Who Decides Who Is Willing?
As we look out over the quiet landscape of Northwestern Ontario, many of us in Melgund Township, Borups Corners, and Dyment are trying to make sense of the latest updates regarding the Revell Site.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) recently shared details about their federal mandate and the progress of the Deep Geological Repository project. While the paperwork moves forward in Ottawa, we are left wondering how these high-level decisions translate to the reality of living right next door to a proposed nuclear waste site.
Our communities have often been left out of decisions that have enormous impacts on us for the simple, and quite unfair reason that we are “not municipalities.” So then, what defines a “community” and how does that factor into understanding what it means to be “willing?”
The Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3’s comments on the IAAC’s Summary of Issues also raise similar and serious questions:
“The Nation’s IPD Comments to the Agency expressed concern that a key aspect of site selection by NWMO was identifying the Township of Ignace as a “host community”. As early as 2008, NWMO recognized that this term had no definition. NWMO still lacks any definition of this term. Somehow, the IPD provides that the Township of Ignace is the host municipal community for this Project.
However, the Project is more than 40 km outside the municipal boundary of this Township. The Township therefore lacks any municipal regulatory authority over this Project. The Nation expressed concern over this fundamental point, yet the Agency’s SOI does not mention this Issue with the Township.
The Nation also expressed concern that the Township was not a “jurisdiction” within the meaning of the IAA, but the Summary of Issues also ignores this concern.”
What We Are Learning
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization explains that their path was set back in 2007 when the federal government chose their specific plan for managing used nuclear fuel. According to their documents, the site selection process is now considered ‘satisfied’ because they have received the ‘willingness’ of proximate communities.
They also point to a 2024 parliamentary vote as proof of broad support for the Deep Geological Repository as the safest method for long-term waste management. But one parliamentary vote is not an appropriate method of measuring willingness or social license.
Essentially, the NWMO suggests that the major decisions have been made, and they are now moving into detailed licensing and site characterization.
The Reality Check
What is being promised: The NWMO claims that the Impact Assessment process is built on a foundation of ‘social acceptability’ and that the ‘willingness’ of the community has been confirmed.
A key question to consider: Do Ignace and WLON have the right to impose their “willingness” (whatever that means) on others? We’d like to know what people think about this.
What we need to verify: The term ‘willingness’ remains vaguely defined, if at all. While the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation are always mentioned, the voices of those in the unorganized territories of Borups Corners and Dyment—who live less than 10 kilometers from the Revell Site—seem to be missing from the ‘willingness’ equation.
Many other communities, too numerous to list here, who also share the watershed and transportation corridors also appear to be missing a voice in the process.
Furthermore, the technical justification for this project relies heavily on a study from 2007; we need to know if those 17-year-old conclusions still hold up against today’s environmental standards. With site characterization studies now moving forward, it’s important communities speak up and raise their concerns.
The Path Forward
Several reports and public comments noted a significant gap in how ‘willingness’ is measured and verified, particularly for those of us in unorganized townships without a formal municipal council to speak for us.
Therefore, we are calling for a comprehensive ‘Willingness Framework’ that clearly defines the metrics used to judge community support. We also see gaps in the evidence regarding how Traditional Knowledge has actually changed the project’s design, particularly from Indigenous nations who also share the waters that flow from here into Manitoba and northwards to Hudson Bay.
Solutions should include specific, transparent examples of how local and Indigenous input has and will result in tangible changes to engineering or environmental monitoring. We believe a ‘Gap Analysis’ is needed that compares the 2007 mandate against 2024 standards to ensure this is still the safest path for Northwestern Ontario and for our neighbours across the watershed.
Why It Matters Here
This isn’t just about policy; it’s about ways of life. For those of who value the silence of the bush, the safety of our local aquifers, and the ability to hunt and fish without the shadow of a Deep Geological Repository, the definition of ‘willingness’ is everything. If the Revell Site is expanded to include other types of radioactive waste, as recent federal strategies suggest, the impact on communities like ours in Melgund Township and across the Northwestern Ontario region could be even greater than originally discussed.
We all deserve to know that our regional waters and safety are not being traded for a ‘satisfied’ milestone in a corporate report. And we believe two communities should not be speaking for all.
Have Your Say
What do you think about these issues? This affects our future — and yours. Submit your comments to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s public registry today.
The Melgund Integrated Nuclear Impact Assessment Project
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) is reviewing the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) at the Revell Site, located near Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation in Northwestern Ontario.
This major nuclear infrastructure project is undergoing a joint federal review by the IAAC and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to evaluate environmental, health, social, and Indigenous rights impacts over its projected 160-year lifecycle.
Public Feedback Open: Comments on the Initial Project Description are still being accepted. Submissions help shape the formal impact assessment guidelines.
This short article and summary is based on our project’s views from an initial analysis of a proponent’s initial project description. It does not represent, any community the NWMO or the Government of Canada. Learn more at the Melgund Integrated Nuclear Impact Assessment Project project page.
About the Author
