Section Synopsis
Pages: 441-444This report details the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's (NWMO) engagement activities for the Initial Project Description (IPD) of the Deep Geological Repository project. It describes the methodology, tools, and communication strategies used to gather public feedback in Ignace and Dryden, Ontario, during the summer of 2025. The document outlines the use of in-person workshops, virtual webinars, and digital polling to inform project design and regulatory submissions, while noting that Indigenous engagement is documented separately.
Community Assessment Narrative
The report presents a highly procedural account of engagement, prioritizing the 'how' of the process over the 'what' of the outcomes. While the NWMO emphasizes transparency and respect, the narrative is characterized by a significant disconnect between outreach efforts and actual participation. The claim that the communication campaign 'effectively raised public awareness' is supported by a metric of 2.2 million digital impressions, yet this translated to only 89 total participants across eight events. This discrepancy raises questions about the quality of the 'impressions' and whether the outreach strategy successfully reached the intended local audience or merely generated high-volume digital traffic without meaningful conversion.
Furthermore, the report adopts a somewhat self-congratulatory tone regarding its methodology, using tools like Mentimeter and Zoom to suggest a modern, participatory approach. However, the exclusion of Indigenous perspectives from this specific consolidated report creates a fragmented view of the regional social landscape. By siloing 'Public' and 'Indigenous' feedback, the proponent risks overlooking the intersections of social, cultural, and environmental concerns that define the local context. The document functions more as a log of activities than a critical reflection on community sentiment, leaving the reader with little understanding of the actual level of public support or the specific nature of the concerns raised by the 89 attendees.
Corrective Measures & Recommendations
The proponent should perform a detailed evaluation of the engagement gap to determine why a campaign reaching millions resulted in fewer than 100 participants. This evaluation should investigate potential barriers to participation, such as 'engagement fatigue,' the timing of sessions, or a lack of trust in the process. To demonstrate true transparency, the NWMO should provide a demographic breakdown of participants to ensure that the feedback collected represents a diverse and inclusive cross-section of the regional population, rather than a narrow group of already-engaged stakeholders.
Additionally, future iterations of this report should include a cross-referenced thematic analysis that integrates findings from both public and Indigenous engagement streams. While the processes for these groups may differ, the impacts on land, water, and socio-economic structures are shared. Providing a unified summary of regional priorities and conflicting viewpoints would allow the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to better understand the cumulative social impact and ensure that the project design reflects a holistic understanding of the community's needs.
On 16 February, 2026 the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), with input from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), published a Summary of Issues (SOI) for the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project, put forward by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). The SOI identifies the key issues that IAAC considers relevant to the federal integrated impact assessment process for the project. NWMO’s response to the SOI will assist IAAC in determining whether an impact assessment is required under section 16 of the Impact Assessment Act. If an impact assessment is required, the issues outlined in the SOI—together with NWMO’s response—will help shape the scope of the assessment and inform the continued development and finalization of the Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and associated plans.
Alignments to IAAC Summary (SOI)
The community findings from Melgund Township demonstrate a strong alignment with several key themes identified in the IAAC Summary of Issues (SOI), particularly regarding the adequacy and inclusivity of the proponent’s engagement process. The Township’s observation of a "significant discrepancy" between advertising reach and actual participation (89 participants out of 2.2 million impressions) provides empirical weight to the concerns raised in the IAAC SOI under Annex A: Public Engagement and Communication. The IAAC highlights a need for "clear, accessible, plain-language, and inclusive communications," and Melgund’s identification of a "digital divide" caused by heavy reliance on tools like Mentimeter and Zoom validates the Agency’s concern that current engagement may not be sufficiently inclusive of all demographic groups, such as older residents or those with limited connectivity.
Furthermore, Melgund Township’s critique regarding the "siloing" of Indigenous and non-Indigenous feedback aligns with the IAAC’s broad requirement for the proponent to understand how the project affects the regional social fabric. While the IAAC SOI separates Indigenous Peoples into a dedicated section, it also emphasizes the need to address "cumulative social impacts" and "community cohesion" under Socio-Economic Conditions. Melgund’s finding that the exclusion of Indigenous concerns from consolidated public reports prevents a holistic understanding supports the IAAC’s interest in how the project impacts "shared water bodies" and "regional land use," which are issues that transcend jurisdictional or community boundaries.
There is also a notable alignment regarding the lack of specificity in stakeholder feedback. Melgund Township noted that while the proponent listed involved sectors like health and education, it failed to detail their specific concerns. This directly supports the IAAC’s identified issues under Infrastructure and Services, where the Agency notes concerns regarding the "adequacy of mitigation measures" and the "effects of temporary workers on services." Without the granular, sector-specific feedback identified as a gap by Melgund, the proponent cannot adequately address the IAAC’s requirement to assess the "long-term planning for services and infrastructure" or the "distribution of economic benefits."
Recommendations
The working group recommendations focus on closing the "engagement gap" by requiring the proponent to conduct a formal evaluation of why high-volume outreach failed to translate into meaningful local participation. This recommendation is designed to address the IAAC’s concerns in Annex A regarding the transparency of historic engagement. By demanding a demographic breakdown of participants, the Township aims to ensure that the "inclusive communications" mandated by the IAAC are actually achieved, moving beyond "impressions" to ensure that a diverse cross-section of the regional population is represented in the project’s design and regulatory submissions.
Additionally, the recommendation for an integrated thematic analysis—combining public and Indigenous engagement findings—is essential for addressing the IAAC’s focus on Cumulative Effects and Social Cohesion. The working group suggests that the proponent must move away from siloed reporting to provide a unified summary of regional priorities. This approach directly supports the IAAC’s need to understand the "intergenerational" and "regional" impacts of the DGR, ensuring that the project’s social and economic baseline data is not only community-led but also reflects the interconnected reality of all residents in the impact area.
Key Claims
Underlying Assumptions
Critical Observations & Gaps
Analysis Table| Issue Identified | Implication | Information Required |
|---|---|---|
| Significant discrepancy between advertising reach and actual engagement participation. | The low participation rate (89 people) relative to the high outreach volume (2.2M impressions) may indicate a lack of deep community interest or ineffective targeting. | An analysis of why the conversion rate from 'impressions' to 'participation' was so low. |
| Indigenous engagement is excluded from this consolidated report. | Siloing Indigenous feedback prevents a holistic understanding of how the project affects the regional social fabric. | A summary of how Indigenous and non-Indigenous concerns intersect or diverge. |
| Potential digital divide in engagement methodology. | Heavy reliance on digital tools like Mentimeter and Zoom may exclude older residents or those in areas with poor connectivity. | Data on the accessibility of these tools for the local demographic. |
| The report lists sectors involved (e.g., health, education) but does not detail their specific feedback. | Without knowing what these sectors specifically raised, the impact on local infrastructure and services remains vague. | A thematic summary of concerns and suggestions categorized by stakeholder sector. |
Working Group Recommendations
Request a specific accessibility audit of engagement methodologies for residents of unorganized territories, focusing on the digital divide and the physical distance to hubs like Ignace and Dryden.
Demand the integration of local land-use and hydrological knowledge into the baseline studies for the waterways and geography identified in the Proponent's site maps.
Challenge the Proponent to demonstrate 100% self-sufficiency for emergency response (Fire, Medical, and Security) for the Project site and associated transportation corridors, rather than relying on regional hubs.
Understanding the Impacts of Nuclear Waste on our Community
This digital archive houses the public comments submitted to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada regarding Project 88774: The Nuclear Waste Management Organization Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project. The impact assessment is led jointly by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This archive preserves community perspectives, concerns, and observations shared during the assessment process, particularly in relation to Melgund Township, Northwestern Ontario and the communities of Dyment and Borups Corners who are the closest and most impacted of all in the process.