Opposing nuclear waste dump proposal

I am writing to formally request that the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s used nuclear fuel be subject to a full federal Impact Assessment, and that the current public comment process be extended.

This proposal presents significant long-term risks to Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario communities, watersheds, and future generations that are not adequately addressed in the Initial Project Description.

The proposed site in Revell Township is located at the headwaters of the Wabigoon and Rainy/Turtle River watersheds, which ultimately drain into Lake Winnipeg. Any contamination, whether through accidents, groundwater migration, or long-term repository failure, would have irreversible downstream consequences across provincial boundaries.

The project timeline of approximately 160 years, combined with the reality that nuclear fuel remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years, raises serious concerns about intergenerational responsibility and long-term containment integrity. Claims that this project will “eliminate the need for future generations to actively manage used nuclear fuel” are contradicted by the proponent’s own acknowledgement that it supports the continued role of nuclear energy, which will generate additional waste requiring future management.

Of particular concern is the exclusion of nuclear waste transportation from the project scope. Transporting approximately five truckloads of high-level radioactive waste per day for 40 years over some of the most dangerous highway routes in Canada presents clear risks to public safety, air quality, and water systems. Transportation, handling, and repackaging of nuclear waste are integral to the project and must be publicly assessed as part of any credible impact assessment.

The public consultation timeline is also inadequate given the technical complexity, geographic scale, and permanence of the risks involved. Meaningful public participation requires sufficient time for independent review and informed input.

Finally, the framing of this project as necessary for climate action is misleading. Nuclear energy is costly, slow to deploy, produces pollution throughout its lifecycle, creates unresolved waste liabilities, and does not offer a timely solution to the climate crisis compared to safer, renewable alternatives.

Given the scale, duration, and irreversible consequences of this proposal, I strongly urge the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to:

• Require a full federal Impact Assessment

• Include transportation, handling, and repackaging of nuclear waste within the project scope

• Extend the public comment period to allow for meaningful public and Indigenous participation

This project poses risks that far exceed what can be responsibly evaluated through a limited review process.

Thank you for considering these concerns.