No Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project without Comprehensive Impact Assessment

While proponents argue DGRs are the “best available option,” there are significant unresolved risks and uncertainties.

Key Risks and Concerns of Storing Nuclear Waste Underground

1. Extremely Long Time Horizons

• Used nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for up to 1 million years

• No human-made structure has ever been proven to last safely for even a fraction of that time

• Predicting geological, climate, and societal conditions over such timescales is inherently uncertain

Concern: Future generations bear the risk without having benefited from the energy produced.

2. Groundwater Contamination

• Water is the primary pathway by which radioactive materials could migrate

• Even “stable” rock formations contain fractures and groundwater flow

• Container corrosion, seismic activity, or unexpected hydrogeological changes could allow radionuclides to escape

Risk: Long-term contamination of drinking water, rivers, lakes, and ecosystems — potentially irreversible.

3. Uncertainty in Geological Stability

• Geological systems are complex and not fully predictable

• Risks include:

  • Earthquakes

  • Rock fracturing

  • Glacial cycles (Canada is expected to experience future ice ages)

  • Changes in groundwater pressure and flow

Concern: Models are based on assumptions that may not hold over geological timescales.

4. Container and Engineered Barrier Failure

• DGR safety relies on multiple engineered barriers (metal containers, clay buffers, rock)

• All materials degrade over time:

  • Metal corrodes

  • Clay can crack or erode

  • Heat from waste can alter surrounding rock

Risk: Once barriers fail, radioactive material may begin migrating — and cannot be recalled.

5. Irretrievability

• Many DGR designs assume waste will eventually be sealed permanently

• If problems emerge after closure, retrieval may be impossible or extremely dangerous

Concern: Permanent burial removes the option for future generations to respond to new knowledge or technologies.

6. Indigenous Rights and Consent

• Many proposed DGR sites are on or near Indigenous lands and waters

• Concerns include:

  • Inadequate consultation

  • Pressure on communities to accept risk

  • Impacts on treaty rights, cultural practices, and sacred relationships with land and water

Issue: Ethical and legal concerns around free, prior, and informed consent.

7. Human Error and Institutional Failure

• DGR safety assumes:

  • Continuous institutional control

  • Accurate record-keeping

  • Long-term political and economic stability

Reality: No institution has ever managed a hazardous material successfully over such timescales.

8. Security and Future Human Intrusion

• Future generations may:

  • Forget the site’s danger

  • Misinterpret warning markers

  • Intentionally or accidentally drill or excavate

Risk: Human intrusion could expose people and the environment to radiation.

9. Transportation Risks

• Nuclear waste must be transported across large distances to reach the DGR

• Risks include:

  • Accidents

  • Spills

  • Sabotage or terrorism

Concern: Communities along transport routes bear risk without receiving benefits.

10. Ethical and Intergenerational Justice Issues

• DGRs do not eliminate waste — they defer risk into the future

• Future generations cannot consent, yet must manage consequences

Core ethical question: Is it justifiable to create permanent hazards beyond our ability to monitor or repair?

DGRs are presented as a permanent solution, but in reality they are an irreversible experiment with no real-world proof over the timescales required.