Digging Into the Details: How Risks Are Measured
As we continue to navigate the changes proposed for our corner of Northwestern Ontario, it is vital that we understand exactly how the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) plans to measure the safety of the proposed Revell Site. For those of us living in Melgund Township, Borups Corners, and Dyment, the technical documents can feel overwhelming. Today, we are looking specifically at the ‘Impact Assessment’ methodology—essentially, the rulebook the proponent uses to decide if a risk is ‘safe enough’ for our families and the environment.
What We Are Learning
The NWMO has outlined a three-step process called ‘Pathways of Change.’ Think of it as a flowchart for predicting the future. First, they identify how the project might change the environment (like noise or water flow). Second, they apply ‘mitigation measures’—fixes designed to stop those changes, often drawn from standard industry practices. Finally, they look at what risk is left over (residual risk) using a colour-coded matrix to decide if it is acceptable.
Interestingly, the document states that during construction, the Deep Geological Repository will be built using ‘conventional mining techniques.’ Because of this, they plan to use safety measures already approved for gold mines in the region, such as the Goliath and Hardrock Gold Projects.
The Reality Check
When we look closer at these plans, we have to weigh what is being promised against what we need to verify.
- What is being promised: The proponent claims that because they are digging rock, the environmental effects are the same as a standard mine. They argue that mitigation measures used for local gold mines are sufficient for the Revell Site.
- What we need to verify: A gold mine is designed to extract ore and often creates significant disturbance. A DGR is designed to isolate radioactive material for thousands of years. We need to verify if ‘standard mining’ safety protocols are truly enough when the goal is absolute, long-term containment, not just extraction.
The Path Forward
In reviewing the methodology, we identified a significant gap. The current Impact Assessment framework treats the construction of a nuclear facility too similarly to a conventional mine. This is a concern because the rock at the Revell Site needs to remain far more stable than the rock in a gold mine.
The Solution: We are calling for a specialized comparative analysis. The NWMO needs to clearly list the specific differences between conventional mining and DGR construction, particularly regarding rock stability and long-term containment. We cannot rely on gold mine precedents alone. Furthermore, the document mentions that previous projects failed due to a lack of ‘social license.’ To avoid history repeating itself, we need a clear, written definition of what ‘community consent’ actually looks like for us, rather than vague promises of building trust.
Why It Matters Here
For residents in Borups Corners and Dyment, this isn’t just paperwork. If the project uses standard mining buffers, will that protect our hunting grounds and the quiet enjoyment of our properties? If they use standard water management for mines, will it protect the specific watersheds we rely on for fishing? We need to ensure that the unique lifestyle of Northwestern Ontario is protected by standards higher than those of a temporary gold mine.
Have Your Say
This affects our future. Submit your feedback on this specific issue via our Engage page to ensure the Impact Assessment Agency hears from our community.
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 accepted until February 4, 2026. Submissions help shape the formal impact assessment guidelines.
This short article and summary is based on 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
