Section Synopsis
Pages: xii-xiiiThe NWMO's Initial Project Description concludes that the Revell Site DGR is the scientifically sound, permanent solution for Canada's used nuclear fuel. It highlights the 2024 site selection based on 'informed willingness' from Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, asserting that environmental risks are low and will be managed through industry-standard mitigation and 160 years of CNSC oversight. The document acknowledges unavoidable land-use changes and potential impacts on Indigenous groups while framing the project as a critical contributor to Canada's net-zero climate goals.
Community Assessment Narrative
The document is a masterclass in 'corporate speak,' using glossy generalizations like 'permanent solution' and 'international best practices' to mask the disruptive reality for those of us in Melgund Township. While it touts the 'willingness' of host communities, it conveniently ignores the residents of Dyment and Borups Corners who live less than 10km from the site but aren't afforded 'host' status or the same veto rights. The phrase 'perceived concerns' is particularly insulting; it suggests that our fears about property values, stigma, and safety are merely psychological rather than tangible risks. The reliance on 'industry-standard mitigation' is a vague placeholder that provides no comfort to those of us who will deal with the actual dust, noise, and heavy haul traffic on our doorsteps.
Impacts on Local Recreation: The admission of 'unavoidable changes to land and resource use' and 'access restrictions' is a direct threat to the Melgund way of life. For generations, the Revell area has been our backyard for hunting, fishing, and woodcutting. The 'direct overprinting' of land means the loss of traditional ATV and snowmobile trails that connect our community to the wilderness. Furthermore, the influx of a temporary workforce and increased industrial traffic threatens the quietude of the Dyment Recreation Hall, which serves as our primary social hub. If the acoustic environment is degraded by 24/7 operations and the woods are gated off for 'security,' the very reasons people choose to live in Borups Corners—peace, privacy, and unrestricted land access—will be extinguished.
Corrective Measures & Recommendations
The NWMO must immediately move beyond the binary 'host community' model and establish a formal Melgund-specific impact agreement. This must include guaranteed, legally binding protections for local land access and a dedicated fund to upgrade the Dyment Recreation Hall and local emergency services, which will bear the brunt of increased regional activity without the tax benefits seen by Ignace.
Furthermore, the proponent must replace the dismissive 'perceived concerns' language with a rigorous, independent study on 'Stigma-Induced Economic Loss' for properties within a 20km radius of the Revell site. We need a clear definition of what 'unavoidable changes' to land use means in terms of hectares lost and specific trails closed, with a commitment to creating 'offset' recreational lands of equal quality and accessibility for local residents.
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)
There is a high degree of alignment between Melgund Township’s community findings and the IAAC Summary of Issues (SOI), particularly regarding the socio-economic exclusion of near-site communities. Melgund’s primary concern—the exclusion from the "host community" definition despite its proximity—is directly validated by the IAAC under the theme of Socio-Economic Conditions, specifically the issue titled "Distribution of economic benefits for all regional communities." The IAAC explicitly flags concerns that project-related benefits may not be equitably shared with communities outside of formal hosting agreement areas. Furthermore, Melgund’s call for a formal socio-economic baseline study is supported by the IAAC’s identified need for "community-led baseline data collection" to understand impacts across all project phases.
Melgund’s concerns regarding land use and infrastructure also find strong support in the SOI. The community’s observation of vague "access restrictions" aligns with the IAAC’s section on "Socio-economic impacts to land use," which notes the need for information on how the project affects regional access to recreation, hunting, fishing, and existing roads. Additionally, Melgund’s specific recommendation for funding to upgrade the Dyment Recreation Hall and local emergency services is mirrored in the IAAC’s "Infrastructure and Services" and "Emergency preparedness" sections. The Agency highlights the potential for an influx of workers to strain local services and specifically notes the need for adequate funding and development of emergency response plans in "rural settings" for "potentially impacted communities."
A critical alignment exists regarding the proponent’s use of the term "perceived concerns." Melgund argues this language dismisses real economic threats, a point the IAAC validates by categorizing public perception as a measurable impact. Under "Human Health and Well-Being," the IAAC lists "Psychosocial health impacts" related to public perception, and under "Socio-Economic Conditions," it identifies "Economic impacts from public perception" and "Economic impact on property value" as key issues. This supports Melgund’s recommendation that "stigma" must be treated as a rigorous socio-economic metric rather than a public relations hurdle.
A minor gap exists in the technical characterization of risk. While the IAAC’s "Project description" section mentions concerns about how "uncertainty, risk, and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures are characterized," it does not explicitly use Melgund’s specific critique of the "graded approach." Melgund’s analysis provides a more granular technical challenge by demanding specific thresholds for "significant" effects, whereas the IAAC SOI remains broader. However, Melgund’s findings serve to provide the specific evidence needed to support the IAAC’s broader call for transparency in how the proponent defines and manages long-term risk.
Key Claims
Underlying Assumptions
Critical Observations & Gaps
Analysis Table| Issue Identified | Implication | Information Required |
|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Melgund/Dyment from the 'host community' definition despite proximity. | Melgund residents may face decreased property values and increased living costs without the 'host' benefits. | A formal socio-economic baseline study specifically for Melgund Township. |
| Vague mention of 'access restrictions' and 'overprinting' of land. | Local hunters and fishers may lose access to traditional grounds or face contamination fears. | A detailed map of proposed restricted zones and a plan for recreational land replacement. |
| Reliance on a 'graded approach' to risk and licensing. | The 'graded approach' might allow for less rigorous initial standards that are hard to correct later. | Specific thresholds for what constitutes a 'significant' vs 'somewhat significant' effect. |
| Use of the term 'perceived concerns' regarding land and water use. | Community concerns are being treated as a PR problem rather than a safety or economic problem. | Recognition of 'stigma' as a measurable socio-economic impact in the Impact Statement. |
Working Group Recommendations
Challenge the Proponent's definition of the ALARA principle, specifically the text's assertion that mitigation will take 'social and economic factors into account' regarding releases to air, water, and soils.
Require a 'Self-Sufficiency Capacity Assessment' regarding the text's mention of 'access restrictions for safety and security' and potential 'releases,' specifically proving the Proponent can manage these events without relying on local services.
Contest the classification of 'perceived concerns' regarding land and water use, and mandate the inclusion of 'Stigma-Induced Economic Loss' as a distinct Valued Component.
Request detailed mapping of the 'direct overprinting of land' and 'access restrictions' mentioned in the text to identify specific conflicts with local recreational trails and harvesting areas.
Request the immediate establishment of air and water quality baseline monitoring stations specifically within the Melgund/Dyment geographic boundary.
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.