Section Synopsis
Pages: 219-221The provided text outlines the anticipated impacts of noise, vibration, and light from the construction and operation of a Deep Geological Repository (DGR). It identifies land clearing, blasting, and rail use as primary sources of these emissions. The proponent, NWMO, asserts that while these activities could initially cause moderate to high adverse effects, the application of standard mitigation measures and the project's remote location will reduce residual risks to a negligible level. Although site-specific modelling has not yet been conducted, the proponent expresses high confidence that emissions will remain well within provincial and federal regulatory limits. The text also notes that these intermediate effects will serve as inputs for assessing impacts on fish, wildlife, and Indigenous health and land use in subsequent sections.
Community Assessment Narrative
The proponent's assessment of noise, vibration, and light presents a significant methodological tension: it concludes that residual risks are 'negligible' and expresses 'high confidence' in this outcome despite explicitly stating that site-specific modelling has not yet been completed. This approach risks pre-empting the results of the scientific studies it promises to deliver. By labeling the risk as negligible before data is gathered, the text may appear to be downplaying potential impacts to streamline the approval process, which raises concerns regarding the transparency and objectivity of the Initial Project Description. Furthermore, the reliance on the project's 'remote location' as a primary justification for low impact is a subjective claim. While 10 to 12 kilometers may be distant from permanent municipal residences, this distance may be highly significant for Indigenous land users, sensitive wildlife, or specific cultural practices that require silence and darkness. The text fails to define 'sensitive receptors' beyond a narrow focus on permanent human dwellings, potentially overlooking the socio-cultural and ecological value of the existing baseline conditions in a wilderness environment. The tone is notably optimistic, emphasizing 'proven' and 'well-established' mitigation strategies without discussing the specific challenges of implementing these measures in a northern, potentially rugged terrain. This lack of critical self-reflection regarding the limitations of standard mitigation in unique environments could be perceived as a bias toward project feasibility over environmental precaution.
Corrective Measures & Recommendations
The proponent should prioritize the completion and public disclosure of preliminary noise, vibration, and light modelling before finalizing the risk screening. This modelling must account for site-specific topography, prevailing atmospheric conditions, and the cumulative impact of simultaneous construction activities. By providing data-driven evidence rather than relying on 'anticipated' outcomes, the proponent can better justify the 'high confidence' rating and ensure that the risk screening is a reflection of scientific reality rather than an optimistic projection. Additionally, the definition of 'sensitive receptors' must be expanded in consultation with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON) and the Township of Ignace. This expansion should include specific locations of traditional land use, migratory corridors, and habitats for Species at Risk (SAR). The proponent should then develop a tiered mitigation strategy that addresses the specific needs of these diverse receptors, ensuring that 'negligible risk' is defined not just by provincial decibel limits, but by the preservation of the cultural and ecological integrity of the region.
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)
Based on a cross-reference of Melgund Township’s assessment of the proponent’s Initial Project Description against the IAAC’s February 16, 2026, Summary of Issues (SOI), there is strong alignment regarding the potential impacts of physical disturbances, though the community’s analysis identifies specific methodological flaws not explicitly detailed in the federal summary. The IAAC SOI explicitly validates the community’s concerns under the section Health, social and economic conditions, specifically within the "Health effects" category, which lists concerns regarding "changes in air, water, food quality, noise, light, stress." Furthermore, Annex A of the SOI reinforces this by noting a request for "monitoring of effects during construction and operations on... blasting." This confirms that the federal agency considers Noise, Vibration, and Light (NVL) to be material issues requiring assessment, contradicting the proponent’s preliminary assertion that these risks are negligible enough to be screened out prior to detailed modeling.
However, Melgund Township’s findings highlight a critical gap in the process that the IAAC SOI touches upon only broadly. While the IAAC SOI notes concerns regarding "limited, inaccurate, or missing baseline data" under Current use of lands and resources, the community’s analysis specifically identifies that the proponent has assigned a "negligible" risk rating and "high confidence" level before conducting the necessary site-specific modeling. This supports the IAAC’s "Project description" issue in Annex A, which questions "how uncertainty, risk, and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures are characterized." The community’s finding that "sensitive receptors" are currently defined too narrowly (excluding seasonal land users) provides the necessary detail to substantiate the IAAC’s broad concern regarding "Socio-economic impacts to land use" and "Impacts to harvesting and travel."
Finally, the community’s observation that human-centric noise thresholds may bias assessments for wildlife directly supports the IAAC’s key issue under Terrestrial Wildlife and their Habitat. The SOI requests "more information on levels of disturbance, displacement, or harm." Melgund Township’s analysis clarifies that a "negligible" rating for humans does not equate to negligible impact for fauna. This validates the IAAC’s concern that the current information is insufficient to determine impacts on Species at risk, particularly regarding "indirect pathways of effects" such as sensory disturbance from light and noise.
Recommendations
To address the identified gaps in data and methodology, the working group recommends that the proponent be required to complete and publicly disclose preliminary noise, vibration, and light modeling prior to the finalization of the Environmental Impact Statement guidelines. This recommendation directly addresses the IAAC’s concern regarding "Uncertainty related to project effects" and the "Health effects" associated with noise and light. By shifting the modeling to an earlier phase in the assessment, the proponent can replace "anticipated" outcomes with empirical evidence, thereby resolving the discrepancy between their "high confidence" assertions and the lack of baseline data flagged in the SOI.
Furthermore, the working group recommends a formal expansion of the definition of "sensitive receptors" to include seasonal camps, traditional harvesting areas, and migratory corridors within the 10km buffer zone, developed in consultation with local stakeholders. This action is necessary to satisfy the IAAC’s requirement to assess "Socio-economic impacts to land use" and "Impacts to harvesting and travel." This expanded definition should inform a tiered mitigation strategy that establishes specific thresholds for wildlife, ensuring that the "Species at risk" concerns identified in the SOI are managed based on ecological sensitivity rather than standard residential noise by-laws.
Key Claims
Underlying Assumptions
Critical Observations & Gaps
Analysis Table| Issue Identified | Implication | Information Required |
|---|---|---|
| Risk screening is completed and labeled 'negligible' before noise, vibration, and light modelling is conducted. | Concluding risk levels without data undermines the scientific integrity of the impact assessment process. | Site-specific modelling results and a comparison against baseline data. |
| The definition of 'sensitive receptors' appears limited to the Township of Ignace and WLON residents, potentially excluding active land users in the 10km buffer. | Indigenous land users or seasonal residents may experience significant impacts that are ignored by a focus on 'permanent' community distances. | A comprehensive map and list of all human and cultural receptors, including seasonal camps and traditional use areas. |
| The 'negligible' rating for the intermediate component may bias the subsequent assessments for fish and wildlife. | Wildlife may be displaced or stressed by noise/light levels that are technically 'within limits' for humans but disruptive for animals. | Specific thresholds for noise and light sensitivity for the Valued Components (VCs) mentioned, such as SAR birds and fish. |
| Use of 'high confidence' and 'negligible risk' language in a preliminary document without supporting data. | The proponent may be seen as overconfident, which can damage trust with regulators and the public if modelling later shows higher-than-expected impacts. | A more cautious, evidence-based tone that acknowledges the preliminary nature of the findings. |
Working Group Recommendations
Assess the specific noise and vibration impacts of the 'rail spur' and 'access road' traffic on the quality of life for residents in Dyment and Borups Corners.
Request a specific baseline study of 'Dark Sky' quality and ambient soundscapes within the unorganized territory to quantify the current 'remote' conditions.
Reject the 'Negligible Risk' and 'High Confidence' ratings for Noise, Vibration, and Light until the Proponent completes and submits the site-specific modelling admitted to be missing in Section 19.2.3.3.2.
Challenge the Proponent's definition of 'sensitive receptors' and 'nearest community' to explicitly include residents and seasonal dwellings within the unorganized territory of Melgund (Dyment/Borups Corners).
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.