Your November 28th article in NetNewsLedger states that the siting decision “represents a critical step toward ensuring the safe, long-term storage of nuclear waste while protecting people, water, and the environment”, but fails to mention the momentous concerns held by the many opponents of the nuclear waste management project. In fact, during the 14 years of community consultations which you mention, many of the other communities the NWMO studied decided, after due consideration, that they were not willing to proceed, since they were not convinced of its safety.
Concerns include security prior to and during burial, leakage into groundwater systems after burial, and the lengthy transportation of these most toxic materials known to humankind, on our roads. Also of concern to many is the lack of a democratic process seen to date. The NWMO had stated unequivocally that they would only proceed with an “informed and willing host”, which would have to make a “compelling demonstration of willingness”.
What they got from Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, according to a November 18th statement by Chief Wetelainen, was an agreement to proceed to a “site characterization process” for NWMO’s project, and that “the yes vote does not signify approval of the project”. NWMO sought consent from only two communities: Ignace, which is actually upstream from the Revell site, and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation which is in the watershed of the chosen location.
No other communities impacted by the site selection decision were asked if they consented, and the NWMO, made up of the industry who owns and profits from the nuclear reactors, used their very deep pockets to entice first interest and then – in the case of Ignace – a semblance of willingness from economically vulnerable communities.
The NWMO states that the process was a “consent-based siting process led by Canadians and Indigenous peoples”. In fact, WLON gave a cautious endorsement to proceed to the next step of an approximate ten-year period of Impact Assessment and regulatory process. The First Nation also announced the WLON Regulatory Assessment and Approval Process (WLON-RAAP) to assess the environmental and other impacts, before a determination of “safety” can be established.
Resistance to this project is strong and will be ongoing. Grassy Narrows First Nation, also in northwestern Ontario, is upset with the decision. Grassy Narrows is grappling with generations of mercury poisoning after a mill in Dryden dumped 9,000 kilograms of the substance into the English-Wabigoon River system in the 1960s. “This decision puts the people of Grassy Narrows in grave danger,” Joseph Fobister, Grassy Narrows’ land protection team lead, said in a statement. “The transport of extremely dangerous nuclear waste and its disposal within our watershed will do irreparable destruction to our lands, rivers, and our way of life, which have already been damaged by so many harmful decisions imposed on us.”
This sentiment is shared by Grand Council Treaty #3 in a Chiefs in Council resolution, dated October 3, 2024, which makes clear that “a Deep Geological Repository for the storage of nuclear waste will not be developed at any point in the Treaty #3 Territory.”
I applaud Grand Council Treaty #3 for their stewardship and their role as guardians for our lands and water.
Currently, we have nuclear waste being stored at the sites of production, which are nuclear reactors throughout Ontario, Quebec and the eastern provinces. The spent fuel rods, which is what the waste is comprised of, are so hot and unstable after being used in the reactors, that they must stay in their existing location for up to 40 years before being buried or transported. This means that we will continue to have nuclear waste being stored all around the Great Lakes, and now we will have it being transported by truck and rail across to Northwestern Ontario for 50 years or longer. So, rather than containing it as close to the source as possible, as is internationally recommended by the Proximity Principle, it is now going to be spread around the highways of three provinces, as well as being kept at the site of production as it waits to become stable enough to transport.
If this is indeed what “making History looks like”, I for one have grave concerns for our future generations
Joan Williams
