which includes plans for two of the largest nuclear plants on Earth. They could easily cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
This aspect of Ontario’s nuclear ambitions – the cost, and how residents and businesses will pay – is rarely discussed by provincial officials, and then only in vague terms. But the Ford government has long insisted that it can do it all while keeping electricity costs down. Critics – particularly those favoring renewable generation – have warned for years that this nuclear-focused approach would eventually lead to steep rate hikes.
“Ontario is on a track to more expensive energy in the future,” said David Pickup, manager of electricity at the Pembina Institute, an energy thinktank.
In a presentation in late January, Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, said Mr. Ford’s plans would see 75 per cent of Ontario’s electricity produced by nuclear power by 2050.
“If his nuclear projects proceed, our electricity rates will rise dramatically,” he predicted.
The Ford government came to power in 2018 riding a wave of dissatisfaction with the energy policies of its Liberal predecessors, which also led to surging power bills. Have Mr. Lecce and Mr. Ford similarly miscalculated?
Surging rates
Ontario’s Nov. 1 rate hike of 29 per cent was likely the largest on the continent last year. In the past year, Maine and New Jersey experienced increases of 25.5 per cent and 21 per cent, respectively, according to data published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The U.S. national average was just 6.6 per cent.
OEB spokesperson Tom Miller attributed Ontario’s rate increase partly to unexpectedly high nuclear generation last year, including from a refurbished reactor at Darlington that returned to service five months earlier than expected.
The November hike was almost entirely offset by an accompanying increase in the Ontario Energy Rebate, a provincial subsidy the government uses to lower residential electricity bills. But those subsidies will cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year, competing with other priorities.
For now, Ontarians’ rates still compare favorably to some provinces, including Nova Scotia, and also U.S. states around the Great Lakes. But the higher payments sought by OPG, if approved, would endure for years.
Traditionally, OPG recovered its costs for projects once they began generating electricity – a common practice worldwide. But nuclear plants can take a decade or two to construct and therefore tend to rack up sizeable interest charges, adding to their final tab.
Last year the government amended the Ontario Energy Board Act to allow OPG to immediately begin recouping some costs associated with building the small modular reactors (SMRs) and refurbishing Pickering.
“The intended effect is to smooth out the cost over time, rather than massive jumps from one year to the next,” explained Brendan Frank, who heads policy development and analysis at Clean Prosperity, a clean energy thinktank.
The Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario, which represents major industrial electricity users, accepts the charges.
“It’s a legitimate ask from the generators,” said Brad Duguid, the organization’s president. “They have preliminary costs that they’re incurring, and they need to have a way to pay for that.”
Nonetheless, similar regulatory changes elsewhere in North America led to misfortune. In the U.S., a practice known as Construction Work in Progress was introduced in South Carolina and Georgia, which obligated ratepayers in those states to pay up front for the only new nuclear plants built in the U.S. since the 1980s. The South Carolina plant was never finished, and the Georgia plant came in well over budget and many years late, contributing to major rate increases in both states.
Another factor driving up rates in Ontario are refurbished reactors returning to service. Including Pickering, Ontario has decided to refurbish 14 reactors, at a cost of several billions of dollars each. OPG is wrapping up an overhaul of its Darlington plant while Bruce Power’s is scheduled to run until 2033.
Refurbishments enjoy broad political support. One reason is that Ontario’s nuclear industry employs tens of thousands of people. At a press conference held in November to announce the Pickering refurbishment, Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy turned to the unionized workers behind him and assured them: “You folks are gonna be working for a long time. By the way, you’ve got job security…I can guarantee you that we’ll have the nuclear industry’s back all the way through for the next 50 years.”
Local economic benefits are central to Mr. Lecce’s enthusiasm for nuclear, as is energy security.
“The alternative is either a dirty source of power,” he said, “or it is leveraging procurements or materials that are often made in China.
“When I think about President Trump’s attack on the country and his ongoing antagonistic approach to allies and historic friends of the U.S. like Canada, it only reaffirms to me that we are on the right path.”
An expensive future
How much of a premium are Ontarians prepared to pay?
At $20.9-billion, the Darlington SMRs are expected to cost nearly as much as larger reactors that would have generated far more power. The government is betting that the economic benefits will be worth it: by building the first-ever BWRX-300 reactor, it hopes to win export opportunities for Ontario-based nuclear suppliers.
Nuclear plants worldwide have routinely suffered serious delays and cost overruns during construction, and one in nine is never completed. Mr. Lecce exudes confidence that OPG can repeat its performance with the Darlington refurbishment.
Mr. Lecce emphasized that his government is pursuing an “all-of-the-above” approach. The province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has awarded contracts to natural gas and battery storage projects, which are to come online in 2028. But the slogan obscures the fact that the government’s plans would see Ontario lean even more heavily on reactors than it has in the past.
And while the IESO holds competitive procurements for other forms of generation including natural gas, wind and solar, nuclear plants are exempted from that requirement.
Said Mr. Pickup: “There’s no real competition and there’s no real incentive for them to deliver that power at the cheapest cost – unlike these competitive procurements, where if they don’t come in at low cost, they won’t win and they won’t get built.”
The Ford government supports Bruce Power’s proposal to build four large new reactors at its plant in Kincardine, Ont., adding up to 4,800 megawatts to what is often described as the world’s largest nuclear power plant. Known as Bruce C, it could be Canada’s first large-scale nuclear build in more than 30 years. The government has agreed to pay for most of the impact assessment, a benefit few other private power producers enjoy.
Simultaneously, OPG has begun planning an even larger plant at Wesleyville, the site of a partly-constructed oil-fired facility near Port Hope. Wesleyville’s capacity could be as high as 10,000 megawatts, enough to seize the Bruce’s crown as the world’s largest nuclear plant.
Nuclear plants take at least a decade, often two or more, to plan and build. This long lead time, accompanied by their huge output of electricity, requires governments to make big bets about future demand.
Mr. Lecce has placed his. He expects 21 million people will live in Ontario by mid-century, up from 16 million currently. He anticipates mass-adoption of electric vehicles, new data centres and massive investment in Ontario’s industry, including electrification of steel mills.
“We need 65 per cent more power at least, 90 per cent at the high,” Mr. Lecce said. “The province is going to be investing in energy generation, one way or another.”
But many EV projects announced in the past few years have stalled or been cancelled outright. U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to curtail automotive imports into his country has led automakers to lower production in Ontario, and the future of other power-intensive industries such as steel are similarly unclear.
The path not taken
The Ford government’s nuclear expansion plots the opposite course to that taken by most other jurisdictions globally.
According to the International Energy Agency, renewables (particularly solar) are growing faster than any other major energy source, and will continue to do so in all scenarios it has presented – even accounting for continuing hostility from the Trump administration.
“Renewables and storage have come down massively” in cost over the last 15 years, Mr. Pickup said. “Cost reductions have been 80 to 90 per cent, so renewables aren’t just competitive, they’re much cheaper.”
Mr. Ford resolutely opposed wind generation when he first assumed office; his government sought to halt construction of two partly-constructed wind farms, much as Mr. Trump now attacks offshore wind projects.
Mr. Ford’s antipathy toward renewables appears to have softened since then. Nonetheless, the IESO expects renewables will supply roughly the same proportion of Ontario’s electricity 25 years from now as they do today.
Mr. Pickup said the Pembina Institute doesn’t think Ontario should throw out its nuclear plans entirely, only that it should moderate its ambitions considerably in favor of alternatives, particularly renewables and energy storage.
“Nuclear comes in as expensive today,” he said. “It’s going to be relatively more expensive tomorrow.”
Mr. Gibbons, of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, asserted that the cost of new nuclear capacity is between two and eight times more expensive than wind and solar generation.
“If we build new nuclear stations, our electricity rates will rise. If we actually want to lower our electricity bills, we need to invest in the lower cost options.”
But renewables have their own shortcomings and hidden costs. Unlike nuclear plants, wind and solar facilities provide electricity only intermittently, the amount of which is largely determined by environmental conditions like wind speed and daylight. And they require additional transmission infrastructure to connect to the grid, not to mention lots of land.
Decommissioning of Gentilly 1
Ken Collier, 7 Feb 26
As in many industrial projects, many of the hazards come to be known only after the project is well under way or, very often, completed and discontinued. Gentilly 1 is one of those projects. Like others, the Gentilly 1 detritus presents grave dangers to living things as the building, equipment and supplies are taken apart. Complete public review of the decommissioning of Gentilly 1 is required, in my view. It should not be skipped or sidestepped in any way.
Notice of the project was posted on the website of the federal impact assessment agency, but it bears scant resemblance to formal and complete impact assessments, and the public is instructed to send comments to the private consortium, rather than to the federal authorities responsible for making the decision.
To cite Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR): “Heavily contaminated radioactive concrete and steel would be trucked over public roads and bridges, through many Quebec and Ontario communities, to the Chalk River site just across the Ottawa River from Quebec.”
How Flexibility, Not Nuclear, Can Secure Ontario’s Electricity Future
Michael Barnard, Clean Technica, 6 Feb 26
Ontario is moving forward with planning for an entirely new nuclear generation site in Port Hope, 100 km east of Toronto, at a moment when its electricity system is already one of the most nuclear-heavy in the world. Nuclear power today provides roughly 55% of Ontario’s electricity, with hydro adding another 25%. Wind, solar, batteries, and demand-side resources together account for a much smaller share, having been cut off at the knees in 2018 when the provincial conservative party took power and summarily cut 758 contracts for renewable generation. Advancing a new site signals how the province understands its future electricity challenge. It reflects an expectation that Ontario will require another large block of firm, always-available capacity to remain reliable as demand grows, particularly during the most constrained hours of the year.
Ontario’s electricity planners, primarily through the Independent Electricity System Operator, frame the case for new nuclear around long-term reliability rather than annual energy supply. Their planning outlook projects electricity demand rising by about 65–75% by 2050—a low energy value not aligned with actual climate or competitiveness goals—with a projected winter peak reaching roughly 36–37 GW. Summer peaks are also expected to rise, but they remain slightly lower, in the range of about 35–36 GW by mid-century. The winter peak, not the summer peak, is treated as the binding constraint, and it is that single cold, dark evening hour that underpins the justification for new nuclear capacity.
This framing matters because of how nuclear is treated in planning models. Nuclear plants supply energy year-round, but the decision to build new nuclear capacity is driven mainly by how much firm capacity planners believe is needed to meet future peak demand. Nuclear units are counted as fully available during peak hours, even though they operate continuously, do not follow demand and are not available when down for maintenance, refueling or refurbishment for months or years. From a reliability perspective, this approach is understandable. System operators are rewarded for avoiding shortages and penalized heavily for blackouts, while overbuilding capacity carries fewer immediate consequences………………………….
The distinction between energy growth and peak growth is critical here. Energy demand, measured in TWh, reflects how much electricity the system produces over a year. Peak demand, measured in GW, reflects the single hardest hour the system must meet. Nuclear plants are not built to follow peaks, but they are sized to peaks. If peaks remain sharp and high, nuclear looks attractive in planning models. If peaks flatten or decline due to significant system component flexiblity, the value of adding large, inflexible, always-on generation falls quickly, even if total energy demand continues to rise.
Electrification without flexibility is genuinely concerning, and planners are right to worry about it……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Ontario does not lack clean electricity. It lacks a planning framework that fully reflects how electricity systems are changing, why winter peaks appear hard only under outdated assumptions, and how firm capacity is actually used in a flexible, digitized grid. The choice facing the province is not between reliability and decarbonization, but between building infrastructure sized for a winter peak that no longer needs to exist and building a system designed to avoid creating that peak in the first place. https://cleantechnica.com/2026/02/06/how-flexibility-not-nuclear-can-secure-ontarios-electricity-future/
Impact Assessment of the Planned Dismantling of the Core of the Gentilly-1 reactor.
To: The Honourable Julie Aviva Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
From: The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR)
Re: Impact assessment of the final dismantling of the Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor
Date: July 5 2026
Reference Number 90092
Cc Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories \
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
The final dismantling of the most radioactive portions of the Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor, proposed by the licensee Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), will mark the first time that a CANDU power reactor has ever been fully decommissioned – that is, demolished.
This project is not designated for a full panel review under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) but you, Minister Dabrusin, have the power to so designate it under the terms of the Act.
The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility urges you to do so for the reasons stated below.
(1) When it comes to post-fission radioactivity (human made), the long-lived radioactive decommissioning waste from the core area of a nuclear reactor is second only in radiotoxicity and longevity to the high-level radioactive waste (irradiated nuclear fuel) that has already been designated for a full panel review under IAA at the initiative of NWMO, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. The deadline for initial comments on the NWMO Deep Geological Repository project (DGR) for used nuclear fuel was yesterday, February 4, 2026. [Our comments: www.ccnr.org/GE_IAAC_NWMO_comments_2026.pdf ]
(2) Fully dismantling a nuclear reactor core is a demanding and hazardous undertaking, resulting in voluminous intermediate level radioactive wastes. The highly radioactive steel and concrete structures – fuel channels, calandria tubes, tube sheet, thermal shield, calandria vessel, biological shield, reactor vault, and more – need to be carefully disassembled, using robotic equipment and perhaps underwater cutting techniques with plasma torches. Such methods are described in a 1984 article published by the Canadian Nuclear Society and linked below, on the detailed advanced methods required for dismantling Gentilly-1.
Gentilly-1 Reactor Dismantling Proposal, by Hubert S. Vogt
Reactor and Fuel Handling Engineering Department
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited – CANDU Operation
Published by the Canadian Nuclear Society in the
Proceedings of the 5th Annual Congress
(3) Dismantling the reactor core will create large amounts of radioactive dust and debris some of which will almost certainly be disseminated into the atmosphere, or flushed into the nearby St. Lawrence River, or added to the existing contamination of the soil and subsoil (including groundwater) at the Gentilly site. It is worth noting that, during the Bruce refurbishment operations in 2009, over 500 workers – local tradesmen, mainly – suffered bodily contamination by inhaling radioactive airborne dust containing plutonium and other alpha emitters (i.e. americium) for a period of more than two weeks. The workers were told that respirators were not required. The radioactivity in the air went undetected for two and a half weeks because neither Bruce managers nor CNSC officers on site took the precaution to have the air sampled and tested.
(4) Once disassembled, the bulky and highly radioactive structural components of Gentilly-1 will have to be reduced in volume by cutting, grinding or blasting. Radioactive dust control and radioactive runoff prevention may be only partially effective. Then the multitudinous radioactive fragments must be packaged, and either (a) stored on site or (b) removed and transported over public roads and bridges, probably to Chalk River. The Chalk River site is already overburdened with high-level, intermediate-level, and low-level radioactive wastes of almost all imaginable varieties. Toxic waste dumping at Chalk River is contrary to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the federal government’s “duty to consult”, since Keboawek First Nation and other Indigenous rights-holders in the area have not given their free, prior, informed consent to either the storage or disposal of these toxic wastes on their unceded territory. A panel review could weigh the options of temporary on-site storage versus immediate relocation. Since there is as yet no final destination for intermediate level wastes, moving those wastes two or three times rather than once (when a final destination exists) will be costlier and riskier. Hence on-site storage is attractive.
(5) The decommissioning waste must be isolated from the environment of living things for thousands of years. The metallic fragments contain such long-lived radioactive species as nickel-59, with a 76,000 year half-life, and niobium-94, with a 20,000 year half-life. The concrete fragments also contain long-lived radioactive species like chlorine-36, with a 301,000 year half-life. Such radioactive waste materials are created during the fission process; they were never found in nature before 1940. NWMO has recommended that such intermediate-level decommissioning waste requires a Deep Underground Repository (DGR) not unlike that proposed for used nuclear fuel. CCNR believes that it is only logical and entirely responsible to call for a panel review of this, the first full decommissioning project for a nuclear power reactor in Canada. The lessons learned will have important ramifications for all of Canada’s power reactors as they will all have to be dismantled at some time. This is not “business as usual”.
Read more: Impact Assessment of the Planned Dismantling of the Core of the Gentilly-1 reactor.(6) Demolition of buildings is often a messy business, but demolition of a nuclear reactor core is further complicated by the fact that everything is so highly radioactive, therefore posing a long-term threat to the health and safety of humans and the environment. A panel review by the Assessment Agency is surely the least we can do in the pubic interest.
(7) To the best of our understanding, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is a private contractor managed by an American-led consortium of multinational corporations, whose work is paid for by Canadian taxpayers through the transfer of billions of dollars to CNL from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a crown corporation wholly owned by the Canadian government. As CNL is a contractor, paid to do a job by AECL, CCNR does not feel assured that the best interests of Quebec or of Canada will automatically be fully served by CNL, as it is not accountable to the electorate. When the job involves demolishing, segmenting, fragmenting, packaging and transporting dangerous radioactive materials, involving persistent radiological toxins, we feel that a thorough public review by means of a comprehensive impact assessment, coupled with the involvement and oversight of accountable federal and provincial public agencies is required to ensure that the radioactive inventory is verified and documented, that no corners are cut and no presumptions go unchallenged. The International Atomic Energy Agency strongly advises that before any reactor decommissioning work is done, there has to be a very precise and accurate characterisation of the radioactive inventory –
all radionuclides accounted for, all becquerel counts recorded, and all relevant physical/chemical/biological properties carefully noted. We have seen no such documentation, but we believe it is essential to make such documentation publicly available before final decommissioning work begins, and to preserve such records for future generations so that they can inform themselves about the radioactive legacy we are leaving them. A panel review could help to ensure that we do not bequeath a radioactive legacy that is devoid of useful information, a perfect recipe for amnesia.
(8) The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) is federally incorporated as a not-for-profit organization, whose official name in French is le Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire (RSN). CCNR/RSN is a member of le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (ROEÉ). The ROEÈ has also filed comments on this dossier, linked below, with 10 recommendations. We endorse the ROEÉ submission and all of its recommendations. The ROEÉ submission is en français www.ccnr.org/IAAC_ROEE_G1_2026.pdf and here is a link to an English translation
www.ccnr.org/IAAC_ROEE_G1_e_2026.pdf .
Yours very truly,
Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., President,
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Growing stockpiles of radioactive waste beside the Ottawa River upstream of Parliament Hill causing widespread concern.
| The Ottawa River flows through an ancient rift valley that extends from near North Bay through Ottawa toward Montreal. The area is seismically active, and experiences dozens of minor earthquakes each year. Stronger earthquakes also occur such as the magnitude 5 quake in June 2010 that caused shaking, evacuations and damage in Ottawa including shattered windows in Ottawa City Hall and power outages in the downtown area. |
| February 3, 2026The Ottawa River flows through an ancient rift valley that extends from near North Bay through Ottawa toward Montreal. The area is seismically active, and experiences dozens of minor earthquakes each year. Stronger earthquakes also occur such as the magnitude 5 quake in June 2010 that caused shaking, evacuations and damage in Ottawa including shattered windows in Ottawa City Hall and power outages in the downtown area.Experts say Ottawa is at risk for a big earthquake.The Government of Canada is currently in the process of shoring up and earthquake-proofing the buildings on Parliament Hill. The project will take 13 years and cost billions of dollars.Incredibly, at the same time as billions are being spent to earthquake-proof Canada’s Parliament Buildings, the Government of Canada is paying billions of dollars to a US-based consortium that is importing large quantities of radioactive waste to the Ottawa Valley. |
| Soon after it took control of Canada’s nuclear laboratories and radioactive waste in 2015, the consortium, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), announced its intention to consolidate all federally-owned radioactive waste at Chalk River Laboratories, alongside the Ottawa River, 180 km upstream of the Nation’s Capital. There was no consultation or approval from the Algonquin Nation in whose unceded territory the Chalk River Laboratories is located, nor any consultation with residents of the Ottawa Valley about the plan. |
| CNL is importing nuclear waste from federal nuclear facilities in Manitoba, southern Ontario and Quebec. The imports comprise thousands of shipments and thousands of tonnes of radioactive debris from reactor decommissioning, and dozens of tonnes of high level waste nuclear fuel, the most deadly kind of radioactive waste that can deliver a lethal dose of radiation to an unprotected bystander within seconds of exposure. |
| High level waste shipments from Becancour, Quebec have already been completed. They involved “dozens of trucks” and convoys operating secretly over several months, from December 2024 through July 2025, under police escort, to move 60 tons of used fuel bundles to Chalk River. Tons of high level waste from Manitoba will follow soon. |
| Since there is no long-term facility for high level waste at Chalk River, nor is there any such facility anywhere in Canada at present, CNL built silos (shown in the photo below) to hold the waste at a cost of 15 million dollars. This high level radioactive waste is ostensibly in storage at Chalk River, but there is no guarantee it will ever be moved. |
| CNL plans to put the less deadly waste into a giant, above-ground radioactive waste mound called the Near Surface Disposal Facility, a controversial project currently mired in legal challenges. The dump would hold one million tons of radioactive waste in a facility designed to last about 500 years. Many of the materials destined for disposal in the dump, such as plutonium, will remain radioactive for far longer than that. According to CNL’s own studies, the facility would leak during operation and disintegrate after a few hundred years, releasing its contents to the surrounding environment and Ottawa River less than a kilometer away. |
Shipping containers filled with radioactive waste are piling up at Waste Management Area H on the Chalk River Laboratories property, awaiting a time when they can be driven or emptied into the NSDF. At last count there were 1500 shipping containers there, shown in the photo below. [on original] Source photo is at https://concernedcitizens.net/2025/12/13/cnl-environmental-remediation-management-update-june-2025/
| It would be hard to choose a less suitable place to consolidate all federal radioactive waste than in a seismically-active zone beside the Ottawa River that provides drinking water for millions of Canadians in communities downstream including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal. |
| Concerns about imports of radioactive waste to the Ottawa Valley are widespread and growing. |
| In 2021, Ottawa City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for radioactive waste imports to the Ottawa Valley to stop. Ottawa Riverkeeper recently called for transportation of radioactive waste to the Chalk River Laboratories to stop until a clear, long-term plan for the waste is available. A December 2025 letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney from Bloc Québécois and Green Party MPs along with First Nations and many civil society groups requested a moratorium on shipments of Canadian radioactive waste to Chalk River. |
| Action is urgently needed to halt the imports of radioactive waste to the earthquake-prone Ottawa Valley. |
Nuclear project with locals opposed will get federal review
Federal law requires large projects to examine whether there are other feasible ways to meet the same goals with fewer risks.
That opens the door to arguments that renewables, storage and grid upgrades could deliver similar benefits faster, more cheaply and with less environmental harm.
Recent studies from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance suggest alternatives exist and that the province could save up to $19 billion per year by investing in wind, solar and storage instead of pursuing the Wesleyville nuclear megaproject.
Canada’s National Observer, By Abdul Matin Sarfraz, January 22nd 2026
For most of her life, Faye More has lived in the shadow of nuclear waste, grappling with radioactive contamination in her home and her hometown left behind by uranium and radium processing.
She grew up in Port Hope, a lakeside community about 100 kilometres east of Toronto that is still undergoing cleanup of contaminated soil that continues to be removed from neighbourhoods and stored in a huge engineered mound about the size of 70 hockey rinks, visible from Highway 401.
In the 1970s, government investigators found high levels of radon gas at St. Mary’s elementary school in Port Hope, where radioactive mining waste from the town’s uranium mine had been used as fill beneath the building. The school was closed and tests were conducted elsewhere around the town. Investigators uncovered contamination in unexpected places — including backyards and basements.
“I grew up in a contaminated house. I later ended up buying a contaminated property without knowing it and I raised my family there because the locations of radioactive waste were not being disclosed,” More said.
Radon is a colourless, odourless radioactive gas that forms naturally as uranium breaks down in soil and can seep into homes through foundations — it’s naturally occurring in many places but, in Port Hope, levels were significantly higher than normal. Health Canada says radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer after smoking, linked to about 16 per cent of cases nationwide, or more than 3,000 deaths each year.
Now, More’s community is being asked by the Ford government to shoulder another nuclear burden, one of the largest nuclear projects in the world. This time, she is fighting back, helping lead local residents who say they have already paid the price.
The province last year announced that Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is proposing a new nuclear generating station on its Wesleyville property. The company says the project could eventually host up to 10,000 megawatts of generating capacity, enough to power up to 10 million homes for roughly 78 years.
In its own documents, the Ontario Power Generation says it is not considering alternatives to the Wesleyville project itself. It describes nuclear expansion as a policy decision already made by the province.
The Ford government celebrated the project, claiming more nuclear power is essential to meet rising electricity demand while helping Canada hit its climate targets.
Nuclear energy is frequently cited as a clean, reliable alternative to fossil fuels…………………….
“I was really shocked and appalled,” said More, now chair of the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee. “I felt it was very disrespectful to the people, the way it was announced as good news.”
More says the group has more than 100 members and is a volunteer-run non-profit formed in 1995 to address health and environmental risks linked to radioactive contamination in the town.
The group organizes public meetings, shares information online, writes letters to officials and urges residents to take part in public consultations.
Last week, the federal government formally designated the proposed Wesleyville project for a federal environmental impact assessment, opening the door to public consultation.
Unlike most major infrastructure projects, nuclear plants fall largely under federal jurisdiction. The Federal Impact Assessment Act requires a full review for any new nuclear facility larger than 200 megawatts.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission must then decide whether the project meets safety and environmental rules under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Impact Assessment Act before issuing a licence.
More hopes the federal process will stop the project altogether. She says the risks to nearby communities are too great, that safer alternatives exist and that the Ford government ignored Port Hope’s long and painful history with the nuclear industry.
For her, the idea of building one of the world’s largest nuclear plants nearby feels surreal.
“To suddenly hear that in this beautiful rural area they are going to build what could be the largest nuclear plant in the world is really unimaginable,” she said.
More worries about what that would mean for land, water and ecosystems. “It is hard to picture the scope of changes that would happen out there,” she told Canada’s National Observer. “And with that scale comes enormous risks, including emissions to the water, the air and impacts on biodiversity.”
OPG’s filings describe major physical changes that would come with the project. These include shoreline filling, dredging, building docks and large-scale excavation and blasting.
The company also says the plant would rely on cooling water from Lake Ontario. The company acknowledges the site includes wetlands, creeks and fish habitat. It also says parts of the area fall within highly vulnerable aquifer zones.
More says the pace of the project is almost as alarming as its size. She believes people should have veto power, a view not shared by the Ford government, which like the federal government is seeking to build infrastructure more quickly.
“One of the most basic questions in any environmental assessment is: Do we actually need this much energy? And if we do, why does it have to come from here?”
The company says it already owns the property, that it has been intended for electricity generation for decades and that the region has major infrastructure nearby such as transmission corridors, rail access and road that make the site ideal for the expansion plans.
Moving faster than expected
Legal experts note the project is moving at unusual speed.
Theresa McClenaghan, executive director and counsel at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, has followed nuclear projects for decades and says the timeline alone should raise red flags.
“From the very first idea, where the province asked OPG to look at potential new sites, to filing a project description with the federal agency, it’s been something like a year,” she told Canada’s National Observer. “That’s incredibly fast for something of this scale.”
McClenaghan believes OPG is trying to secure approvals while political conditions are favourable.
““They see a friendly Nuclear Safety Commission. They see a supportive provincial government and a supportive federal government,” she said.
“I think they’re thinking: let’s get this licence in our back pocket.”
She points to earlier cases where OPG obtained approvals long before construction began, protecting itself from future political or economic shifts. That strategy matters, she says, because nuclear megaprojects often face soaring costs.
Recent regulatory changes mean many of those costs can now be passed on to ratepayers long before any electricity is produced.
McClenaghan says the federal impact assessment may be the only real opportunity for the public to closely examine the project’s risks, costs and alternatives.
“It’s extremely rare for nuclear projects to be denied,” she said. “But it’s not impossible.”
The review will eventually combine two decisions into one: whether the project’s impacts are acceptable under federal law and whether the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should grant OPG a licence.
Under federal rules, the process must look at accident scenarios, long-term environmental effects and whether the project makes sense in its proposed location, including near population centres. In its own documents, OPG says it is not considering alternatives to the Wesleyville project itself. It describes nuclear expansion as a policy decision already made by the province.
McClenaghan says that stance could become a major sticking point. Federal law requires large projects to examine whether there are other feasible ways to meet the same goals with fewer risks.
That opens the door to arguments that renewables, storage and grid upgrades could deliver similar benefits faster, more cheaply and with less environmental harm.
Recent studies from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance suggest alternatives exist and that the province could save up to $19 billion per year by investing in wind, solar and storage instead of pursuing the Wesleyville nuclear megaproject.
Ontario’s big nuclear bet
More than half of Ontario’s electricity currently comes from nuclear power.
Under the province’s long-term planning, that share is projected to rise above 70 per cent by 2050 as electricity demand is expected to increase by about 75 per cent.
Nuclear projects are expensive and complex. The province says it plans to explore new ownership models and equity partnerships to attract private capital.
The government argues nuclear power is more cost-effective and land-efficient than renewables. It says alternatives would require vast amounts of land and major new transmission infrastructure, a claim challenged by energy experts.
For More, the fight has already begun. She is organizing meetings, sharing information online and urging people to take part in the consultation. But she says the timelines are too short for communities to respond in a meaningful way.
She worries that political efforts to “cut red tape” are turning health and environmental protections into barriers to be removed.
“What happens at Wesleyville doesn’t stay at Wesleyville. The reach of a nuclear plant is enormous,” More said. “When a wind turbine fails, it doesn’t contaminate an entire region,” she said. “Nuclear is different.”
More says her community has already paid the price of Canada’s nuclear history once and they are not willing to do it again.
World’s Largest Nuclear Station or Lower Electricity Bills?
Nuclear Power: The Most Expensive and Slowest Option
Nuclear reactors are the highest cost option to meet Ontario’s electricity needs – up to 10 times higher than energy efficiency, and 2 to 8 times higher than new wind and solar energy.
They are also far too slow. According to OPG, these new nuclear reactors would not come online until 2040 – 2048. That means more than 20 years of construction, cost overruns, and continued reliance on polluting gas.
By contrast, new wind and solar projects can be built in 6 months – 2 years, reducing emissions and lowering bills quickly.
A Risky Dependence on Foreign Fuel
To make matters worse, OPG is considering purchasing American-designed reactors from GE-Hitachi or Westinghouse. These reactors would require Ontario to import enriched uranium from the United States to fuel them. Does that seem like a good idea given the current political craziness unfolding south of the border?
The Better Alternative
OPG’s proposal fails to examine crucial alternatives.
Could Ontario meet its electricity needs more cheaply, more quickly, and more safely by investing in energy efficiency, wind power, solar energy, and energy storage (such as batteries and compressed air storage)?
This is a question that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) must examine during its mandatory review. That will only happen if the public demands it.
What you can do
Submit Public Comments – Deadline: Midnight, Wed. Feb. 11
The IAAC is accepting public comments on OPG’s application.
Submit your comments through the IAAC portal or email them to: wesleyville@iaac-aeic.gc.ca
Ask the IAAC to direct OPG to evaluate whether energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage are lower-cost, faster, safer, and more secure ways to meet Ontario’s electricity needs than building a massive new nuclear station at Port Hope
What Canada’s nuclear waste plan means for New Brunswick
by Mayara Gonçalves e Lima, January 20, 2026, https://nbmediacoop.org/2026/01/20/what-canadas-nuclear-waste-plan-means-for-new-brunswick/
Canada is advancing plans for a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) to store the country’s used nuclear fuel. In early 2026, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) entered the federal regulatory process by submitting its Initial Project Description — a major step in a project with environmental and social implications that will last for generations.
The implications of this project matter deeply to New Brunswickers because the province is already part of Canada’s nuclear legacy through the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. The proposed repository in Ontario is intended to become the final destination for used nuclear fuel generated in New Brunswick, currently stored on site at Point Lepreau.
If the project goes ahead, highly radioactive nuclear waste would be transported across New Brunswick. Current NWMO plans envision more than 2,100 transport packages of New Brunswick’s used nuclear fuel travelling approximately 2,900 kilometres, through public roads in the province and across Canada, over a period of 10 to 15 years.
For many residents, the project raises long-standing concerns about safety, accountability, and cost — especially as NB Power continues to invest in nuclear technologies and considers new reactors. Decisions about the DGR will influence how long New Brunswick remains tied to nuclear power, carrying the risks of waste that remains hazardous far beyond any political or economic planning horizon.
This is a critical moment because public input is still possible — but the comment period window is narrow. Environmental organizations and community advocates are calling for extended consultation timelines, full transparency on transport risks, and meaningful consent from affected communities. Several groups have organized a sign-on letter that readers can review and support.
How New Brunswickers respond now will help determine whether these decisions proceed quietly — or with public accountability.
Unproven science and public concerns
Globally, no deep geological repository for high-level nuclear waste has yet operated anywhere on the planet. Finland’s Onkalo facility is often cited as the first of its kind, but it remains in testing, relies on unproven assumptions about geological containment, and will not be fully sealed for decades.
The lack of proven DGR experience matters for Canada because the proposed repository would be among the world’s earliest attempts to isolate high-level radioactive waste “forever,” despite the absence of any real-world proof that such facilities can perform as claimed. Canada’s decision therefore sets not only a national course, but a global precedent built on uncertain science and long-term safety assumptions.
The proposed DGR would be built 650 to 800 metres underground in northwestern Ontario, near the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON), in Treaty #3 territory. Its purpose is to bury and abandon nearly six million bundles of highly radioactive used nuclear fuel, attempting to isolate them from the biosphere for hundreds of thousands of years.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization describes the site selection as “consent-based,” but this framing raises difficult questions. Consent in economically marginalized regions — particularly where long-term funding, jobs, and infrastructure are promised — is not the same as free, prior, and informed consent, especially when the risks extend far beyond any western planning horizon.
In 2024, the Assembly of First Nations held dialogue sessions on the transport and storage of used nuclear fuel. Communities raised serious concerns that the proposed DGR could harm land, water, and air — all central to Indigenous culture and way of life.
Guided by ancestral knowledge and a duty to protect future generations, the Assembly warned that the DGR threatens sacred sites, ecosystems, and groundwater, including the Great Lakes. Climate change and natural disasters heighten these risks, exposing the limits of the current monitoring plan and prompting calls for life-cycle oversight.
A token consultation for a monumental project
As anticipated, the Initial Project Description raises serious concerns about the DGR process itself. One of the most serious flaws is the stark mismatch between the project’s scale and the time allowed for public input. Although the DGR is framed as a 160-year project with risks lasting far longer, communities, Indigenous Nations, and civil society groups have been given just 30 days to review the Initial Project Description, with submissions due by February 4.
Thirty days to read dense technical documents, consult communities, seek independent expertise, formulate questions, and respond meaningfully to a proposal that will affect land, water, and people for generations. This is not a generous consultation — it is the bare legal minimum under federal impact assessment rules.
While regulators emphasize that the overall review will take years, this early stage is crucial in shaping what will be examined and questioned later. Rushing public input at the outset risks reducing participation to a procedural checkbox rather than a genuine democratic process, particularly for a decision whose consequences cannot be undone.
The overlooked threat of waste transport
Another serious shortcoming in the project proposal is a failure to adequately address the nationwide transport of radioactive waste. Transporting highly radioactive material through communities by road or rail is central to the project and carries significant safety and environmental risks that remain largely unexamined.
By excluding radioactive waste transportation from the Initial Project Description, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is effectively removing it from the scope of the comprehensive federal Impact Assessment. If transport is not formally included at this stage, it will not receive the same level of environmental review, public scrutiny, or interdepartmental oversight as the repository itself.
Instead, transportation would be left primarily to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Transport Canada to assess under the existing regulations — an approach that is fragmented and insufficient given the scale, duration, and risks of moving highly radioactive waste through communities.
The transport of radioactive waste is a critical yet often overlooked issue. As Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility notes, Canada has no regulations specifically governing the transport of radioactive waste — only rules for radioactive materials treated as commercial goods. This gap matters because radioactive waste is more complex, less predictable, and potentially far more dangerous.
Transporting high-level nuclear waste is inherently risky: the material remains hazardous for centuries, and accidents, equipment failures, extreme weather, security breaches, or human error can still occur despite careful planning. Unlike other hazardous materials, radioactive contamination cannot be easily contained or cleaned up, leaving land, water, and ecosystems damaged for generations. Even a single transport incident could have lasting, irreversible consequences for communities along the route.
Radiation risks extend beyond transport workers. People traveling alongside shipments may face prolonged exposure, while those passing in the opposite direction are briefly exposed in much larger numbers. Residents and workers along transport routes can experience repeated exposure, and accidents or unplanned stops could result in localized contamination. Emergency response is further complicated by leaks or hard-to-detect releases, with standard spill or firefighting methods potentially spreading contamination.
These risks are not hypothetical. Last summer, Gentilly-1 used fuel was transported from Bécancour, Quebec, to Chalk River, Ontario, along public roads — without public notice, consultation, Indigenous consent, or clear evidence of regulatory compliance — underscoring the ongoing risks to our communities.
According to the 2024 Assembly of First Nations report, at least 210 First Nations communities could be affected by shipments of radioactive waste traveling from nuclear reactors to the repository via railways and major highways, though the full scope may be even larger when considering watersheds and alternative routes.
Given this reality, it is unacceptable that the DGR Project Description largely ignores waste transport. Any credible assessment must examine how waste will be moved, who will be affected, what rules apply, who is responsible for oversight, and how workers, communities, and the environment will be protected in emergencies. It is the job of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to examine these plans in depth.
A high-stakes decision that demands public voice
Canada’s proposed Deep Geological Repository is one of the most ambitious and high-stakes projects in nuclear waste management. Framed as a permanent solution, it remains untested — no country has safely operated a deep repository for used nuclear fuel over the long term. Scientific uncertainty and multi-decade timelines make its risks profound and enduring.
Dr. Gordon Edwards warns: “The Age of Nuclear Waste is just beginning. It’s time to stop and think. […] we must ensure three things: justification, notification, and consultation — before moving any of this dangerous, human-made, cancer-causing material over public roads and bridges.”
Now is the moment for public voices to be heard. Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence (LAND), an environmental law non-profit, has prepared a sign-on letter and accompanying press release calling for a more precautionary, transparent, and democratic approach to the Deep Geological Repository. This is your chance to have a say in decisions that could expose you, your neighbours, and your communities to serious environmental and health risks.
The letter urges federal regulators to extend public consultation timelines, require that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conduct a comprehensive Impact Assessment that includes the transportation of radioactive waste, and uphold meaningful consent and accountability.
New Brunswickers and allies across the country are encouraged to read the letter, add their names, and speak up before decisions are finalized. How Canada handles nuclear waste today will shape risks borne by our communities for generations.
The DGR is more than a technical project; it is a test of democratic process, scientific caution, and intergenerational responsibility. Canadians deserve a transparent, thorough, and precautionary approach to ensure that decisions made today do not compromise the safety of future generations.
Mayara Gonçalves e Lima works with the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc., focusing on nuclear energy. Their work combines environmental advocacy with efforts to ensure that the voice of the Passamaquoddy Nation is heard and respected in decisions that impact their land, waters, and future.
Summary comments on the Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) Project for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel
The nuclear waste will be radioactive for, say, a period of time that is close to eternity, whereas the project covers a period of 160 years. The solution is therefore very far from permanent.
We are swimming here in the middle of a pro-nuclear religion.
by Miguel Deschênes, 20 Jan 26
a translation of comments submitted in French to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) by Miguel Deschêne on this subject.
Seven major objections stand out:
1- Developers are not trustworthy
On page v of the document, it states that “Canada’s nuclear power plants have been providing clean energy for decades,… ». Then, on page vii, it is explained that the project itself “would contain and isolate approximately 5.9 million spent fuel assemblies,” representing approximately 112,750 tonnes of irradiated and highly radioactive heavy metals. This waste contains a wide variety of radioactive substances that are dangerous to living beings. One of the most famous isotopes found in these spent fuel bundles is plutonium-239. Need we remind you that Canadian plutonium was used in the bomb that destroyed the city of Nagasaki in 1945? To say on page v of the document that nuclear energy is clean and to specify on page vii that it will generate 112,750 tonnes of highly radioactive (and potentially destructive) heavy metals in Canada is staggering incoherent.
On page iv of the document, there is a list of twelve specialists and managers who prepared, reviewed, approved and accepted this document, which includes this glaring logical error. This leads to the conclusion that the developers seem willing to present all possible arguments, however incongruous, to defend this project, while concealing the negative aspects that could overshadow it. They therefore have neither the capacity for reflection nor the objectivity required to manage this project, when it would be essential to protect the safety of the public and the environment in complete transparency.
2- The objective(s) are unattainable
The document presents the objective of the project in two places, but they are two different objectives. These objectives look strangely like advertising slogans or the creeds of a pro-nuclear cult. Neither is attainable in practice, but they make it easy to project yourself into a world of unicorns:
a- On page viii, it is stated that: “The objective of the Project is to ensure the safe long-term management of used nuclear fuel so that it does not pose a risk to human health or the environment.”
We are talking about guaranteeing, for 160 years. A great Quebec poet would say “it’s better to laugh than to cry.” A car, which is one of the most advanced technological objects on the planet, is guaranteed for 3 or 5 years. How can we believe that we can guarantee a new landfill technology for a period of 160 years? It’s simply delusional.
In addition, even a simple plastic bottle carries risks to human health or the environment. And they want us to believe that this project will make it possible to store 112,750 tonnes of radioactive nuclear waste so that it does not pose any risk to human health or the environment? What sensible person can believe such a statement?
b- On page 20, it states that: “The objective of the Project is to provide a permanent, safe and environmentally responsible solution for the management of all of Canada’s used nuclear fuel.”
The nuclear waste will be radioactive for, say, a period of time that is close to eternity, whereas the project covers a period of 160 years; The solution is therefore very far from permanent. The solution is also presented as safe and environmentally friendly: based on what? The solution is safe as long as it is sold by convinced developers, but everyone knows that it involves enormous risks. And environmentally friendly? How can we say that burying 112,750 tonnes of radioactive nuclear waste is an environmentally friendly solution? We are swimming here in the middle of a pro-nuclear religion.
Obviously, neither of these two objectives is achievable in practice.
What is the real objective of the project? Indirectly extract as much money as possible from the public treasury and taxpayers? Putting hundreds of highly paid employees to work unnecessarily for decades? Shovel the problem of nuclear waste to our descendants?
The project is therefore, even before it has begun, doomed to failure, since it is impossible for it to achieve its totally utopian objectives. To believe in the success of this project, it is absolutely necessary to be overwhelmed by the pro-nuclear faith.
3- The budget is not presented
On page 52, it states that “Federal authorities are not providing any financial support to the Project.”
On page 65, it states that: “In addition, although the NWMO is a regulated entity by the CNSC, it is not a federal agency or authority. Rather, it is a question of a not-for-profit organization mandated by the federal government under the NFCA to managing Canada’s nuclear waste. The NWMO is fully funded by industry nuclear power. »
However, the Government of Canada and some provincial governments subsidize and financially encourage the nuclear industry.
So, in a nutshell, taxpayers are giving money to governments, which in turn subsidizes the nuclear industry, and which in turn funds the NWMO. The present project is therefore indirectly financed by taxpayers and by the federal authorities, which is not revealed by the sentence on page 52. Could we conclude that it is not necessary to call on an accountant if you have a good conjurer?
A detailed budget is one of the essential elements of project planning and monitoring. Where is the budget? How is it cut? And how much will it indirectly cost taxpayers? It would be reasonable to describe the sums required as potentially pharaonic and to require a project plan that includes a complete financial plan.
The absence of a budget in the presentation of a project is an unacceptable shortcoming.
4- The project’s time scale is doubly absurd
On page v, it states that “The Project is expected to span approximately 160 years, including site preparation, construction, operation (approximately 50 years), decommissioning and closure, and post-closure monitoring.”
This duration is both too short and too long:
a- Too short: the half-life of plutonium-239 is about 24,130 years. It is calculated that after a duration of approximately seven times the half-life of an isotope, less than 1% (more precisely, 1/128) of the initial radioactive atoms remain. In the case of plutonium-239, it would therefore be necessary to wait about 168,000 years to reach this target. Obviously, this calculation would have to be done for all the isotopes found in the original waste and for all the isotopes created during subsequent decays in order to properly assess the hazardousness of the waste as a function of time, which is very complex. But we can see right away that the 160-year period is far too short to ensure the safety of the public and the environment.
b- too long: if we go back 160 years in time, we find ourselves in 1866, when the Canadian federation did not even exist. Since that time, humanity has experienced various epidemics (plague, cholera, Spanish flu, covid, etc.), two world wars and a multitude of other wars, major geopolitical reorganizations and major economic crises. It is perfectly utopian to think that a human project that has no other objective than to bury waste will be able to be carried out without hindrance for 160 years. What happens if there is a major epidemic, a world war, a coup d’état by an outsized geographic neighbour, a split in Canada, an unforeseen IT upheaval? How can we seriously believe that all the governments and political parties that will succeed each other will have at heart, for 160 years (if each party remains in power for 4 years, we are talking about 40 different governments), to adequately supervise this project?
In general, the longer a project lasts, the greater the likelihood of not achieving objectives, exceeding costs and exceeding the originally planned schedule. It is therefore quite reasonable and prudent to predict that the 160-year deep geological repository project is likely to be a complete failure: it will not achieve its objectives, while exceeding the planned deadlines and costs.
5- The responsibility for the project in the medium and long term cannot be assumed
What will be the responsibility for the project in the medium and long term, i.e. in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years? What if there is a design problem, a technical problem, a supplier problem, a funding problem, a nuclear incident or whatever? Who will be responsible when most of us are dead? To whom can our descendants turn to ask for accountability and rectification if necessary? No one can imagine or predict it, and it is likely that any assumption today about it will prove wrong tomorrow.
6- The risks associated with transportation are far too high
No means of transportation is perfectly safe. Regularly, planes crash, trains derail (the Lac-Mégantic rail accident in 2013 is a sad example) and trucks are involved in pile-ups. Sometimes, a space shuttle explodes in mid-flight.
On page vii, it states that “The Project does not include: the transportation of used fuel from the reactor sites to the Project beyond the primary and secondary access roads to the Project site, as the Project site is regulated separately under CNSC certification and uses existing transportation infrastructure.”
This seems to be, once again, a tactic to make the authorities and citizens swallow the pill of the project. The risks associated with a possible incident during the transportation of 112,750 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste on Canada’s roads, over a period of about fifty years (according to the projected schedule on page 31), are obviously far too high. It is therefore easy to understand why the developer prefers not to include this aspect in his project.
The excessive risk associated with transporting radioactive waste is an argument used by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization itself on its information page about Canada’s used nuclear fuel (https://www.nwmo.ca/fr/Canadas-used-nuclear-fuel): “Related questions: Couldn’t spent nuclear fuel be sent into space? No. In a three-year dialogue with experts and the public on possible long-term management options, the disposal of used nuclear fuel into space was one of the options of limited interest that we eliminated. Space-based evacuation has been ruled out as a solution because it is an unproven concept, not implemented anywhere in the world and not part of any national research and development plan. Concerns about the risk of accidents and the risks to human health and the environment have been amplified in particular by the accidents of the American space shuttles Challenger and Columbia. »
Why should the risk of an accident not be a consistent factor in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s reasoning? There have certainly been more train derailments and truck accidents than space shuttle incidents in human history. By what form of logic can we conclude that it is too risky to send used nuclear fuel into space, but that it is safe to transport it by train or truck? The only plausible explanation may be that we must have pro-nuclear faith.
7- Governments do not have a strategy to exit the nuclear industry
On page vii of the document, it states that: “The Project would contain and isolate approximately 5.9 million used fuel assemblies, which is the total anticipated inventory of used nuclear fuel that is expected to be produced in Canada by the current fleet of reactors until the end of their lifetime, as outlined in the NWMO’s 2024 Nuclear Fuel Waste Projections Report (NWMO, 2024). This projection is based on published plans for the refurbishment and life extension of the Darlington and Bruce reactors, as well as the continued operation of the Pickering A (until the end of 2024) and Pickering B (until the end of 2026) reactors, and the assumptions used by the NWMO for planning purposes. »
However, in October 2025, Ottawa and Ontario announced the construction of 4 new nuclear reactors (https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2201625/darlington-nucleaire-reacteur-opg-ontario). What about the waste that will be generated by these plants, which is not part of the inventory considered by the project? And what about those generated by other hypothetical power plants to come? Or those that the government could import from other countries?
Successive governments are constantly creating, recreating and amplifying the problem of nuclear waste, with no intention of ending this mess. The only decision that would limit this ecological disaster would be to abandon the nuclear industry, which would include stopping uranium mining, no longer building new nuclear power plants and never importing nuclear waste from other countries. Unfortunately, no decision-maker seems to have the foresight to move in this direction.
Even before the project begins, we already understand that the planned landfill will not be able to store all of Canada’s nuclear waste. Without a clear direction on the denuclearization of the country, the problem of radioactive waste is far from being solved.
In any case, a deep geological repository will never be a good solution for nuclear waste; This far too risky avenue is really only used to shovel the problems created by today’s decision-makers until a time when they will all be dead and will not have to assume the disastrous consequences.
Conclusion :
In my view, these arguments are more than enough to justify never authorizing the Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) Project for Canada’s used nuclear fuel. It seems that the “original project description” seeks to conceal the real issues related to nuclear waste management, in order to obtain the required authorizations, spend obscure (but potentially staggering) amounts of money, and perpetuate nuclear madness, with no regard for public safety and the environment. Unfortunately, this is a typical project of the nuclear industry, which relies on the blind complacency of the authorities and on daydreams rather than on transparency and objective arguments.
Government funding for Saskatchewan SMR test facility
World Nuclear News 20th Jan 2026
Western Canada’s first Small Modular Reactor Safety, Licensing, and Testing Centre at the University of Regina is to receive nearly CAD6 million (USD4.3 million) in funding from the federal and provincial governments.
The facility – the SMR-SLT – will be located at the Innovation Saskatchewan Research and Technology Park. It will house two test loops that simulate a part of a small modular reactor (SMR), modelling water-cooled systems using electrical heat, allowing researchers to test components under conditions similar to those in operating reactors.
The funding was announced by Buckley Belanger, Canada’s Secretary of State (Rural Development), on behalf of Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada Eleanor Olszewski. The federal government is investing CAD1.96 million (USD1.4 million) in the SMR-SLT through Olszewski’s department, PrairiesCan – a federal government department supporting business growth, innovation and community economic development across Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Provincial government support for the project is through SaskPower, the principal supplier of electricity in Saskatchewan, and a Crown Corporation – a commercial entity owned by the Government of Saskatchewan. It will be investing CAD4 million in the SMR-LT……………………..
Innovation Saskatchewan is contributing CAD1 million plus an in-kind contribution of the leased space at the Innovation Saskatchewan R+T Park for the first three years of operation. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) will also provide in-kind design support. The centre will be led by University of Regina researchers, with the Global Institute for Energy, Minerals and Society (GIEMS) partnership between the University of Regina, University of Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewan Polytechnic playing a key role to ensure all three institutions have access to the test loops for training and research, SaskPower said.
The government of Saskatchewan signalled its commitment to incorporating nuclear capacity into its provincial electricity system in a long-term policy document released last year. SaskPower has previously selected GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s BWRX-300 SMR for potential deployment in the province in the mid-2030s and has identified two potential sites for SMR deployment, both in the Estevan area in the south-east of the province…………………
Arthur Situm, Canada Research Chair in SMR Safety and Licensing at the University of Regina, said the facility will help train the next generation of nuclear professionals by providing hands-on experience with safety systems and processes that define modern nuclear technology.
“Together, this work positions the University of Regina and Saskatchewan as a leader in safe, responsible, small modular reactor research with a global impact,” he said on YouTube…….
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/government-funding-for-saskatchewan-smr-test-facility
HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE REMAINS UNAPPROACHABLE AND EXTREMELY TOXIC FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS
Gordon Edwards, 20 Jan 26
Q: When is irradiated nuclear fuel less radioactive than uranium ore?
A: Never!
Mark Twain once wrote, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” I would add to that short list many of the reassurances promulgated by nuclear enthusiasts. Take high-level nuclear waste for example.
Nuclear proponents often reassure the public and decision-makers that, after 10 million years or so, the high-level radioactive waste from nuclear reactors is more-or-less on a par with the original uranium ore found in nature from which the uranium fuel was extracted. Sounds reassuring, no doubt, but it is not true.
First of all, the language itself can be misleading. Many people may not realize that uranium ore is much more dangerously radioactive than uranium itself.
That’s because the ore is a mélange of uranium and its two dozen radioactive progeny, including isotopes of radium, polonium, and radon, as well as radioactive varieties of bismuth and lead. See www.ccnr.org/U-238_decay_chain.png & www.ccnr.org/U-235_decay_chain.png
Each one of these byproducts of uranium is much more radiotoxic (i.e.following ingestion or inhalation) than uranium itself. Indeed these pernicious radioactive poisons have already killed countless hundreds of thousands of humans exposed to them in one way or another.
Due to the presence of the radioactive progeny, uranium ore gives off a lot of highly penetrating gamma radiation (the principal cause of external whole-body irradiation) – far more than uranium itself. Pure uranium gives off very little gamma radiation.
Secondly, not all uranium ore is the same. Some ores are a lot more dangerous than others.
The potential health hazard of uranium ore depends on the “grade” of the ore. The grade is the concentration of uranium per gram of ore. The grade dictates the concentration of all of the radioactive progeny as well. So, the higher the grade, the more radioactive and the more radiotoxic the ore is.
At Cigar Lake in Northern Saskatchewan, for example, we have “high-grade” ore averaging about 17 percent uranium, which makes that ore more than 150 times more radioactive (and radiotoxic) than uranium ore from Elliot Lake Ontario (having a grade of about 0.1 percent).
The Cigar Lake ore is the richest (i.e. the highest grade) ever found. The ore is so radioactive that it cannot be safely mined by human beings, but must be mined using robotic equipment. See https://saskpolytech.ca/news/posts/2021/Cigar-Lake-project-collaboration-a-high-tech-home-grown-win.aspx .
But hold on a minute. Even after ten million years, the concentration of uranium left in spent fuel is about 98.5 percent. That is a MUCH higher grade than any ore ever found in nature.
So even after ten million years, used nuclear fuel is about 480 percent MORE radioactive and radiotoxic than the uranium ore at Cigar Lake – which is in turn more than 100 times more radioactive and radiotoxic than most other uranium deposits that have been mined in other countries. And that estimate is based ONLY on the uranium progeny mentioned above.
But that’s not all. In addition to uranium and its progeny, the ten-million-year-old CANDU used fuel bundles contain other radioactive poisons not found in uranium ore at all, such as caesium-135 (half-life 2.3 million years), iodine-129 (half-life 16 million years), palladium-107 (half-life 6.5 million years), and zirconium-93 (half-life 1.6 million years).
So when Canadian nuclear establishment people tell you that after 10 million years CANDU spent fuel is about as dangerous as naturally-occurring uranium ore, they are bending the truth by a significant amount. They are also misleading people by not explaining the difference between uranium ore and uranium in a refined form.
Incidentally, the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning (commonly called the Porter Commission) published a graph in their 1978 Report “A Race Against Time” showing that the overall radiotoxicity of used CANDU fuel (the blue line in the graph) decreases for the first 50,000 years or so, and then increases to a higher level as the result of inbreeding of uranium progeny. Although it is not stated in the report, the radiotoxicity level of used nuclear fuel after ten million years does not change for a very long time – it remains relatively constant for the next several hundred millions of years.
Ontario utility wants to double the asking price of nuclear, while US wants reactors on the moon
Giles Parkinson. Jan 14, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/ontario-utility-wants-to-double-the-asking-price-of-nuclear-while-us-wants-reactors-on-the-moon/
The main power utility in the Canadian province of Ontario has put in a request to nearly double the price of payments its receives for nuclear power, in order to cover the cost of maintenance, upgrades and new projects.
Ontario Power Generation has asked the local regulator – the Ontario Energy Board – to increase the payments for nuclear power to $C207 a megawatt hour ($A222/MWh) from January, 2027, nearly double what it received ($C111.61/MWh) in 2025.
Nuclear accounts for more than half of the generation in Ontario, which is often held up by nuclear advocates as a shining light for Australia to follow, but it faces massive expenses in coming years as it refurbishes its ageing nuclear fleet, and embarks on a program to build four small modular reactors.
The first of these SMRS are expected to be delivered in the early 2030s, and the total cost is currently put at more than $C21 billion. But more money, nearly $C27 billion, is to be spent on refurbishing four existing reactors at Pickering, and yet more on other nuclear upkeep costs.
The huge investment in nuclear is raising concerns among environmental groups and also major energy users, which include steel makers and car companies such as Ford and Toyota.
The Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, says its members are facing “skyrocketing” electricity prices, including a 165 per cent rise in the next three years.
AMPCO president Brad Duguid blames the rising cost of nuclear, and also the heavy price of gas generation which is being used to fill the gap caused by the refurbishment of the old nuclear plants, some of which are scheduled to be offline for three years.
“Over the next seven to 10 years, we’re seeing significant increases in the market energy rates to make up that difference,” he told the Globe and Mail.
“We’re talking about increases in the range of 165 per cent for the market rate over the next three years alone. That’s untenable. That’s an absolute threat to the competitiveness of our industrial sector and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports.”
Retail customers are also suffering. Residential power prices jumped 29 per cent in October, although they were partially offset by an increase in government rebates.
The cost of those rebates – which are used by the government in Ontario, as they are in nuclear dependent France, to hide the true cost of nuclear – have jumped to $C8.5 billion a year. Other costs are incorporated in general government debt, critics note.
“This application really confirms that these projects are among the most expensive ways to meet our need for electricity,” said the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, which supports renewables and opposes the nuclear expansion.
“We could expand solar, wind and storage at a fraction of the cost and avoid seeing our power bills go through the roof.
“The Premier’s buddies in the nuclear and gas industries may like his plan for an old school electricity system built around eye-wateringly expensive mega projects. But the people of Ontario are now in for some serious sticker shock.
“This is really the tip of a very big iceberg coming straight at your household budget.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration across the border has doubled down on its plan, first flagged in August last year, to build a series of nuclear power plants on the moon – by 2030 – and to get them ready for Mars, whenever they get there.
The US Department of Energy and NASA announced on Tuesday that they intended to deploy nuclear reactors on the Moon and in orbit, including the development of a lunar surface reactor by 2030.
Russia has also announced plans to deploy nuclear power on the moon, although it is aiming for 2035.
Newly appointed NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said the US is committed to returning to the Moon, and making “the next giant leap to Mars” and beyond.
“Achieving this future requires harnessing nuclear power. This agreement enables closer collaboration between NASA and the Department of Energy to deliver the capabilities necessary to usher in the Golden Age of space exploration and discovery,” he said in a statement.
Ontario’s proposed nuclear waste repository poses millennia-long ethical questions
Maxime Polleri, Assistant Professor, Université Laval, January 16, 2026 , https://theconversation.com/ontarios-proposed-nuclear-waste-repository-poses-millennia-long-ethical-questions-273181
The heat produced by the radioactive waste strikes you when you enter the storage site of Ontario Power Generation at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, near the shore of Lake Huron in Ontario.
Massive white containers encase spent nuclear fuel, protecting me from the deadly radiation that emanates from them. The number of containers is impressive, and my guide explained this waste is stored on an interim basis, as they wait for a more permanent solution.
I visited the site in August 2023 as part of my research into the social acceptability of nuclear waste disposal and governance. The situation in Ontario is not unique, as radioactive waste from nuclear power plants poses management problems worldwide. It’s too dangerous to dispose of spent nuclear fuel in traditional landfills, as its radioactive emissions remain lethal for thousands of years.
To get rid of this waste, organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency believe that spent fuel could be buried in deep geological repositories. The Canadian government has plans for such a repository, and has delegated the task of building one to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) that’s funded by Canadian nuclear energy producers.
In 2024, NWMO selected an area in northwestern Ontario near the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as a potential site for a deep geological repository. Now, a federal review has begun bringing the project closer to potential reality.
Such repositories raise complex ethical questions around public safety, particularly given the millennia-long timescales of nuclear waste: How to address intergenerational issues for citizens who did not produce this waste but will inherit it? How to manage the potential dangers of these facilities amid short-term political cycles and changing public expectations?
While NWMO describes the deep geological repository as the safest way to protect the population and the environment, its current management plan does not extend beyond 160 years, a relatively short time frame in comparison with the lifespan of nuclear waste. This gap creates long-term public safety challenges, particularly regarding intergenerational ethics. There are specific issues that should be considered during the federal review.
NWMO argues that the deep geological repository will bring a wide range of benefits to Canadians through job creation and local investment. Based on this narrative, risk is assessed through a cost-benefit calculus that evaluates benefits over potential costs.
Academics working in nuclear contexts have, however, criticized the imbalance of this calculus, as it prioritizes semi-immediate economic benefits, like job creation, over the long-term potential impacts to future generations.
In many official documents, a disproportionate emphasis on short-term economic benefits is present over the potential dangers of long-term burial. When risks are discussed, they’re framed in optimistic language and argue that nuclear waste burial is safe, low risk, technically sound and consistent with best practices accepted around the world.
This doesn’t take into account the fact that the feasibility of a deep geological repository has not been proven empirically. For the federal review, discussions surrounding risks should receive an equal amount of independent coverage as those pertaining to benefits.
Intergenerational responsibilities and risks
After 160 years, the deep geological repository will be decommissioned and NWMO will submit an Abandonment License application, meaning the site will cease being looked after.
Yet nuclear waste can remain dangerous for thousands of years. The long lifespan of nuclear waste complicates social, economic and legal responsibility. While the communities of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation have accepted the potential risks associated with a repository, future generations will not be able to decide what constitutes an acceptable risk.
Social scientists argue that an “acceptable” risk is not something universally shared, but a political process that evolves over time. The reasons communities cite to decide what risks are acceptable will change dramatically as they face new challenges. The same goes for the legal or financial responsibility surrounding the project over the centuries.
In the space of a few decades, northwestern Ontario has undergone significant municipal mergers that altered its governance. Present municipal boundaries might not be guarantees of accountability when millennia-old nuclear waste is buried underground. The very meaning of “responsibility” may also undergo significant changes.
NWMO is highly confident about the technical isolation of nuclear waste, while also stating that there’s a low risk for human intrusion. Scientists that I’ve spoken with supported this point, stating that a deep geological repository should not be located in an area where people might want to dig.
The area proposed for the Ontario repository was considered suitable because it does not contain significant raw materials, such as diamonds or oil. Still, there are many uncertainties regarding the types of resources people will seek in the future. It’s difficult to make plausible assumptions about what people might do centuries from now.
Communicating long-term hazards
When the repository is completed, NWMO anticipates a prolonged monitoring phase and decades of surveillance. But in the post-operation phase, there is no plan for communicating risks to generations of people centuries into the future. The long time frame of nuclear materials complicates the challenges of communicating hazards. To date, several attempts have surrounded the semiotics of nuclear risk; that is, the use of symbols and modes of communication to inform future generations.
For example, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan in New Mexico tried to use various messages to communicate the risk of burying nuclear waste. However, the lifespan of nuclear waste vastly exceeds the typical lifespan of any known human languages.
Some scientists even proposed a “ray cat solution.” The project proposed genetically engineering cats that could change color near radiation sources, and creating a culture that taught people to move away from an area if their cat changed colour. Such projects may seem outlandish, but they demonstrate the difficulties of developing pragmatic long-term ways of communicating risk.
Current governing plans around nuclear waste disposal have limited time frames that don’t fully consider intergenerational public safety. As the Canadian federal review for a repository goes forward, we should seriously consider these shortcomings and their potential impacts on our society. It is crucial to foster thinking about the long-term issues posed by highly toxic waste and the way it is stored, be it nuclear or not.
Is a deep geological repository (DGR) for IGNACE a good idea?
I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!
| Frank Greening, 13 Jan 26 |
Questioning the wisdom of NWMO’s plan for a used fuel DGR to be constructed near Ignace in Northern Ontario, in view of the issues presented below:
From the Project description document AMP-REP-05000-0211-R000
11. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT
An estimated 5.9 million bundles of used fuel will be processed in the UFPP over its operational lifetime of approximately 50 years (about 120,000 used fuel bundles per year). On average, per the current conceptual reference design, 10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday, or approximately 2,500 UFCs each year.
To achieve this throughput, the UFPP is likely to incorporate multiple processing lines. Based on annual shipping (receipt) assumptions, the maximum number of certified transportation packages received at the UFPP in any given year is estimated to be approximately 885, holding between 120 and 192 used fuel bundles in each certified transportation package. The UFPP is designed to receive and process up to five certified transportation packages each day.
I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!
Closely related to the issue of shipping costs, is the additional problem of the high probability of inclement weather along Highway 17 from November to March each year. It appears that NWMO’s approach to dealing with this issue is simply to limit used fuel shipments to Ignace to just 9 months per year. However, this is barely adequate, given the common occurrence of snow storms along Highway 17 from as early as October to as late as April each year. Indeed, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment states in reference to winter driving on Highway 17: “Expect snowfall amounts of 10 –15 cm; reduced visibility due to snow and blowing snow; icy and slippery surfaces, and quickly changing and deteriorating travel conditions”.
This clearly shows the severity of the winter weather for the township of Ignace, with heavy snowfall dominating the months from November to March. Interestingly, NWMO has stated – See NWMO Report APM-REP-00440-0209-R001, issued September 2021 – that moving used nuclear fuel by truck to Ignace would mean “two to three shipments a day for approximately nine months of the year”. It is not clear why NWMO stipulates shipments being made for only 9 months per year, but this is presumably to allow for three months of inclement weather.
However, as previously noted, meteorological data for Ignace indicate that heavy snow is possible for this region from November to March, which is five months, not three! In addition, one is left wondering what happens at the DGR site for the three months when there are no used fuel shipments. Indeed, this lack of shipments is inconsistent with NWMO’s assertion, previously noted in this email, that “10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday. I would like someone to explain how this will happen over winter, when NWMO admits there will be no used fuel shipments for at least three months each year, (December, January and February?). What will workers at the used fuel packaging plant do when there are no UFC’s to process?
Highway 17 in Northern Ontario has earned a reputation for frequent accidents, particularly involving heavy trucks. In 2022, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) reported over 9,100 collisions involving large trucks across the province, with 71 fatalities — many occurring on routes like Highway 17. Addressing the issues plaguing Highway 17 requires more than incremental fixes—it demands a transformative overhaul. Experts and residents alike stress the need for substantial investments to bring this critical corridor up to modern standards. Proposals extend far beyond doubling lanes or adding passing areas, emphasizing winter-specific design improvements, enhanced lane visibility, and the permanent operation of weigh stations with robust enforcement to eliminate unsafe vehicles. Rest stops must be expanded and maintained year-round to provide safe havens for drivers, particularly during extreme weather. Furthermore, the integration of advanced monitoring systems, including traffic cameras and real-time condition updates, is essential for proactive safety management of this Highway. Only through a comprehensive and bold approach can Highway 17 meet the safety, accessibility, and efficiency needs of the communities and industries it serves. Without such improvements to Highway 17, NWMO’s plan to build a DGR near Ignace is both reckless and potentially very dangerous!
NWMO’s nonchalant approach to the selection of a site for a used fuel DGR is deeply concerning. Just because the residents of a small northern Ontario town are willing to host a DGR does NOT make it the best possible option for Canada. And let’s remember that, once the site selection is made, it’s not just for a while, but in perpetuity!
1 This Month
23 April – WEBINAR – Why new nuclear reactors are the wrong tools for decarbonization Thursday, April 23 • 1 AM – 2 AM AEST
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (264)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 