Assessment of IAAC Public Comments

Stance: Opposed. The commenter rejects the proposal due to the unsuitability of two-lane highways for waste transport and suggests that alternative waste management solutions should continue to be investigated rather than proceeding with the current plan.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter criticizes the site selection process for excluding downstream residents from voting and expresses concerns regarding the project's impact on local healthcare capacity, municipal infrastructure, water quality monitoring, and the technical details of container retrieval.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter is concerned about the safety of raising a family near the site, citing dangerous highway conditions, limited local resources for emergency response or healthcare, and the lack of global precedent for successful long-term nuclear waste storage.

Stance: Opposed. Drawing on a background in chemistry, the commenter expresses deep concern over the long-term containment of radioactive materials and the potential for soil and water contamination, emphasizing a moral responsibility to protect future generations from environmental disaster.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter expresses deep concern regarding highway safety and environmental protection but focuses on the need for transparency, rigorous safety standards, and the consideration of all transportation options to reassure residents living along the travel route.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter characterizes the project as short-sighted and warns of inevitable spills that would cause long-term environmental damage, health issues such as cancer, and permanent harm to the region's reputation for untouched nature.

Stance: Support. The commenter argues that society must take responsibility for the nuclear waste generated by electricity demand and views deep geological burial as the most responsible and safe current alternative to surface storage, while praising the willingness of host communities.

The commenter is opposed to the project, expressing deep concern over the proximity of their property to the proposed site. Key issues include the lack of guarantees regarding liability for contamination, potential health impacts, the risk to the downstream water table, and the perceived unfairness of financial compensation being limited to the host town of Ignace while neighboring property owners face declining land values.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter presents a broad critique of the nuclear industry and its perceived lack of accountability, questioning the technical integrity of the DGR's multi-barrier system and advocating for "rolling stewardship" at the point of origin rather than abandonment.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter provides an extensive list of concerns regarding transportation safety, including the need for police escorts, specialized driver training, and emergency response protocols, while arguing that the impact assessment guidelines are currently insufficient and must include long-distance transport details.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter raises concerns about the safety of long-distance waste transportation through North Bay and other northern communities, citing high truck accident statistics and a lack of detailed emergency response, socioeconomic impact planning, and rigorous research in the draft guidelines.

Stance: Support. The commenter expresses frustration with protesters and advocates for moving forward with the project, citing economic benefits for Ignace and a belief that opposition lacks scientific merit and serves only to cause unnecessary delays.

The commenter is opposed to the project, citing significant concerns regarding the protection of downstream waters and the safety of transportation routes. Key issues include the perceived exploitation of Northern Ontario for Southern Ontario's waste, the potential for widespread watershed contamination affecting Manitoba and the Hudson Bay, and the ethical concern that local communities and First Nations are being unfairly influenced by funding.

The commenter is opposed to the project, arguing that the consultation process was strategically limited and should include all communities along the 1,700 km transport route. Key issues include the environmental impact of the project's carbon footprint, the risks associated with transporting radioactive waste over frequently closed highways, and the lack of a proven track record for deep geological repositories.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter insists that transportation must be included in the impact assessment, raising questions about emergency responder training, remediation plans, financial compensation for accidents, and the potential for downwind radioactive exposure.

Chief Lynn Indian expresses opposition on behalf of the Musk-kosiminiziibing community, citing concerns over the unprecedented nature of the DGR and the site selection process. Key issues include the exclusion of long-distance transportation from the review, the need for more detailed project descriptions regarding waste packaging and monitoring, potential impacts on downstream water sources, and the legal requirement for Free, Prior, and Informed Consent under UNDRIP.

The commenter is strongly opposed, characterizing the proposal as criminal and a misuse of funds. The primary issue is the perceived injustice of using Northwestern Ontario as a "dumping ground" for waste produced in Southern Ontario, suggesting that the waste should be managed at its point of origin to save transportation costs.

The commenter expresses an opposed stance toward nuclear expansion unless it is accompanied by waste reduction and transparent cost accounting. Key issues include the need for investment in alternative technologies like thorium and the neutralization of nuclear waste rather than the proposed storage method.

The commenter maintains a neutral but concerned stance, focusing on technical environmental risks. Primary issues raised include potential rock waste acidification, chemical leaching from blasting into soil and water, and the specific monitoring and mitigation protocols for pH level exceedances.

The commenter takes a neutral stance, focusing on the procedural aspects of public engagement. Key issues include the spread of misinformation, the inconvenience of event timing for working individuals, and a perceived lack of effective communication and notice from the NWMO to the broader public.

The commenter is opposed to the project, specifically objecting to the transport of nuclear waste to Northern Ontario. Major concerns involve the safety of northern highways during winter and the perceived lack of training for truck drivers, concluding that waste should remain at its point of origin.

The commenter, a medical doctor and former mayor, is opposed to the project due to numerous technical and safety concerns. Key issues include the porosity of the Canadian Shield, the long-term feasibility of water monitoring and pumping, potential health impacts from radioactive contamination, transportation risks on Highways 11 and 69, and the lack of a proven plan for marking the site for future generations.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter views highway transportation of nuclear waste as a high-risk endeavor due to existing traffic issues, wildlife, and a lack of passing lanes, warning that a spill would have catastrophic consequences for surrounding communities and wilderness areas.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter opposes the DGR due to the high probability of transportation accidents on dangerous highway stretches and the potential for a containment breach to threaten the Lake Winnipeg watershed and all inhabitants downstream.

The commenter expresses opposition to the project, emphasizing that transporting nuclear waste increases risks to the environment and public health. Key issues include the potential threat to wildlife and a preference for government investment in safer, alternative energy sources rather than long-term nuclear waste storage.

The commenter is opposed to the DGR, highlighting the lack of a track record for such projects and questioning the stability of the rock after extensive blasting. Major issues include the risks of transporting waste over 1,700 miles of accident-prone highways, the need for Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous groups, and a critique of the nuclear industry's motives, including the potential for plutonium separation and the high cost of nuclear power compared to renewables.

The commenter, a Manitoba resident, is opposed to the project due to its location on the Winnipeg watershed and the potential for radioactive contamination. Key issues include the inadequacy of the 30-day comment period, concerns over long-term monitoring for future generations, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transporting waste, and the perceived inaccuracy of claims that the project supports climate change goals.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter highlights significant risks associated with transporting nuclear waste on single-lane Northern Ontario highways prone to accidents and closures, emphasizing the potential for human error and catastrophic watershed contamination.

The commenter is opposed to the project and the nuclear industry as a whole, arguing that nuclear power is not clean or safe due to the dangerous waste it produces. Primary issues include the risks of transporting waste on unsafe roads, a lack of public transparency regarding transportation regulations, and the feeling that the concerns of residents in low-population areas are being ignored by a wealthy industry.

The commenter is opposed to the project, focusing specifically on the dangers of transporting radioactive material. The key issue raised is the high frequency of accidents on the single-lane stretch of Highway 17 in Northwestern Ontario, which passes through numerous towns and near many lakes, making safe transport seem impossible to ensure.

Opposed. Drawing on experience as an emergency service worker, the commenter argues that nuclear waste should remain at its current locations to avoid the dangers of long-distance transportation on Northern Ontario's highways. The assessment highlights concerns regarding the inherent risks of highway transport and the potential for delayed emergency responses to accidents involving hazardous materials.

Opposed. The commenter requests that the impact assessment include a detailed transportation plan with clear emergency protocols for accidents and spills. They argue that permanent storage at existing nuclear facilities should be more thoroughly explored as a safer alternative to transporting dangerous materials over unpredictable northern roads. Additionally, they express concern over potential radiological contamination of the Waubaushene watershed and the risks associated with transferring waste into permanent storage containers at the Revell site.

Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the draft guidelines, specifically citing a lack of detail on long-term radioactive containment, potential impacts on local watersheds, and the protection of Indigenous rights. Key issues include the risk of container corrosion, seismic activity, the safety of long-distance waste transportation, and the need for robust post-closure monitoring beyond the 160-year project lifespan.

Opposed. The commenter objects to Northwestern Ontario being used as a disposal site for waste generated in Southern Ontario, characterizing the site selection process as a form of bribery. Major concerns are raised regarding the safety of transporting nuclear waste over highways prone to frequent accidents and the perceived political marginalization of small northern communities.

Opposed. The commenter states that the risks to human health and the environment outweigh potential benefits and advocates for the development of non-nuclear energy technologies. Key issues include the need for a comprehensive safety case within the current Impact Assessment, a full examination of long-distance transportation risks, and the inclusion of social, psychological, and emotional impacts. They also emphasize the requirement for Free, Prior, and Informed Consent from Indigenous peoples and communities along the transport route.

Opposed. Writing as an Indigenous woman, the commenter vehemently opposes the burial and transport of nuclear waste through traditional territories, citing the potential for catastrophic contamination of watersheds and harm to future generations. The assessment criticizes the exclusion of affected communities from the impact assessment and characterizes the site selection process as a struggle against the nuclear industry's financial influence.

Opposed. The commenter rejects the proposed locations in Northwestern Ontario, citing the high rate of accidents on regional highways as a primary barrier to safe transportation. The assessment suggests that waste should be stored at a location that does not require such extensive transport distances.

Opposed. The commenter provides a detailed critique of the project's ethics, suggesting that financial agreements with host communities may violate the Canadian Criminal Code regarding bribery. Technical and economic concerns are also raised, specifically the high cost and safety risks of transporting waste 1,700 km through severe winter weather, questioning why sites closer to the waste's origin were rejected.

Opposed. The commenter expresses extreme distrust in the safety of waste transportation, citing concerns over truck driver training and the high rate of existing highway fatalities. Additionally, the assessment highlights the risk of a leak contaminating the watershed that flows toward the Arctic, potentially creating a long-term environmental catastrophe.

Opposed. Writing as a resident of Dryden, the commenter demands formal recognition of their municipality as an affected party and calls for a legally binding transportation risk assessment. They raise concerns regarding existential risks, property value protection, and the need for a comprehensive insurance and liability framework for residents outside the immediate host community. The commenter argues that those forced to bear the risks should have a binding say in the project, rather than just the small host community.

Opposed. The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed use of transport trucks, citing risks related to northern road conditions, driver fatigue, and the high volume of shipments. They advocate for dedicated rail transportation as a safer, more manageable alternative that could include on-board safety experts and avoid population centers. The commenter suggests that the nuclear industry should fund any necessary rail infrastructure, which could also provide regional benefits for passenger travel.

Opposed. The commenter argues that siting a nuclear waste repository upstream from Grassy Narrows First Nation is unconscionable given the community's history of industrial mercury poisoning. The assessment emphasizes that the proposed location is inappropriate and disrespectful to the affected Indigenous community, urging the rejection of the project based on site selection.

Opposed. The commenter questions the safety and economic feasibility of transporting waste thousands of miles, citing harsh winter weather and a lack of specialized emergency personnel in Northern Ontario. The assessment highlights concerns over the use of financial incentives to influence community consent and suggests exploring above-ground storage at existing waste sites as a safer, more cost-effective alternative.

Opposed. The commenter characterizes the project as reckless endangerment, citing a high rate of highway accidents and a lack of trust in regulatory authorities following a recent local pesticide spill. The assessment emphasizes that the proponent has failed to provide sufficient safety reassurances to the local population.

Opposed. The commenter expresses a lack of confidence in the safety of the proposal for future generations, primarily due to the long half-life of nuclear waste. Key issues include the risks of highway and railway transportation, with a stated preference for keeping waste on-site or transitioning to non-nuclear power sources.

Opposed. The commenter expresses strong reservations about the safety of burying nuclear waste and the potential for catastrophic environmental impacts. A primary concern is the risk associated with transporting waste through communities along Highway 11 that have not been consulted and lack the resources to manage a radioactive spill resulting from frequent highway accidents.

Opposed. The commenter highlights the failure of current guidelines to address transportation safety for the entire route, specifically noting the increased vulnerability of wheelchair users and the lack of emergency infrastructure in small communities. The assessment calls for a halt to nuclear expansion in favor of safer, less costly energy alternatives and demands a more rigorous impact assessment focused on prevention rather than mitigation.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the draft guidelines are inadequate, specifically citing insufficient time for public participation and a reliance on outdated assessments for project alternatives. Key concerns include the limited geographic scope of transportation impact studies, the need for federal jurisdiction over the entire transport route, and a lack of detail regarding the Used Fuel Packaging Plant and radiological risks to workers. Additionally, the commenter emphasizes that greenhouse gas emissions from waste transportation must be included in the climate change assessment.

Opposed. The commenter is opposed to the project, specifically citing concerns about transporting hazardous materials on Highway 17 and the potential for landfill-related contamination. The primary issue raised is the protection of water resources, which the commenter identifies as essential to life.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the burial of high-level nuclear waste is globally untested and that alternatives, such as improved long-term storage at existing reactor sites, must be updated and fully explored. A major focus is placed on the necessity of a rigorous transportation risk assessment, given the long distances and numerous communities involved, asserting that transportation is an inseparable and high-risk component of the project.

Opposed. The commenter highlights that the DGR concept is globally unproven and requires independent expert review and public hearings for all impacted communities, including those along transportation routes. Significant concerns are raised regarding Northern Ontario highway conditions and the adequacy of current transportation regulations for high-level waste. The assessment must thoroughly examine emergency response capabilities, container safety, and the potential radiological exposure to first responders and local residents.

Opposed. This Indigenous commenter challenges the validity of the consent process, arguing that financial incentives have compromised "free, prior, and informed consent." Technical concerns include the lack of real-world testing for waste containers, potential radionuclide emissions from ventilation systems, and the risk of groundwater contamination, ultimately advocating for "rolling stewardship" at the point of production instead of permanent burial.

Opposed. The commenter is not convinced that current impact assessments have addressed all potential dangers, particularly the risks associated with the high frequency of waste shipments over long distances. The assessment calls for an unbiased, trustworthy review of the project's safety claims.

Opposed. The commenter advocates for in-situ storage at reactor sites to avoid the risks of transporting toxic waste through small communities and along vulnerable highways. They raise concerns about radiation exposure, the ethical challenge of warning future generations, and the potential for catastrophic environmental contamination affecting wildlife and ecosystems. The commenter argues that the DGR represents an irreversible intrusion into natural landscapes and an unjust burden on future societies, calling for a transparent and rigorous assessment process that includes the informed consent of Indigenous peoples.

Opposed. The commenter characterizes the 30-day comment period as disrespectful and undemocratic, calling for a suspension of the assessment in favor of broader public consultation and funding for intervenors. Major issues raised include the lack of a robust transportation safety analysis and the omission of mental health impacts, such as transgenerational trauma and PTSD, which could result from the stress of living near a nuclear waste site or transport route.

Opposed. As a resident along the potential transport route, the commenter questions the necessity of moving waste over long distances and demands that the impact statement include a detailed transportation program. They also call for more specific information on project activities, including the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, underground waste transfer methods, post-emplacement monitoring, and procedures for waste retrieval or repair in the event of container failure.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the excessively short 30-day comment period for such a complex proposal and identifies a lack of specific detail in the draft guidelines. Major concerns include inadequate information regarding used fuel packaging, underground waste transfer, post-placement monitoring, and potential releases to air and water. They specifically request that the impact statement be strengthened to include a comprehensive analysis of long-distance transportation risks rather than just local impacts.

Opposed. The commenter advocates for secure long-term storage at reactor sites to avoid the risks of transporting toxic waste 1,700 km through small communities. Key concerns include the safety of major transit routes like Highway 11, the health impacts of low-level radiation exposure, and the ethical challenge of communicating repository dangers to future generations. They call for a rigorous, science-based assessment process that prioritizes the prevention of impacts and requires the informed consent of all affected communities and Indigenous peoples.

Opposed. Residing on the transportation route, the commenter is concerned about the potential destruction of physical and cultural habitats and views the project as an experiment with disastrous implications. They demand rigorous evidence for the safety of all environments along the transport route and request a detailed assessment of storage alternatives that do not require long-distance transportation or deep geological burial.

Opposed. The commenter focuses on the high risk of transporting nuclear waste along the shores of Lake Superior, citing frequent highway accidents and train derailments in the region. They challenge the NWMO's claim of community support, noting that support for the "process" is not the same as support for the "project," and argue that international comparisons to Sweden and Finland are invalid because those repositories are located near the reactors rather than thousands of kilometers away.

Opposed. The commenter cites a failure in the duty to consult with Indigenous groups like Grand Council Treaty 3 and Nishnawbe Aski Nation. They raise safety concerns regarding increased traffic on the undivided Highway 11 and question the long-term security and maintenance of the facility to prevent groundwater contamination. Furthermore, the commenter argues that the project lacks long-term economic benefits for Northwestern Ontario and fails to address the region's underfunding in healthcare and infrastructure.

Support. The commenter supports fast-tracking specific project facilities, such as road improvements and the exploration shaft, to gain technical knowledge and address safety concerns early in the process. They argue that starting these activities now would provide valuable data on rock fracturing, water leaching, and social impacts, potentially saving billions of dollars if the project is later rejected. The stance is focused on utilizing early-stage work to validate the safety case and observe real-world impacts on local communities.

Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding long-term environmental risks to water and land, emphasizing the need for full transparency and a detailed project description covering transportation, DGR design, and monitoring. Key issues include the safety of long-distance radioactive waste transport, the psychological impacts of social division, and the necessity of obtaining Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous communities. They argue for a rigorous assessment process focused on preventing impacts rather than just mitigating them.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the review process is rushed and that the draft guidelines fail to adequately address the risks of long-distance transportation and waste burial. Key requirements identified include the need for long-term continuous monitoring and waste retrievability, the inclusion of voices from communities along the transport route and within the watershed, and a thorough evaluation of alternatives such as storage closer to the production source to minimize exposure risks.

Opposed. The commenter expresses fear over boring into the Canadian Shield and the potential for leaks to impact regional water systems. They emphasize that transportation must be part of the impact assessment, citing frequent highway closures and accidents as major risks. Additional concerns include the lack of a plan for waste retrieval, the long-term integrity of containers, and the perceived lack of an unbiased decision-making panel in the face of powerful corporate interests.

Opposed. The commenter expresses concern that the draft guidelines do not require sufficient information regarding the NWMO's plans. Specific issues raised include the lack of test-to-failure data for storage containers and the potential for environmental damage or contamination from transportation spills. The commenter advocates for keeping Northern Ontario nuclear-free and demands more detailed descriptions of the packaging plant and repository.

Opposed. The commenter details significant risks including groundwater contamination from leaching, seismic damage to containment structures, and the extreme financial burden of long-term maintenance. They highlight the technical difficulty of monitoring deep repositories over millennia as materials degrade and raise ethical concerns about burdening future generations with radioactive waste. The commenter suggests that above-ground storage in remote locations or a complete halt to nuclear waste production would be preferable solutions.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed and regulated, characterizing the existing framework as having systemic deficiencies and procedural failures. The submission argues that the Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines fail to accurately capture the socio-economic and environmental realities of those living closest to the project site, specifically within Melgund Township and the communities of Borups Corners and Dyment. The commenter emphasizes that the current regulatory approach renders the most impacted people invisible and ignores the unique vulnerabilities of unorganized territories that lack municipal infrastructure and benefit-sharing structures.

A primary environmental and health concern raised is the security of groundwater, as local residents are 100 percent dependent on private wells. The commenter identifies a critical need for forensic isotopic fingerprinting of all domestic wells within a 20-kilometer radius to establish a unique chemical signature. This is presented as the only scientific method to distinguish future project-related leakage from natural variations or legacy fallout. Additionally, the commenter introduces "Quietude" as a distinct valued component, arguing that standard industrial noise permissible levels are fundamentally inappropriate for the intrinsically quiet Boreal environment. They assert that a full year of seasonal acoustic data is required to understand how snow cover and atmospheric inversions uniquely enhance sound propagation in this geography.

Socio-economic concerns are centered on "Project-Induced Food Price Inflation" and the "Nuclear Stigma" effect. The commenter warns that an influx of high-salaried industrial workers threatens to drive up the cost of basic goods and fuel, disproportionately impacting seniors and low-income households on fixed incomes. There is a significant focus on the subsistence economy, where residents rely on harvesting moose, fish, and berries. The project is viewed as a threat to both the availability of these resources and their marketability due to the perceived stigma of radiological risk. Furthermore, the commenter highlights the potential for property value devaluation and the lack of formal protection for residential assets in unincorporated areas.

Ethical and procedural red flags are raised regarding the "systemic failure" in data collection, noting that nearly 60 key metrics for Melgund Township were cited as "unavailable" in preliminary reports. The commenter demands that the guidelines be amended to change discretionary language from "should" to a mandatory "must" regarding collaboration with Local Service Boards. They advocate for a formal Community Co-Design Framework and participant funding to ensure that those bearing the greatest long-term risk are full partners in the assessment. Finally, the submission points to psychosocial health risks, including "nuclear anxiety" and community fracture, which they argue are tangible social costs of the site selection process that remain unquantified.

Neutral. The commenter suggests expanding the scope of the impact assessment to include studies on geriatric health, workplace injury rehabilitation, and the increased pressure on social services and infrastructure in neighboring communities. They also question how the NWMO will assist the host community of Ignace in ensuring economic readiness and request more specific data on local labor force characteristics and cost of living.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter vehemently opposes the project due to the extreme dangers of transporting waste along Highways 11 and 17, which are prone to fatal accidents and closures. They argue that Northwestern Ontario should not bear the burden of waste from a power source it does not use, highlighting the potential for environmental disaster in a region known for pristine waters and the lack of proper consultation with affected residents.

Stance: Neutral/Conditional. The commenter emphasizes the need for the IAAC to ensure the NWMO fulfills its social and economic commitments to the Ignace community, including infrastructure, health, and commercial improvements. They request a detailed study on the direct benefits to the municipality and call for ongoing assessment of the NWMO's promises throughout the project's lifecycle.

Opposed. The commenter expresses deep distrust of the NWMO and government, citing past environmental failures like Pinawa and Grassy Narrows. They challenge the legitimacy of community consent, noting legal opposition from several First Nations and the exclusion of certain local residents from the voting process. Technical concerns include the site's location in a seismic zone, potential for container failure due to heat and pressure, and the reliance on computer modeling rather than full-scale physical testing for transportation packages.

Stance: Neutral/Concerned. A resident of Dryden identifies several critical areas requiring assessment, including the impact of potential contamination on local agriculture, groundwater, and the forestry industry. They also raise concerns about the safety of hunting and fishing for local residents, emphasizing that the region's economy and traditional food sources are at risk if mitigation strategies for the DGR are not thoroughly evaluated.

Stance: Opposed. This comment challenges the geological stability of the Canadian Shield, citing risks from ancient fault lines, glacial isostasy, and micro-fractures that could lead to groundwater contamination. Additionally, the commenter highlights significant transportation hazards on Highway 11, including severe weather, inadequate first responder capabilities for radiological leaks, and the potential for catastrophic contamination of major water bodies like Lake Superior.

Opposed. The commenter objects to the transportation of nuclear waste through Northwestern Ontario, arguing that the risks are being downplayed and that the NWMO is using economic incentives to influence vulnerable communities. They highlight the danger of radiation exposure during the 1,800 km journey and the high probability of traffic accidents on regional highways, ultimately emphasizing the need to protect the area's vital fresh water resources from potential contamination.

Stance: Opposed. A resident of Dryden expresses deep concern over the long-term environmental and health risks posed to future generations, noting that their community does not benefit from nuclear energy. Key issues include the high risk of transportation accidents on single-lane highways, potential contamination of the watershed and agricultural land, and the perceived violation of Indigenous cultural connections to the land, emphasizing that the community should not be a "test dummy" for the project.

Stance: Opposed. This comment characterizes the site selection process as "disgusting bribery" and criticizes the lack of a regional vote. Major concerns include the safety of the "death highway" (11/17), the ethics of moving waste 1,700 km from its source, and the long-term legacy of toxic waste. The commenter suggests above-ground storage at reactor sites or phasing out nuclear power entirely in favor of renewable energy.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter criticizes the draft guidelines for failing to include long-distance transportation risks and cumulative climate impacts. They demand a more detailed project description, including waste retrieval plans and financial assurances for disasters. Furthermore, they argue that the project prioritizes corporate profit over nature and suggest that wind and solar energy should be evaluated as safer, more cost-effective alternatives.

Opposed. The commenter vehemently objects to the burial of nuclear waste in Northern Ontario, primarily to protect the region's pristine potable water and natural resources. They assert that any underground burial system will inevitably leak over time, posing an unacceptable threat to human and animal life.

Stance: Neutral/Concerned. This submission identifies a "critical deficiency" in the NWMO's baseline studies, specifically the near-total lack of data for Melgund Township. The commenter argues that the assessment is fundamentally flawed without accurate socio-economic and health metrics for the communities closest to the site. They advocate for transparent, community-led research to address psycho-social impacts, social fragmentation, and the protection of water quality.

Stance: Neutral/Conditional. The commenter expresses concern that the NWMO is retreating from its social and economic commitments to Ignace since the host agreement was signed. They call for the "Human Environment" aspect of the assessment to be strengthened with specific, measurable indicators for business growth, school enrollment, and community support, insisting that the NWMO be held accountable for the prosperity it promised during the siting process.

Stance: Opposed. The Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (CCRCA) argue that the draft guidelines are insufficient for a credible assessment, noting that previous comments were ignored. Key concerns include the lack of detailed plans for nuclear fuel management at reactor sites, transportation risks along Highway 17, the need for tunnel boring instead of blasting, and the potential for microbial interactions with radionuclides in the bedrock.

Opposed. The commenter finds the NWMO's information sessions and the draft guidelines to be vague and inadequate, particularly regarding the risks to the region's unique wilderness and Indigenous heritage. They highlight specific technical gaps concerning waste retrieval in the event of an accident, potential air releases from boreholes, and the impact of drilling on existing rock fractures and groundwater. They conclude that the current assessment process is too weak to justify moving forward with such a high-risk project.

Opposed. This comprehensive critique argues that the current assessment framework is too narrow and fails to address the "deep-time" implications of nuclear waste management. The commenter demands a shift toward a precautionary orientation that accounts for irreducible uncertainties, potential institutional collapse, and intergenerational justice. They call for the inclusion of dedicated assessments for civilizational continuity, cascading systems risks, and Indigenous-led governance, asserting that technical feasibility alone is insufficient for a project of this magnitude.

The Grand Council Treaty #3 (GCT3), representing the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3, is explicitly Opposed to the current draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and the Indigenous Engagement Participation Plan (IEPP) for the proposed Deep Geological Repository. The commenter asserts that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) has failed to recognize the Nation as a "jurisdiction" and an "Indigenous governing body" as defined under the Impact Assessment Act. They argue that the exclusion of the Nation from the IEPP is a significant red flag that impairs reconciliation and ignores the traditional governance, jurisdiction, and decision-making authority of the Treaty #3 Territory. The submission emphasizes that the project, which involves managing high-level nuclear waste for an estimated one million years, is being advanced within their pristine territory without the meaningful involvement or consent of the twenty-eight First Nations they represent.

A primary ethical and legal concern raised is the failure of the guidelines to adequately incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). The commenter argues that the Crown has a binding legal obligation to obtain Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) rather than merely treating it as a policy aspiration or a procedural aspect of engagement. Citing recent jurisprudence, the submission claims that the current regulatory framework conflates FPIC with the weaker duty to consult and accommodate, which is insufficient for a project of this magnitude. The commenter specifically highlights Article 29(2) of the UN Declaration, which prohibits the storage of hazardous materials on Indigenous lands without consent, and insists that the project's toxicity timeline creates an extraordinary and unique burden on the Nation that has not been recognized by federal authorities.

Environmental and socio-economic concerns are centered on the long-term safety of the site and the protection of Nibi (water). The commenter criticizes the site selection process, noting it was conducted by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) without legislative guidance or regulatory scrutiny. They demand that the impact assessment include "Anishinaabe Valued Components" such as water, governance models, and Indigenous laws like Manito Aki Inaakonigewin (MAI). Socio-economically, the submission highlights a severe lack of capacity funding, describing the provided amounts as "negligible" and insufficient for a Nation of their size to participate meaningfully in the technical review of geological and hydrogeological merits. The commenter notes that the costs of hosting leadership meetings to discuss the project already far exceed the federal funding allocations.

The submission identifies several procedural red flags, including the setting of comment deadlines on holidays and the lack of transparency regarding the referral of the assessment to a review panel. The commenter warns of "enormous regulatory uncertainty and risk" if the IAAC continues to ignore the Nation's authority and jurisdiction. They demand a harmonization plan between federal law and Anishinaabe law, the appointment of Anishinaabe experts to the hearing panel, and a co-development approach for all future guidelines and plans. The commenter concludes by stating that while they have acted in good faith, they will consider "alternative pathways" if their jurisdictional rights and the MAI framework are not fully integrated into the process, asserting that the honor of the Crown is at stake.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter calls for a comprehensive and transparent description of all project components, specifically highlighting the need to assess the impacts of long-distance transportation and radiation on vulnerable populations like children and women. They emphasize that "free, prior and informed consent" must be obtained from all First Nations along the transport route and criticize the current guidelines for lacking sufficient detail on the fuel packaging plant and repository design.

Opposed. As a local resident and grandmother, the commenter urges a zero-risk approach to radioactive contamination, stating that there is no effective way to mitigate or clean up a nuclear waste spill. They argue that the DGR should not be treated as an experiment and that the guidelines must prioritize the prevention of radiological releases. Furthermore, they suggest that the assessment should explore alternatives such as renewable energy investment and stopping the production of nuclear waste altogether.

Stance: Neutral/Mixed. While the commenter believes a DGR is the safest method for storing nuclear fuel, they express strong dissatisfaction with the NWMO's hiring practices. They feel "duped" because promised local jobs for Ignace residents are being filled by people from surrounding communities, contradicting earlier assurances that Ignace would be the central focus for economic growth and employment.

Neutral. The commenter expresses concern over conflicting information regarding the possibility of interim shallow storage at the DGR site. They argue that if the NWMO intends to include surface or near-surface storage for nuclear fuel waste, it must be explicitly detailed in the guidelines with a clear rationale; otherwise, the project description should be limited to direct unloading into the underground facility to avoid "back burner" plans for interim storage.

Neutral. The commenter emphasizes the need for a cautious and thorough assessment process that prioritizes long-term environmental protection. Key issues raised include the necessity of evaluating alternatives such as improved on-site storage at reactor sites, the environmental risks associated with underground dewatering and potential water contamination, and the need for detailed monitoring protocols for underground placement rooms. Additionally, the commenter highlights potential negative impacts on regional fisheries and wildlife, which are vital for local tourism and livelihoods.

Opposed. The commenter, a professional forester, argues that if the storage technology is truly secure, it should be implemented at the source of production rather than transported 2,000 km over dangerous highways. The assessment notes strong objections to the exclusion of Dryden—the closest downstream community—from the decision-making process and characterizes the focus on Ignace and Wabigoon First Nation as a "scam" driven by financial inducements. The commenter concludes that any failure of the containment system should occur where the population benefited from the energy produced.

Opposed. The commenter urges a strengthening of the Impact Statement Guidelines, citing a lack of foresight in managing long-lived radioactive waste and a failure to uphold Indigenous rights under UNDRIP. Key demands include a comprehensive cumulative effects assessment that covers both the source sites and transportation corridors, a thorough evaluation of alternatives in the public interest, and the application of an environmental justice lens to address intergenerational impacts.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the NWMO for using financial influence to sway struggling municipalities and expresses concern over the lack of technical detail regarding the project's safety. Specific issues include the high frequency of accidents on northern highways, the inadequacy of local infrastructure, and the long-term durability of waste containers. The submission suggests that technology should be developed to store waste safely at its point of origin instead of transporting it.

Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concerns regarding the legitimacy of the consent process, arguing that financial incentives to small communities do not account for regional impacts. Key issues include the safety of transporting radioactive waste over long distances on hazardous highways, the perceived inadequacy of container testing, and the potential for catastrophic environmental contamination of waterways. The commenter advocates for on-site storage or recycling alternatives and suggests that the multi-billion dollar investment would be better spent on renewable energy innovations like solar and wind.

Opposed. The commenter raises fundamental concerns about the safety of underground storage and the potential for groundwater contamination. A primary issue is the exclusion of impacted Indigenous communities, such as Eagle River First Nation, from the decision-making process, which the commenter views as a failure of reconciliation. Furthermore, the commenter highlights the extreme risks of transporting radioactive material over hundreds of kilometers on dangerous northern highways prone to fatal accidents, arguing that transportation impacts must be a central part of the regulatory decision.

Stance: Opposed. A resident of Thunder Bay demands that the project description be re-issued to include the entire transportation route, emergency response plans for all affected municipalities, and a robust waste retrievability plan. They argue against the "abandonment" of waste, citing long-term risks to groundwater and human health, and advocate for the "proximity principle," suggesting waste should remain at reactor sites where it can be actively monitored and researched.

Opposed. The commenter identifies significant risks associated with transporting radioactive waste along dangerous and poorly maintained northern highways, particularly during extreme winter conditions. Major concerns are also raised regarding the long-term geological integrity of the repository and the potential for irreversible contamination of the interconnected Great Lakes watershed. Additionally, the commenter criticizes the consultation process as inadequate and poorly publicized, arguing that a project of this magnitude requires more transparent and proactive engagement with all affected communities.

Opposed. The commenter advocates for "Rolling Stewardship" at the source of production rather than a DGR, citing concerns over the inability to monitor or repair leaks once waste is buried. Key issues include potential radiation escape during handling, scientific uncertainty regarding canister corrosion, and the inadequacy of computer modeling for long-term predictions. Additionally, the commenter emphasizes the cultural and ecological value of the Northwestern Ontario wilderness, specifically regarding local watersheds, indigenous sacred sites, and the mental well-being of residents.

Opposed. The commenter, a retired public servant, calls for the draft guidelines to be revised to include a detailed and immediate description of the NWMO's used fuel transportation plans. The submission emphasizes that critical logistics and safety planning for waste transport should not be deferred to future decades but must be addressed transparently within the current impact statement.

Stance: Opposed. A harvester from Treaty 3 territory opposes the project, citing a failure by the NWMO to provide an adequate assessment plan or safety information regarding transportation. The commenter expresses significant concern that the project is moving forward in Northwestern Ontario without sufficient guidelines or transparency, ultimately concluding that the repository is not safe.

Opposed. The commenter expresses grave concern regarding the transportation of lethal nuclear waste over unpredictable northern highways and criticizes the NWMO’s site selection process. The assessment highlights that the draft guidelines are insufficient, specifically calling for more detailed information on the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, underground transfer procedures, post-emplacement monitoring, and contingency plans for container failure or environmental releases.

Opposed. The commenter argues against transporting high-level waste 1600 km from southern Ontario, suggesting it should remain at the source where infrastructure and expertise exist. Major concerns include the lack of a global track record for high-level waste burial, the legitimacy of "willingness" given the site's location in unorganized Treaty 3 territory, and the perceived use of financial inducements to influence community consent. The submission also calls for independent safety studies and detailed assessments of risks to the regional economy, water systems, and long-term environmental health.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter strongly objects to the DGR, characterizing it as an "experimental endeavor" that imposes risks on a region that has not benefited from nuclear power. They raise significant concerns regarding "procedural injustice" and "environmental racism," specifically criticizing the NWMO's methods of seeking consent and the psychological burden placed on future generations. They argue that the project ignores the opposition of many First Nations and violates the Seventh Generation Principle.

Opposed. The commenter focuses on the potential long-term impacts on interconnected groundwater and surface water systems, demanding transparent monitoring and management plans for contamination risks. Significant concerns are raised regarding the dewatering process during construction and the risks associated with transporting radioactive material over long distances in winter conditions. The commenter suggests that managing waste closer to its point of generation would mitigate many of these transportation and environmental risks.

Opposed. The commenter strongly objects to the project on the grounds of environmental risk, violations of Indigenous sovereignty, and a "fraudulent" site selection process involving financial inducements. They highlight the exclusion of downstream communities like Dryden from the consent process and characterize the project as environmental racism. The submission emphasizes the critical value of the region's freshwater resources and argues that waste should be managed near the reactors where it is produced.

Opposed. The commenter asserts that transporting nuclear waste over long distances on public highways is unsafe, particularly given the remote nature of the routes and the limited capacity of volunteer emergency responders. They express concern that radioactive gases could escape from the rock and advocate for keeping the waste at its current locations in Eastern Canada rather than moving it to Northern Ontario.

The commenter, Northwatch, is explicitly Opposed to the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines as currently written. They characterize the document as inadequate, ambiguous, and lacking the scientific and social rigor required for a project of this magnitude. The submission expresses a lack of confidence in the regulatory process, suggesting that the guidelines fail to address previously raised concerns and will ultimately result in a flawed assessment that puts Canadians along transportation routes and downstream from the project at significant risk.

A primary concern raised is the insufficient scope of the transportation assessment. Northwatch argues that the guidelines must encompass the entire transportation route from various reactor sites to the repository, rather than just the immediate vicinity of the project site. They emphasize the need for detailed emergency response plans, radiological dose estimates for en-route communities, and an analysis of road conditions and collision risks. Furthermore, they highlight a significant lack of attention to malevolent acts, such as terrorism, sabotage, or mischief, both at the repository site and during the transport of used nuclear fuel.

The submission identifies several critical technical and environmental gaps, most notably the failure to address Excavation Damaged Zones (EDZ), which the commenter claims could create unintended pathways for radioactive contaminants. Northwatch also stresses the need for a detailed examination of heat generation from the waste and its long-term effects on surface temperatures, vegetation, and wildlife habitat over the project's one-million-year lifetime. They advocate for more explicit requirements regarding quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) for project components like used fuel containers and sealing materials, as well as a more robust analysis of alternative means for project delivery, such as different excavation methods or container designs.

Socio-economic concerns include the potential for the project to disrupt local labor markets by offering above-market wages, thereby disadvantaging other regional employers and industries like forestry and mining. The commenter also raises issues related to mental health, nuclear anxiety, and the "stigma effect" on property values. Regarding Indigenous rights, Northwatch insists that the assessment must respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and require Free, Prior, and Informed Consent from all affected nations, including those downstream and along transportation corridors. They also call for a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) lens that specifically addresses the radiological vulnerability of women, children, and babies in utero.

Finally, Northwatch expresses concern over the transparency and integrity of the impact assessment process. They strongly oppose any "private negotiations" or "early resolution of issues" between the proponent and the Agency that occur outside the public registry. They argue that the project must be fully defined and describable before an impact statement is accepted, rejecting the suggestion that critical information can be generated progressively over time. The commenter concludes that given the unprecedented nature of the project, the Agency must prioritize an evidence-based review and scientific rigor over administrative expediency.

Neutral. This submission focuses specifically on the methodologies used for environmental monitoring and toxicology research rather than the DGR project itself. The commenter advocates for the elimination of lethal animal sampling, recommending the adoption of non-animal methods such as eDNA and muscle biopsies to meet federal environmental quality guidelines.

Opposed. As a member of the Lac Seul First Nation, the commenter expresses concern for the land and animals that sustain Indigenous ways of life. The assessment highlights the inadequacy of the draft guidelines regarding long-distance transportation, the need for free, prior, and informed consent from all First Nations along the route, and the lack of technical detail on waste packaging and retrieval. The commenter explicitly requests that the assessment explore long-term storage options at existing reactor sites.

Opposed. The commenter, a member of Fort William First Nation, criticizes the lack of transparency regarding transportation routes and the potential interference with constitutional harvesting rights. The submission alleges that the consent process is compromised by financial inducements and calls for the inclusion of all affected First Nations in the engagement plan. Furthermore, the commenter demands a cumulative impact assessment of the Wabigoon watershed and insists that the review be conducted by individuals independent of the nuclear industry.

Opposed. The commenter views the creation and burial of toxic waste as a fundamentally flawed approach that does not solve the climate crisis. Concerns include personal health impacts from living near nuclear facilities, the potential for drilling to trigger earthquakes, and the risk of polluting fish-frequented waters. Additionally, the commenter strongly opposes animal testing for environmental monitoring, echoing calls for non-lethal sampling techniques like eDNA.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter supports the recent inclusion of off-site transportation within the project's Impact Statement guidelines, noting it as a necessary correction for assessing adverse effects within federal jurisdiction. However, they argue that the guidelines remain insufficient because they do not clearly define the regulatory or procedural implications that follow from this inclusion.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter focuses on technical deficiencies in the current documentation, specifically noting that transportation plans lack adequate detail. They request more specific procedures, clear methods for verifying compliance, and established mechanisms for reporting issues to ensure the safety and transparency of nuclear material transport.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter strongly rejects the project, drawing on historical community opposition in Atikokan to argue that the current process is corrupt and immoral. They characterize the NWMO's financial contributions to local communities as a form of bribery rather than genuine informed consent and express significant concern over the lack of accountability for public funds and the exclusion of the broader regional population from the decision-making process.

The commenter, Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation (LDMLFN), is explicitly opposed to the current progression of the project as described in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) Initial Project Description. The submission serves as a formal objection to the NWMO’s characterization of the consultation record, which the Nation describes as misleading, selective, and incomplete. LDMLFN asserts that the NWMO has misrepresented the history of engagement by implying the Nation was unresponsive, when in fact the Nation actively sought dialogue that the NWMO failed to facilitate in a timely or meaningful manner.

The primary issues raised center on procedural fairness and the integrity of the consultation process. LDMLFN highlights a significant breakdown in communication, noting that despite their proactive requests for executive-level meetings starting in August 2025, the NWMO did not confirm such a meeting until late February 2026. A major red flag identified in the text is the allegation of offensive comments made by an NWMO representative during a September 2010 meeting. Furthermore, the Nation points out that the NWMO failed to discuss the Initial Project Description or the borehole permitting process during scheduled meetings, yet reportedly informed provincial ministries that the Nation had not responded to those specific issues.

The submission emphasizes serious legal and ethical concerns regarding the Crown’s Duty to Consult and Accommodate. LDMLFN argues that the NWMO’s reliance on one-way notifications and unilateral response deadlines is insufficient for a project of this magnitude. They invoke the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) and reference federal case law to assert that the project must meet an elevated standard of consultation. This standard requires a process geared toward achieving free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and must be tailored to the Nation’s specific laws, knowledge, and practices.

LDMLFN concludes by requesting that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada deem the NWMO’s consultation history incomplete and require a correction of the public record. They demand that the consultation process be reassessed against the heightened legal requirements of UNDA, ensuring that the Crown does not rely on an inaccurate record to satisfy its constitutional obligations. The Nation maintains that the current approach by the NWMO fails to demonstrate the proactive, good-faith engagement necessary to respect Indigenous rights and the honour of the Crown.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. The submission is characterized by a high degree of frustration and distrust toward the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and the local governance in Ignace, Ontario. The individual expresses total disgust with the prospect of the facility being located in the region, viewing the project not as a necessary infrastructure development but as an unwanted landfill for hazardous materials.

A primary concern raised in the comment involves ethical and socio-economic issues, specifically the allegation that the project relies on bribery to gain local support. The commenter suggests that financial incentives are being used to manipulate a "desperate community" and influence the democratic process. There is a clear red flag regarding the perceived integrity of the site selection process, with the commenter asserting that tax dollars are being wasted on efforts to buy consent rather than respecting the actual will of the residents.

Environmental protection is another key issue, with the commenter emphasizing the need to safeguard the water and land of what they describe as the only remaining pristine part of Ontario. The commenter identifies as a lifelong resident with a deep personal connection to the area, highlighting a sense of duty to protect the environment without financial compensation. They categorize nuclear waste as a "most dangerous toxin" and reject the characterization of nuclear power as "clean energy," particularly because the region where the waste would be stored does not benefit from the electricity generated by these plants.

Finally, the submission highlights a significant concern regarding regional equity and fairness. The commenter argues that because the local area does not receive nuclear power, it should not be burdened with the resulting waste. This point underscores a perceived imbalance where the risks of long-term waste management are being exported to a community that did not participate in the benefits of the energy production. The commenter concludes by expressing a cynical view of the current state of democracy, suggesting that financial interests have overridden the voices of the people.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed and specifically objects to the Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG). The submission characterizes the current assessment process as "procedurally deficient" and "fundamentally incomplete," arguing that it fails to meet the statutory requirements for meaningful participation under Section 11 of the Impact Assessment Act (2019). The commenter asserts that the framework systematically marginalizes the communities in the closest physical and ecological proximity to the proposed Revell site, specifically the residents of Melgund Township and the communities of Borups Corners and Dyment.

A primary issue raised is the "jurisdictional displacement" and improper representation within the consultation framework. The commenter argues that the Township of Ignace is being improperly utilized as a proxy for regional consent, despite being geographically distant from the primary project footprint. The submission contends that Ignace has no mandate to represent unorganized territories and has conducted no documented engagement with the residents of Melgund Township. This reliance on a distant municipal voice is seen as a structural deficiency that creates a significant representation gap and distorts the evidentiary basis of the impact assessment.

The submission identifies significant ethical and methodological concerns, stating that the Proponent’s research fails to meet the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS 2) standards for ethical conduct. The commenter highlights a lack of adherence to the principles of Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) for Indigenous residents and criticizes the "top-down" model of knowledge extraction. They argue for a Community-Based Participatory Research framework where local "lived experience" and community knowledge are treated as primary baseline data and weighted equivalently with municipal submissions, rather than being treated as secondary or supplementary input.

Environmental and health concerns are framed through the lens of "psychosocial damage" and "social fracture." The commenter argues that the exclusionary nature of the site selection process has created a measurable loss of community agency and heightened stress, leading to community disintegration. The submission insists that the TISG must include mandatory indicators for assessing these psychosocial impacts—such as community cohesion metrics and trust-in-process indicators—as core Valued Components. They argue that deferring the definition of these indicators to later stages would compromise the integrity of the assessment and allow for the retrospective justification of failed consultation processes.

The commenter also raises a red flag regarding the use of discretionary language in the TISG. They argue that the word “should” in reference to the Proponent’s obligation to work with local peoples must be replaced with the mandatory “must” to ensure regulatory consistency and accountability. Furthermore, the submission demands a redefinition of the "Local Study Area" based on ecological connectivity and social continuity rather than municipal boundaries, and calls for an independent consultation track for Melgund communities that is structurally decoupled from the Proponent-led and Ignace-led processes.

Stance: Neutral. This comprehensive technical intervention identifies material gaps in the draft guidelines regarding the Species at Risk Act (SARA), specifically concerning the Monarch butterfly and its host plant, milkweed. The commenter calls for specific amendments to prevent the misclassification of milkweed as a weed, ensure hydrological impacts on habitat are modeled, and mandate meaningful community participation in baseline ecological studies to ensure legal and environmental compliance.

The commenter, representing the unorganized communities of Melgund Township, Dyment, and Borups Corners, is Opposed to the project as currently outlined in the Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. The submission characterizes the proposed Deep Geological Repository as a direct threat to the survival of these communities, which are located in the closest proximity to the Revell Site. The primary basis for this opposition is the community's total reliance on private wells and cisterns for water, as they operate with zero municipal infrastructure. The commenter argues that the current guidelines suffer from a critical geographic oversight by failing to recognize that groundwater is the sole critical infrastructure for human habitation in this area, meaning any detectable negative change in water quality or quantity must be classified as a significant adverse effect.

Environmental and technical concerns are central to the submission, specifically regarding the inadequacy of regional data. The commenter identifies a red flag in the use of "aggregation bias," where the proponent groups Melgund with the broader Kenora Census Division rather than conducting site-specific research. They demand a mandatory house-by-house hydrogeological audit of every private well within a 15-kilometre radius and the use of forensic isotopic fingerprinting to establish a baseline for radionuclides and trace metals. This is intended to prevent the proponent from later attributing water degradation to natural variations. Additionally, the commenter highlights the physical risks of blasting and high-volume industrial water usage, which could cause structural damage to well casings or lead to hydrogeological drawdown that renders residential wells dry.

The submission further elaborates on the socio-economic and food security implications of the project. In these unorganized territories, groundwater is described as the foundation of a subsistence economy, essential for the processing and preservation of harvested game and fish. The commenter notes that any compromise in water quality would have a cascading effect, destroying the community's ability to safely process local food sources and undermining regional food security. They insist that the impact assessment must bridge the gap between water security and socio-economic indicators, specifically assessing how groundwater degradation would impact the recreational and food security lifeways of the local population.

Ethical concerns and demands for regulatory changes are also prominent. The commenter identifies a deficiency in the current research framework, calling for a mandatory "ethical research design" that moves beyond mere consultation toward a partnership model. This includes the co-design of monitoring programs and the implementation of Community-Based Participatory Research, where local knowledge is given equal evidentiary weight to technical modeling. A major requirement proposed is a legally binding "Water Security Guarantee," which would mandate that the proponent provide immediate water replacement and permanent well repair for any household experiencing disruptions, regardless of whether a causal link to the project is still under scientific review. Finally, the commenter demands that the language in the guidelines be strengthened from "should" to "must" regarding collaboration with local boards and residents of unorganized territories.

Stance: Neutral. This submission provides technical feedback on the draft guidelines, recommending the inclusion of 'psycho-social health effects' and clearer definitions for 'vulnerable populations' based on Health Canada standards. The commenter also points out contradictions in the guidelines regarding the potential for future waste retrieval and urges the regulators to study how the DGR aligns with emerging SMR technologies and potential fuel reprocessing policies. They stress the importance of resolving ambiguities regarding the project's fundamental purpose and its relationship with future nuclear waste management developments.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding the long-term durability of Canada's regulatory and geopolitical stability over the project's 160-year operational life. Key issues include the potential for regulatory erosion and corruption, geopolitical risks such as armed conflict or loss of state capacity, the social harms of industrial work camps on Indigenous women, and emerging technological threats from AI and autonomous weaponry. They argue that the safety case relies on fragile institutional assumptions rather than addressing the social and political realities that historically lead to industrial disasters.

Stance: Neutral. This commenter focuses on procedural and scope improvements for the impact assessment, specifically advocating for the transportation study to cover the entire route from New Brunswick to Ontario rather than just the local site area. They highlight the risks of transporting toxic materials through small communities and suggest that the current regulatory oversight is insufficient for high-level waste. Additionally, they call for more specificity in the guidelines and recommend increasing the number of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) members on the review panel to address the project's complexity.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter seeks clarity on whether the repository is designed for the permanent, non-retrievable burial of waste or if retrieval remains an option. They emphasize that the guidelines must explicitly address this design choice and its implications for future technologies, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) proposed by companies like Moltex Energy that intend to recycle nuclear waste. The commenter argues that the impact assessment must analyze how the DGR project interfaces with these potential waste-recycling initiatives to avoid public confusion and ensure regional energy plans are considered.

Stance: Opposed. This commenter focuses exclusively on the dangers of transporting nuclear waste via Highways 11 and 17 in Northwestern Ontario. They cite high fatality rates, frequent road closures, and dangerous driving behaviors by transport trucks as evidence that the current infrastructure is unfit for additional hazardous traffic. They criticize the provincial and federal governments for failing to twin the highways and argue that the project's transportation plan is irresponsible given the 'forgotten' status of the region's road safety needs.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter provides detailed technical suggestions for the environmental and health sections of the guidelines, including the need for real-time weather data portals and protections for monitoring equipment against forest fires. They raise concerns about the impact of blasting and boring on bedrock integrity, the potential for radon gas exposure for workers, and the lack of attention to noise pollution and forest fire smoke. While acknowledging the comprehensiveness of the biological and health sections, they remain skeptical about the long-term preservation of the natural environment during the construction phase.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear, as the submission does not explicitly state support or opposition to the project. Instead, the commenter provides a list of rigorous requirements and conditions that they believe must be met within the Impact Assessment process. The tone is critical and demanding of transparency, suggesting that the commenter has significant reservations about the current scope of the project’s documentation and its proposed implementation.

A primary issue raised is the need for a comprehensive and exhaustive project description that covers all components and potential impacts. The commenter emphasizes that the NWMO must detail every stage of the project, including design, construction, the specific processes for placing waste underground, and the methods for long-term monitoring. Environmental concerns are prominent, specifically regarding the potential for radioactive releases into the air and water during all phases of the project. Furthermore, the commenter identifies the retrievability of waste as a critical factor that must be addressed in the project’s planning and description.

The submission highlights transportation safety as a major area of concern, particularly the risks associated with moving radioactive materials over long distances. The commenter insists on a critical review of container safety, route selection, and the robustness of emergency response procedures to mitigate potential radiation exposure. Closely linked to this is the demand for the consideration of alternatives to the Deep Geological Repository. The commenter suggests that the assessment must evaluate the feasibility of improved, long-term storage at existing reactor stations rather than proceeding with the centralized repository.

Finally, the commenter raises significant ethical and governance issues regarding the process of seeking consent. They state that the NWMO must clearly outline how it will obtain the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous peoples. This requirement for consent is not limited to the immediate host site; the commenter argues that consent must also be secured from communities located along the transportation routes and any other communities that may be potentially affected by the repository. This underscores a concern for regional socio-political impacts and the rights of affected populations.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project in its current form, citing a lack of meaningful consultation and significant unresolved concerns regarding the safety and social stability of their community. The submission reflects a high level of frustration with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), suggesting that the proponent has failed to provide transparent answers or include the residents of Dyment in the planning process despite the town's close proximity of 12 kilometers to the site.

A primary socio-economic concern raised is the impact of a proposed 800-person construction camp on a small community of only 50 residents. The commenter identifies several red flags associated with this massive influx of people, including the potential for increased petty theft, crime, and the introduction of drugs and alcohol into the area. There is a stated fear that the local social fabric and community events will be overwhelmed by the camp population. Furthermore, the commenter expresses concern for their own livelihood and the local economy, specifically questioning the future of the Sandy Point camp where they are employed and whether the project will result in job losses for current residents.

Environmental and subsistence concerns are also prominent in the submission. The commenter notes that Dyment residents rely on local lakes to fish for food and fears that the influx of workers will lead to these lakes being fished out. There are significant technical concerns regarding the impact of blasting and drilling noise, as well as the potential for the project to damage private well systems. The commenter emphasizes the high financial cost of drilling these wells and demands a formal plan for compensation and a rigorous water testing regime, including baseline testing and ongoing monitoring every six months to ensure the safety of their drinking water.

From an ethical and intergenerational perspective, the commenter views the project as a threat to their family legacy. Having lived on property passed down through generations, they express deep sadness and fear that the repository will make the land unsafe or undesirable for their children and grandchildren. The submission also highlights a perceived inequity in safety standards, noting rumors that the construction camp might be located in Ignace due to safety concerns at the site, which leads the commenter to question why it would then be considered safe for the residents of Dyment to remain in such close proximity.

The commenter is Opposed to the project in its current form, expressing significant concerns regarding the potential for irreversible damage to their primary water source. The central issue is the absolute dependence of residents in the Revell and Melgund areas on private wells, with no municipal water system available as a fallback. The commenter emphasizes that for those living within 10 to 13 km of the proposed site, any contamination, disruption, or failure of these wells would have immediate consequences for their health and their ability to remain in their homes. They argue that the project cannot proceed without a legally recognized baseline of water quality to distinguish future project-related impacts from natural variations.

A major ethical and socio-economic concern raised is the perceived lack of equity and consistency in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's (NWMO) engagement process. The commenter highlights that while residents in South Bruce were granted a co-designed water sampling program that allowed for direct participation and lab selection, similar opportunities have not been offered to those in closer proximity to the Revell site. They argue that being treated as peripheral stakeholders despite living significantly closer to the site than the Township of Ignace represents a serious failure in how affected communities are being engaged. The commenter insists that they are not passive subjects to be studied without consent or meaningful involvement.

The submission identifies critical scientific and technical gaps in the current assessment framework. Specifically, the commenter critiques the reliance on regional data from locations 55 km away, stating that hydrogeological systems vary too much at the local scale for such data to be valid for Melgund Township. They also point out that current guidelines focus on environmental receptors like fish but fail to address the physical integrity of private well infrastructure or groundwater pathways during blasting and subsurface disturbance. There is a significant concern that the financial burden of well failure or contamination would fall entirely on the residents if a comprehensive, house-by-house baseline is not established before excavation begins.

Finally, the commenter demands a mandatory, co-designed, and properly funded water testing program for all private wells and springs within a 20 km radius. They stress that meaningful participation is impossible without the resources to retain independent technical expertise and support community-led reviews of the data. The commenter views the establishment of an independently verifiable water monitoring program as an essential prerequisite to any further project advancement, asserting that water protection is the most critical issue in the entire assessment process due to the local population's total reliance on groundwater.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter is primarily concerned with the safety of transporting nuclear waste on Northern Ontario highways, citing a high frequency of truck accidents and the lack of a comprehensive environmental assessment for the transportation component. They also express ethical objections to the site selection process, characterizing financial incentives for host communities as bribes. Ultimately, they advocate for keeping nuclear waste near its point of origin to avoid regional risks and protect future generations from the potential for a Chernobyl-scale disaster.

Based on the submission provided by Northwatch, the commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project in its current form and highly critical of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) transparency and the adequacy of the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. Northwatch characterizes the NWMO’s Initial Project Description as insufficient and argues that the draft guidelines fail to address a wide range of critical issues. They contend that the current approach is unacceptable for a credible scientific and social review, demanding significantly more detail and evidence-based assessment before the project proceeds.

A primary set of concerns revolves around the technical and environmental risks associated with the repository's design and location. Northwatch identifies a lack of detailed information regarding excavation damage zones, geoscientific verification, and contingency planning for geological failures, such as unexpected rock fracturing. Environmental red flags include the potential for acid mine drainage and metal leaching from excavated rock over long timescales, as well as the management and quality of water pumped to the surface during dewatering. They also demand a contemporary fuel waste inventory that accounts for future Pickering refurbishments and new nuclear build scenarios, arguing that the current data is outdated.

Safety and security issues are also central to Northwatch’s opposition. The commenter highlights the risks of long-distance transportation of irradiated fuel and the lack of specific protections for workers in a radiological underground environment, noting that current plans for refuge stations and ventilation are generic and inadequate. They call for detailed descriptions of shielding, remote handling, and monitoring programs for the packaging facility and placement rooms. Additionally, they raise concerns regarding emergency response and the project's vulnerability to malevolent acts, sabotage, and security breaches, which they feel have not been sufficiently addressed.

Finally, Northwatch raises significant socio-economic and ethical concerns regarding the site selection process and the project's impact on communities. They point to the "novel nature" of the project and the total lack of operating experience for high-level nuclear waste repositories as a major risk factor. Ethical and social red flags include the potential for social division, "nuclear anxiety," and the "stigma effect" of hosting a nuclear waste site, which could negatively impact property values and community well-being. They emphasize that the criteria for community consent and the technical basis for site selection must be more clearly defined and rigorously evaluated.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository project is Neutral/Unclear. While the submission is highly critical of the current Draft Public Participation Plan and the proponent’s engagement methods, it does not explicitly state a position of total support or total opposition to the project’s construction. Instead, the family focuses on the perceived inadequacies of the regulatory process, the lack of meaningful consultation, and the necessity for structural changes to how local residents are involved and funded.

A primary issue raised is the requirement for mandatory, sufficient, and priority-based participant funding for those in the immediate vicinity of the project. The commenters, residing less than 10 kilometers from the proposed site, argue that proximity should dictate funding priority. They emphasize that households, unorganized communities, and civil society organizations—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—must have guaranteed financial support to participate in technical reviews and engagement processes. They assert that without such funding, participation is not substantive and fails to meet the standards of the Impact Assessment Act.

The submission advocates for a shift from traditional consultation to a funded ethical co-design framework. This would involve local stakeholders in the actual design of studies, methodology development, and the selection of indicators for baseline data. The commenters stress that local knowledge should be treated as core evidentiary input rather than a secondary consideration. They specifically highlight the need for this co-design approach to apply to assessments of groundwater, private well systems, food security, and subsistence harvesting, including fishing, hunting, and trapping.

Socio-economic and health impacts are significant concerns for the commenters. They call for detailed assessments of local livelihoods, psycho-social health, and the social determinants of health. There is a specific focus on equity and vulnerable populations, utilizing Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) to ensure that aging populations, low-income households, and youth are not excluded by structural barriers. The commenters express a red flag regarding the proponent's current approach, claiming that many studies and processes have been inappropriately pre-determined and imposed without the free, prior, or informed consent of the most impacted local peoples.

Environmental concerns are centered on the potential for cumulative impacts affecting community well-being. The family identifies the Local Study Area as the most relevant zone for baseline environmental conditions and effects assessment. They demand that the Impact Statement Guidelines be amended to mandate that the proponent work with a specific list of nearby municipalities and self-identifying local communities. The goal is to ensure that the assessment of cumulative environmental impacts is grounded in the lived experience and technical capacity of those living closest to the proposed repository.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as it is currently defined and presented in the draft guidelines. The submission argues that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has failed to provide a complete or credible approach to fulfilling its mandate for the long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel. The commenter expresses significant concern that the project scope has been narrowed over time and asserts that the current assessment framework is insufficient to support an informed regulatory decision.

A primary issue raised is the perceived pattern of deferral and progressive re-definition regarding the project's scope. The commenter points out that while the project was initially presented as a national solution for all of Canada’s used fuel, the current proposal is limited to approximately 5.9 million bundles from the existing reactor fleet. This is characterized as a "piecemeal approach" or project segmentation, where key elements are addressed incrementally rather than through a single, integrated solution. The commenter argues that excluding reasonably foreseeable future waste streams—specifically those from the Darlington Small Modular Reactor (SMR) project and the Bruce C Project—renders the Impact Statement incomplete. Because these projects are already in formal regulatory processes, the commenter maintains they are not speculative and must be included to ensure the repository design is representative of the materials it will ultimately be required to manage.

The submission also highlights ethical and procedural concerns regarding the "compelling willingness" criterion for host communities. The commenter notes that this requirement was introduced without a clear definition and was later applied to the community of South Bruce despite a narrow referendum result of 51.2%. This raises questions for the commenter regarding the consistency and legitimacy of the community acceptance process. Furthermore, the commenter challenges the NWMO’s ability to fulfill its mandate, noting that there is no approved second repository for future spent fuel. By deferring the consideration of future waste, the commenter suggests the proponent is avoiding a demonstration of design basis adequacy for the full scope of Canada's nuclear waste responsibilities.

The commenter concludes that the Impact Assessment process should not advance to a decision until the proponent provides a stable and bounding design basis that includes all foreseeable used fuel. They demand that the Impact Statement explicitly identify any deferred components of spent fuel management and justify why the current scope represents only a portion of the overall system. The submission emphasizes that proceeding with incomplete information risks evaluating a system that is not representative of the long-term conditions it must manage, thereby undermining the validity and completeness of the entire evaluation.

The commenter, Erin Henry, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed nuclear waste repository. As a local farmer and resident of the region northwest of the proposed site, she expresses a firm stance against the project, citing deep-seated concerns for the safety of her family and the long-term health of the environment. Her opposition is rooted in the belief that the risks associated with the project far outweigh any temporary economic benefits, and she calls for a rejection of the site to protect the land for future generations.

A primary concern raised is the safety of transporting nuclear waste over several decades. The commenter argues that accidents are inevitable, drawing on recent local observations of numerous semi-truck accidents involving hazardous materials like fuel and pesticides. She contends that even a single accident involving spent nuclear fuel would be catastrophic for both the population and the environment. Furthermore, she expresses a lack of confidence in containment systems, suggesting that any system will eventually fail under the right conditions and that burying waste is inherently unsafe because it prevents active monitoring.

The submission also highlights significant socio-economic and environmental justice issues. The commenter describes her region as having been historically treated as a zone for resource extraction and careless waste disposal, noting existing mercury contamination in the Wabigoon River and high cancer rates linked to industrial exposure from mining and milling. She rejects the "boom and bust" economic cycle associated with such projects, arguing that the promise of jobs for a generation or two does not justify the potential for permanent toxic legacy. Instead, she advocates for sustainable development and healthy lifestyles that are not compromised by industrial waste.

Finally, the commenter proposes alternative waste management strategies based on the principle of proximity. She argues that nuclear waste should be managed through "rolling stewardship" at or near the sites where it was generated, specifically in Southern Ontario where the energy is consumed. This approach, she suggests, would allow for continuous monitoring and the early discovery of leaks or issues. Her plea is centered on the ethical responsibility to protect the watershed and the beautiful land for her children, emphasizing that the future of the community depends on maintaining healthy water, land, and animals.

The commenter, Northwatch, is explicitly Opposed to the project as currently framed and expresses significant dissatisfaction with the proposed regulatory process. The submission argues that the draft Public Participation Plan fails to ensure a credible, evidence-based, and transparent assessment. A central theme of the comment is the concern that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) have adopted a biased stance, treating the project's approval as a foregone conclusion rather than a neutral evaluation. Northwatch contends that the current language used by regulators signals a "foregone conclusion," which serves as a disincentive to meaningful public participation.

A primary issue raised is the lack of transparency regarding pre-submission documents. Northwatch asserts that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) intends to seek early feedback from regulators before submitting a full impact statement. They argue that if these early exchanges and documents are not posted to the public registry, the subsequent public participation stages will be rendered meaningless. To remedy this, the commenter demands established mechanisms for the public to review pre-submission data and submit written information requests. They emphasize that the ability to "test the evidence" through oral questions and formal information requests during the hearing process is fundamental to a legitimate assessment.

The submission identifies several ethical and socio-economic red flags regarding the framing of the project. Northwatch objects to the use of the term "storage," arguing it is technically inaccurate because the NWMO has no plan for waste retrieval; they suggest "disposition" or "permanent placement" as more objective terms. Furthermore, they challenge the characterization of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as a "host community," stating that such labeling misrepresents the community's actual position and ignores the necessity of aligning the process with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The commenter views the adoption of the proponent’s promotional language by the Agency as evidence of institutional bias.

Environmental and safety concerns are highlighted through the lens of geographical inclusion. Northwatch points out that the current plan neglects communities downstream from the project, such as Kenora and Winnipeg, as well as numerous municipalities along the transportation route. They criticize the lack of document viewing centers in these areas and the Agency’s reliance on inadequate communication channels. They suggest that the IAAC must be more proactive in reaching out to environmental non-governmental organizations, trade unions, and social service networks rather than placing the full burden of engagement on the public.

Finally, the commenter raises concerns regarding procedural fairness and the integrity of the assessment. They argue that the 30-day comment periods are insufficient for reviewing complex technical documents and that the participant funding process is poorly defined in the draft plan. Northwatch stresses that for the process to be a true "assessment" rather than a mere "approval process," the Agency must explicitly state that project rejection is a possible outcome. They conclude that the current plan lacks the necessary indicators to measure whether public participation is "meaningful" and fails to provide a mechanism for the public to hold the proponent accountable for inconsistent or unreliable information.

The commenter, Heather Morrison, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Her submission outlines several critical concerns regarding the safety, environmental impact, and logistical feasibility of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s plan. The primary objection centers on the transportation of highly toxic radioactive waste over a distance of 1700 kilometers. The commenter characterizes the plan to conduct two to three shipments daily for 50 years as illogical and dangerous, particularly given the current state of infrastructure in Northwestern Ontario. She highlights that the existing two-lane highways are already treacherous, citing a growing number of fatalities, frequent road closures, and serious accidents exacerbated by severe storms and a perceived lack of training for transport drivers.

A significant socio-economic and ethical concern raised is the lack of adequate consultation with communities and territories located along the proposed transportation routes. While some agreements may exist near the Revell site, the commenter argues that the project’s ramifications extend to everyone along the transit corridor, yet these stakeholders have been excluded from the process. Furthermore, the commenter identifies a major red flag regarding emergency response capabilities. She notes that the transit routes are inadequately serviced, leaving first responders and untrained volunteers at high risk in the event of an accident. The submission references the Exxon Valdez spill as a cautionary example of the long-term human and environmental devastation that can result from such logistical failures.

Environmental concerns are also a focal point, specifically regarding the impacts of climate change on the boreal forest. The commenter points to the increasing frequency and intensity of forest fires and flooding in Northwestern Ontario, noting that these unprecedented natural occurrences could affect groundwater levels and compromise the safety of the repository and its surrounding infrastructure. Finally, the commenter challenges the project's fundamental approach by stating that there has been insufficient research into alternatives, such as maintaining the waste at its source. She argues that on-site storage would minimize the risks associated with the extraordinary movement and handling of radioactive material. Consequently, the commenter demands a full and comprehensive assessment of the project's impacts, emphasizing its unprecedented scope.

The commenter, Meghan Cameron, is explicitly Opposed to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed deep geological repository (DGR) located between Ignace and Dryden. The submission highlights a fundamental lack of confidence in the project's current trajectory, citing concerns regarding the site selection process and the unprecedented nature of constructing such a facility. The commenter argues that the draft guidelines for the impact assessment are currently inadequate, failing to capture essential information about the project’s components and the full scope of potential negative effects.

A primary focus of the submission is the potential for radioactive or hazardous releases into the air and water throughout all stages of the project's lifecycle. The commenter emphasizes the risk to human health and the environment, specifically noting the importance of the Lake Winnipeg watershed. As a frequent visitor to northern Ontario and Lake Winnipeg for camping and swimming, the commenter demands a thorough assessment to guarantee the safety of families residing in or recreating within the affected watershed. There is a clear call for prioritizing clean water over projects that the commenter perceives as having insufficient contamination studies.

The submission raises significant ethical and temporal concerns regarding the long-term safety of the repository, stating that the project requires a level of due diligence capable of ensuring environmental health for one million years. The commenter characterizes the current level of scrutiny as insufficient and specifically requests that the impact statement guidelines be strengthened. This includes a demand for more detailed descriptions of the NWMO’s planned activities and components to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the project's long-term implications before proceeding.

The commenter, Lee Searles, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) near Ignace, Ontario. The submission expresses deep concern regarding the safety of the project, specifically arguing that the final containment area has not been proven safe against soil and water contamination. The commenter believes the project poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and public safety that must be avoided to protect both current and future generations.

A primary issue raised in the comment is the safety of transporting radioactive waste over long distances, including from as far away as New Brunswick. The commenter identifies significant red flags regarding the use of rail and trucks, asserting that the containers used for transport are unproven. There is a specific fear that rail derailments in urban areas or within the vast watersheds of Northwestern Ontario could lead to the contamination of essential drinking water sources. This highlights a major environmental concern regarding the protection of regional water security.

Furthermore, the commenter points to socio-economic and infrastructure-related risks concerning the highway systems in Northwestern Ontario. The submission describes the roads as unsafe, noting they are neither divided nor flat, which increases the likelihood of accidents. This concern is exacerbated by what the commenter perceives as an increasing number of undertrained drivers on the road. Collectively, these factors are presented as a recipe for disaster, leading the commenter to conclude that the transportation of radioactive materials through these corridors is incredibly dangerous.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for used nuclear fuel. As a resident of Biigtigong Nishnaabeg located near Highway 17, the individual expresses significant concern regarding the long-term underground storage of nuclear waste and the risks associated with transporting these materials over distances exceeding one thousand kilometers by road and rail. The commenter highlights that the high volume of public comments already submitted reflects a broad societal concern regarding the project's safety and implementation.

A primary issue raised is the perceived inadequacy of the Draft Guidelines for the Impact Assessment, specifically concerning the geographic scope of transportation impacts. The commenter argues that the current guidelines are too narrow, focusing only on the area surrounding the project site and specific intersections for site access. They contend that the Impact Statement must be expanded to assess potential adverse effects along the entire highway and rail corridor, from the point of origin at existing nuclear storage sites to the final DGR location. This includes evaluating the risks of increased traffic, potential accidents, and radioactive spills.

The submission emphasizes that the scale of nuclear waste transportation required for this project is unprecedented in Canada and exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure, regulations, and safety plans. The commenter notes that under the relevant Act, transportation is an activity incidental to the project and is essential to its purpose, meaning it must be thoroughly examined within the assessment. They also call for a rigorous evaluation of alternatives to the proposed long-haul transportation plan to ensure public safety and environmental protection.

Furthermore, the commenter identifies a significant gap in the socio-economic and ethical considerations of the project regarding Indigenous rights and engagement. They argue that by failing to account for the entire transportation corridor, the project ignores the impacts on numerous First Nations. The commenter asserts that all First Nations located along the proposed transit routes, not just the five currently listed by the proponent, must be formally engaged as part of the Impact Assessment process. This expansion of scope is presented as a necessary step to recognize the rights and safety of all communities situated along the path of the nuclear waste.

Insufficient information. The provided text is a brief introductory statement from Kinectrics acknowledging the opportunity to comment on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and the Draft Public Participation Plan for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project. The commenter refers to an attached PDF for their specific feedback, which is not included in the provided text.

Consequently, the stance of the commenter is Neutral/Unclear, as the text does not explicitly state support for or opposition to the project itself. Furthermore, the submission does not identify any specific key issues, environmental concerns, or socio-economic impacts, as the substantive details of their review are deferred to the missing attachment. There is no mention of specific topics such as water quality, transportation, or Indigenous rights within this excerpt.

Opposed. The commenter questions the necessity of the project, arguing that alternatives for safe and sustainable electricity generation have not been sufficiently demonstrated. Key issues include the lack of clarity regarding the specific types of nuclear fuel to be stored, the actual energy needs of the province, and the feasibility of the proponent's projected costs and timelines. The commenter suggests that waste should remain stored on-site at generating facilities rather than being moved to a new repository.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. Their opposition is rooted in a fundamental disagreement with the inter-provincial transportation of nuclear waste and a broader rejection of nuclear energy as a viable long-term power source. The individual expresses a clear preference for provinces to manage their own waste locally rather than moving it to a different jurisdiction, particularly one characterized by significant wildlife populations and vital water sources.

The primary issues raised in the submission center on environmental protection and jurisdictional responsibility. The commenter questions the ethics and safety of transporting hazardous materials across provincial lines, suggesting that the burden of disposal should remain with the waste producer. There is a specific concern regarding the potential for the repository to negatively impact ecological integrity, with a focus on the preservation of water quality and animal habitats. This reflects a fear that the project poses an unacceptable risk to pristine natural environments.

Furthermore, the submission addresses significant ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding intergenerational equity and government accountability. The commenter argues that nuclear energy is not a clean source of power and expresses concern over the long-term effects that current waste management decisions will have on future generations. They call for a transition to alternative energy sources that do not leave a legacy of environmental harm. Finally, the commenter emphasizes that the government has a duty to prioritize the will of the citizens and environmental health over administrative ease or convenience, highlighting a perceived disconnect between current policy and public desire for major environmental reform.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in a rejection of the plan to transport nuclear waste to their specific region, which they characterize as an absurd and ill-conceived initiative.

The primary issues raised in the submission concern transportation safety and fiscal responsibility. The commenter identifies the 1,700-kilometre transport route across the province as a significant risk factor, labeling the movement of nuclear materials over such a distance as "possibly dangerous." Furthermore, the commenter views the project as a "wasteful" use of taxpayer money, suggesting that the logistical costs associated with long-distance transport are economically unjustifiable.

A central ethical and socio-economic concern highlighted in the text is the principle of regional equity and producer responsibility. The commenter argues that because the nuclear waste was generated, refined, and utilized in Southern Ontario, that region should be solely responsible for its management and disposal. They emphasize that the host area did not benefit from the mining or use of the material, and therefore, it is inappropriate to relocate the resulting "garbage" to a different part of the country. This reflects a strong "proximity principle" argument, where the commenter demands that the waste remain in the jurisdiction that produced it.

The commenter is explicitly opposed to the current impact assessment process and the proposed project as it is currently framed. They characterize the proposal to bury 142,000 tonnes of high-level used nuclear fuel waste as a "totally experimental" and "unproven" project with "unparalleled potential consequences." The submission argues that the Canadian Impact Assessment Act is an insufficient tool for evaluating such a high-risk endeavor, asserting that the current process is being treated as an "approval of a concept" rather than a rigorous assessment. The commenter demands that the process be restructured to prioritize the prevention and avoidance of impacts based on scientific evidence and sustainability principles, rather than merely attempting to mitigate them.

A primary concern raised is the inadequacy of the assessment timelines. The commenter describes the three-year assessment window as "unrealistic" and "beyond reasonable" for a project that will take one to two decades to develop on paper. They argue that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has failed to provide sufficient detail on critical project components, including transportation, processing, repository design, waste retrievability, and potential releases to air and water. The submission suggests that the proponent is intentionally providing minimal information to avoid public scrutiny, leaving critical safety and environmental details to be revealed "behind closed doors" after the formal assessment period has ended.

The submission also highlights significant ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding the NWMO’s approach to community engagement. The commenter alleges that the proponent has spent millions of dollars to "entice a small, impoverished northern community" to host the project while excluding input from hundreds of thousands of Canadians who live downstream or adjacent to potential transportation corridors. These populations, according to the commenter, face serious risks to their physical health and well-being that are not being adequately addressed. The commenter notes that there is no successful global precedent for such a repository, which places the proposal in a unique category of risk that necessitates an individual, synchronized assessment rather than a standard regulatory review.

Ultimately, the commenter views the current proceedings as a "farce" that undermines the intent of the Impact Assessment Act. They advocate for a complete overhaul of the guidelines to ensure that the impact statement is based on rigorous scientific evidence and that the assessment timeline is extended to coincide with the delivery of actual, detailed plans. The commenter emphasizes that because the project is experimental and carries the potential for extreme consequences if it fails, the burden of proof regarding safety and sustainability must be much higher than what has been provided in the Initial Project Description.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in a fundamental distrust of the project's technical safety and the regulatory framework governing it. They characterize the Impact Assessment Guidelines as suffering from a "Titanic Assumption," which they define as a dangerous and erroneous belief in the infallibility of expensive, complex engineering. The commenter views the entire undertaking—including the repository design, packaging facilities, and transportation protocols—as a potential disaster and an unproven experiment rather than an established best practice.

A primary concern raised involves the safety and logistics of long-distance transportation of high-level nuclear waste. The commenter argues that the risks of radioactive exposure and potential accidents exist along the entire transit route, yet the current consultation process is restricted to a very small geographic area. They identify a significant procedural flaw in only granting a voice to the communities of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake First Nation, totaling fewer than 3,000 residents, while ignoring the populations living along the transport corridors who would also be affected by a failure.

Furthermore, the submission highlights serious ethical and socio-economic red flags regarding the nature of community consent. The commenter alleges that the NWMO has secured local support through the distribution of millions of dollars, suggesting that this financial influence invalidates the claim of genuine community acceptance. They conclude that the NWMO has glossed over public safety risks and call for a much more comprehensive examination of transportation container safety and the long-term implications of radioactivity exposure before the project proceeds.

The stance of Kebaowek First Nation regarding the Deep Geological Repository project is Neutral/Unclear. While the submission welcomes the decision to proceed with an impact assessment, it expresses profound dissatisfaction with the historical and current management of nuclear waste in their territory, which they state has occurred without their notice, consultation, or consent. Their participation appears focused on ensuring the regulatory process is fundamentally restructured to align with Indigenous law and international human rights standards, rather than offering an endorsement of the project itself.

A primary issue raised is the requirement for the impact assessment to align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Kebaowek First Nation demands that the guidelines recognize their own Rights & Responsibilities Assessment Law, asserting that federal assessments must move beyond merely gathering information and instead allow Indigenous jurisdictions to share in decision-making. They emphasize that FPIC is an ongoing process and that they retain the jurisdiction to withdraw consent if project conditions change or if adverse effects, such as spills or malfunctions, occur. They criticize the current engagement model for using arbitrary proximity thresholds that marginalize their Nation despite their documented concerns regarding nuclear waste.

Environmental and safety concerns are central to the submission, particularly regarding the transportation of radioactive waste. Kebaowek First Nation argues that transportation is a foundational component of the project, not an ancillary one, and must be fully assessed within the impact assessment rather than deferred to future licensing. They highlight past instances where radioactive waste was moved through their territory without their knowledge and demand that the assessment include all activities related to handling, repackaging, and interim storage at existing sites like Chalk River. They also call for a Cumulative Thermal-Mechanical Analysis to model how the heat from an expanded waste inventory, including waste from Small Modular Reactors, might cause rock fracturing and create pathways for radionuclides to enter watersheds.

The submission also identifies significant socio-economic and ethical red flags. Kebaowek First Nation calls for a formal, monetized cost-benefit analysis that accounts for the devaluation of traditional lands and the long-term financial liability of monitoring the site for thousands of years. They raise concerns about the "long-term burden" of nuclear waste on the psychological well-being of future generations and request a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) to evaluate how radionuclide exposure and increased truck traffic might disproportionately affect Indigenous women as waterkeepers, youth, and pregnant individuals. Finally, they assert their right to conserve and protect the environment, insisting that the project's impacts on climate change and biodiversity must be strictly evaluated as part of Canada’s international and domestic obligations.

The commenter, John Mann, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project. His submission reflects a deep-seated distrust of the organizations involved and the logic underpinning the current proposal. He characterizes the entire process as being beyond the pale, indicating a total rejection of the project's current direction and the justifications provided by the proponents.

The primary issues raised center on governance, organizational transparency, and perceived logical inconsistencies between past and present nuclear waste strategies. The commenter highlights the close relationship between Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), noting that OPG owns the NWMO and that the two entities share interchangeable officers and directors. This connection is presented as a red flag regarding the independence and credibility of the NWMO’s current proposal, especially given what the commenter describes as OPG’s failed attempt at a previous DGR for low and intermediate-level waste.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the risks and contradictions surrounding the transportation of nuclear waste. The commenter points out that during the previous DGR proposal at the Bruce Power site, OPG emphasized that a key safety benefit was the lack of a need for transportation, as the waste was already on-site. He contrasts this with the current NWMO plan, which involves transporting high-level nuclear spent fuel hundreds of kilometers across Canada. The commenter identifies this as a horrific danger to communities along highway routes and views the shift in logic—from prioritizing on-site storage to requiring long-distance transport—as an irreconcilable conflict that undermines the project's legitimacy.

Furthermore, the commenter raises ethical and safety concerns regarding the historical management of spent fuel. He questions why OPG previously insisted that high-level waste would never be stored in the low and intermediate DGR, despite that fuel already being stored safely above ground at the Kincardine site for decades. To the commenter, the decision to move this waste to a new, off-site location rather than utilizing the existing site is inexplicable and suggests a lack of transparency in the decision-making process. He concludes that these contradictions between OPG’s past claims and NWMO’s current plans create a fundamental lack of trust that cannot be resolved.

The commenter’s stance regarding the Deep Geological Repository project is Neutral/Unclear, as the submission focuses exclusively on providing procedural recommendations for the Public Participation Plan rather than expressing a definitive position in support of or opposition to the project itself. The author, Gordon W. Dalzell, directs his feedback toward ensuring that the engagement process is "meaningful" and transparent, emphasizing the need for structural improvements to how the proponent interacts with the public and the regulator.

A primary issue raised is the inadequacy of the traditional open house format, which the commenter argues is insufficient for informing the public at large. The author notes that one-on-one conversations at booths do not allow the broader community to benefit from the questions and answers exchanged between individuals and the proponent. To rectify this, the commenter recommends that open houses include a formal presentation followed by a public question-and-answer period. This change is intended to foster transparency, allow for media coverage that informs the wider general public, and ensure the process aligns with the stated objectives of the Public Participation Plan.

The submission also highlights significant concerns regarding accountability and the testing of evidence. The commenter insists that the proponent must be mandated to formally capture all public questions and concerns in writing, along with the responses provided, for submission to the regulator and panel members. This documentation is seen as essential for ensuring accuracy and completeness in the Summary of Public Engagement report. Furthermore, the author advocates for a hearing process where formal intervenors can question and test the evidence of the proponent’s experts, similar to the procedures used in utility board hearings. To increase accessibility, the commenter also suggests that all open houses and information sessions be live-streamed for those who cannot attend in person.

The commenter, Heather, a lifelong resident of Northwestern Ontario, expresses significant concern regarding the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed deep geological repository. Based on her explicit criticisms of the site selection method, the unprecedented nature of the project, and the perceived inadequacy of the current draft guidelines, her stance is categorized as Opposed to the project as it is currently proposed and reviewed. She emphasizes that the project will affect multiple areas she calls home, specifically the Rainy River district and Thunder Bay, and argues that the current review process fails to address the potential for negative effects.

A primary issue raised is the safety of long-distance transportation of nuclear waste. The commenter highlights the inherent dangers of Northwestern Ontario highways, citing a high number of winter fatalities and questioning how the safety of the public and transport drivers will be maintained. She argues that the draft guidelines are insufficient because they focus on local transportation and allow the NWMO to update a preliminary plan rather than providing a detailed, comprehensive transportation program. She insists that transportation is a core component of the project and must be included in the impact statement to account for the safety of those using the natural waters and roads in the region.

The submission also identifies a lack of technical detail regarding the project's operations and infrastructure. The commenter notes that the draft guidelines do not require enough information about the Used Fuel Packaging Plant or the specific methods for transferring and placing waste in underground emplacement rooms. A major concern is the lack of information regarding how containers will be monitored once underground and the procedures for retrieving or repairing them should a container fail. She stresses that the NWMO must be required to provide a detailed project description that includes potential releases to air and water at all stages, as these pose risks to both human health and the environment.

Finally, the commenter critiques the regulatory process, stating that the draft guidelines ignore many important issues and shortcomings previously identified in over 600 sets of public comments. She characterizes the current guidelines as too weak and calls for them to be strengthened to require a more thorough description of all project activities and components. Her assessment suggests that the Impact Assessment review process is currently failing to provide the transparency and detail necessary for a project of this scale and risk.

The commenter, Janice Winik, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project. As a citizen of Northwestern Ontario, she expresses the belief that she, her family, and the surrounding communities will be adversely impacted in both the foreseeable and unforeseeable future if the project proceeds. Her submission is centered on the perceived inadequacy of the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) failure to address previously raised concerns regarding the project's safety, transparency, and necessity.

A primary concern is the lack of a detailed project description within the current guidelines. The commenter argues that the NWMO must be required to provide specific information on the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, the mechanics of underground waste placement, and the methods for monitoring, retrieving, or repairing containers in the event of failure. There is a significant emphasis on the potential for radiological releases to air and water at all stages of the project and the subsequent harm to human health and the environment. Technical red flags are raised regarding underground ventilation, dewatering processes, and the behavior of bentonite blocks under fire conditions.

The submission insists that the impact assessment must include a comprehensive analysis of alternatives to the project. Specifically, the commenter advocates for the consideration of improved and more secure long-term storage at existing reactor stations as a viable alternative to the DGR. This includes a demand for a detailed comparison of costs, safety, and risks between on-site storage and the proposed plan of transporting and burying waste. Long-distance transportation is identified as a critical issue that requires full examination, including radioactivity exposure risks, container safety testing, emergency response support for first responders, and the high frequency of transport accidents on regional highways.

Socio-economic and ethical concerns are also prominent in the submission. The commenter highlights the potential for "nuclear anxiety," social division, and the psychological impacts of the project on the community. There is a strong call for the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous people and the consent of all communities located along transportation routes or downstream from the site. Economic risks identified include a "stigma effect" that could harm the tourism and food production sectors, as well as the potential for decreased property values, for which the commenter suggests property value protection guarantees should be required.

Finally, the commenter raises concerns regarding long-term safety and security. She argues that the "safety case" for the multiple-barrier concept must be part of the current impact assessment rather than being deferred to future licensing. The submission calls for detailed contingency planning for geological failures, such as unexpected rock fracturing, and a clear description of security measures, including the use of armed response teams. The commenter concludes that the assessment process should be a rigorous scientific evaluation aimed at avoiding impacts rather than a mere approval process focused on mitigation.

The commenter expresses a clear stance of opposition to the proposed project, specifically focusing on the risks and perceived inadequacies surrounding the transportation of nuclear waste. Their primary concern is the vulnerability of communities located along transport routes, asserting that the current infrastructure is insufficient to ensure safety. The commenter operates on the premise that accidents are an inevitability and that the project, as currently outlined, lacks the necessary improvements and accountability frameworks to address such events.

A significant portion of the submission is dedicated to issues of legal and financial accountability. The commenter identifies a critical need for a formal process to sue for damages and recommends the immediate establishment of a compensation fund to be included in the project's total costs. There is a strong ethical and socio-economic demand for decision-makers, including both politicians and corporate executives, to bear personal liability for the risks associated with the project. The commenter argues that these individuals should not be shielded from the consequences of potential failures, suggesting that any failure to provide a transparent risk analysis to the public should be treated as punishable willful negligence.

Furthermore, the commenter emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive risk analysis to inform the public of likely outcomes. The absence of such detailed information is viewed as a major red flag regarding the transparency and integrity of the project's planning phase. By focusing on the potential for excuses and a lack of accountability following an accident, the commenter highlights a deep-seated distrust in the governance and oversight of nuclear waste logistics, demanding a more rigorous legal and ethical framework before the project proceeds.

Opposed. The commenter provides a comprehensive critique of the project, focusing on the perceived "consent-manufacturing" and the exclusion of regional communities from meaningful decision-making. Major issues include the inadequacy of the Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines, the lack of participant funding for non-Indigenous groups, and the potential for severe social impacts from "man camps," such as increased crime and human trafficking. The commenter also emphasizes the critical need for iron-clad water protections and detailed studies on food security, as local populations rely heavily on hunting and fishing for subsistence.

The commenters, representing academic expertise in impact assessment from the University of Winnipeg and the University of Manitoba, are explicitly Opposed to the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) and the Draft Public Participation Plan in their current forms. They characterize the guidelines as inadequate, lacking the rigor required for a project of this magnitude, and failing to meet the standards established under the Impact Assessment Act. The submission emphasizes that because the project involves irreversible environmental alterations and utilizes a technology with no fully operational global prototypes, a high level of precaution and a comprehensive assessment framework are mandatory.

A primary technical concern raised is the exclusion of decommissioning from the assessment scope. The commenters argue that the draft TISGs conflate decommissioning with post-closure, failing to account for the active dismantling and remediation activities required to retire infrastructure. Furthermore, they identify a significant jurisdictional red flag, arguing that restricting the analysis to "adverse effects within federal jurisdiction" creates an artificial boundary. They contend that since both the proponent and the regulator are federal entities, the assessment must consider all non-negligible adverse effects across federal, provincial, and Indigenous spheres to avoid a misleading characterization of the project’s consequences.

Environmental and safety concerns are centered on the Used Fuel Packaging Plant (UFPP) and transportation risks. The authors note that the TISGs do not adequately address air releases from the UFPP during normal operations or the consequences of a large-scale accidental release. They also highlight a lack of detail regarding impacts on fish habitat, migratory birds, and species at risk. Regarding transportation, the submission argues that the current focus on "educating the public" is insufficient to address the physical risks of vehicle collisions, spills, or acts of terror inherent in transporting highly radioactive waste over thousands of kilometers. They also question the geological suitability of the Ignace, Ontario site, noting that previous research at the Pinawa facility in the same rock formation raised concerns about fractures.

Socio-economic and ethical issues are prominent in the submission, particularly regarding Indigenous rights and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+). The commenters call for a formal business plan to assess impacts on Indigenous treaty lands and local communities. They criticize the lack of guidance for qualitative, world-view-oriented data collection, which they contrast with the highly specific requirements for quantitative modeling. Additionally, they express concern over the "skeletal" nature of GBA+ integration, noting it falls short of federal best practices. There is also a specific request for clarity on how Indigenous-led impact conclusions will be weighted against the proponent’s analysis to ensure rights-holders' decisions are respected.

Finally, the submission identifies concerns regarding cumulative effects and public engagement. They raise the "build it and they will come" argument, suggesting the repository will encourage the development of new nuclear reactors in other jurisdictions, a factor currently ignored in the cumulative effects assessment. The Draft Public Participation Plan is criticized for being a "one-way passive mechanism." The authors recommend a more robust plan that includes two-way dialogue, public input on the Project Charter, and the establishment of an independent monitoring agency for the post-decision phase to ensure long-term accountability and public confidence.

The Town of Atikokan’s submission is categorized as Neutral/Unclear regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository. The primary intent of the correspondence is procedural and administrative, as the Town is formally requesting to be recognized as a self-identifying local community within the federal Impact Assessment process. While the Town is not currently listed in the project study area, it asserts that its proximity to the regional development in the Ignace area necessitates its inclusion in the assessment to ensure potential impacts are appropriately studied, understood, and mitigated.

The Town identifies several critical socio-economic and infrastructure concerns that it believes must be addressed through rigorous quantitative analysis. These include the capacity of local housing and accommodations, potential shifts in workforce and population, and the resulting pressure on municipal infrastructure such as water and wastewater systems. Furthermore, the Town emphasizes the need to evaluate impacts on essential community services, specifically highlighting healthcare, childcare, education, and emergency response capabilities. The Town’s request for inclusion in baseline data collection and effects analysis suggests a concern that the current scope of the assessment may overlook the specific needs and vulnerabilities of nearby municipalities.

Transportation safety and regional traffic impacts are also highlighted as significant concerns, with a specific mention of Highway 622 as a key regional route requiring detailed study. The submission points to broader local and regional economic effects and the necessity of assessing cumulative effects across various sectors and neighboring communities. By requesting engagement in the refinement of study requirements, the Town seeks to ensure that local interests, conditions, and priorities are reflected in the assessment. The Town expects the process to identify mitigation measures and assess community readiness to ensure that its interests are recognized and addressed through evidence-based municipal planning.

Opposed. The commenter expresses skepticism regarding the safety of the repository and calls for a full, unbiased assessment of all alternatives. Key concerns include the risks and carbon footprint associated with transporting waste 1,600 km over hazardous northern infrastructure when closer sites may exist. The commenter also demands that free, prior, and informed consent be obtained from all First Nations and municipalities along the transportation route and within the watershed, arguing that the approval process should be based on rigorous scientific evidence rather than small population samples.

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON), comprising the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, is Opposed to the project as currently outlined in the Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) and the Indigenous Engagement Partnership Plan (IEPP). Their opposition is centered on the inadequacy of the current assessment framework to address the project's impacts on their territory, the lack of free, prior, and informed consent, and their formal exclusion from the list of Indigenous Nations most likely to be impacted by the repository.

A primary concern raised is the significant impact of transporting approximately 3.1 million bundles of used nuclear fuel through SON territory over a period of at least three decades. The commenter identifies a major gap in the draft guidelines, which they argue defer detailed transportation planning and risk assessments to later phases. They demand a full assessment now regarding the risks of accidents, malfunctions, and malicious acts. Beyond physical safety, the SON highlights socio-psychological impacts, stating that the routine transportation of nuclear waste through their lands creates a persistent sense of fear, dread, and stigma that reinforces a sense of imposed risk on their community.

The SON also raises critical issues regarding the continued storage of nuclear waste within their territory. They point out that nearly 45 percent of Canada’s used fuel is currently stored on their lands without their consent, a situation they describe as a "nuclearization" of their territory. They argue that the project’s current sequencing forces them to remain hosts to this waste for decades while the repository is filled. To mitigate this, they demand that the impact assessment include an analysis of alternative interim storage options at or near the proposed repository site to allow for the expedited removal of waste from SON territory.

A significant ethical and regulatory red flag is the exclusion of the SON from the IEPP’s list of Nations with a "medium to high likelihood of potential impacts." The commenter asserts that this omission is a fundamental failure of the process, as the project’s effects extend well beyond the physical footprint of the repository to include the long-term handling and movement of waste through their traditional lands and waters. They argue that this exclusion is inconsistent with the Crown’s obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically regarding the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent for the storage of hazardous materials.

The submitter, Northwatch, is explicitly Opposed to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project and specifically critical of the proponent’s attempt to exclude long-distance transportation from the formal impact assessment process. The commenter characterizes the NWMO’s documentation as promotional rather than substantive, arguing that it lacks supporting evidence and fails to address the rigorous technical concerns raised by the public, Indigenous peoples, and expert intervenors. Northwatch contends that the NWMO’s response to the Summary of Issues merely restates previous generalizations and ignores fundamental safety and procedural gaps identified during the initial project description phase.

A primary issue raised is the scope of the impact assessment. Northwatch argues that the long-distance transportation of nuclear fuel is an "incidental activity" that is physically and functionally inseparable from the repository project. They dispute the NWMO’s claim that transportation is an "ongoing" activity, noting that the project would increase shipments from an average of five bundles per year to approximately 120,000 bundles per year. The commenter asserts that excluding the transportation corridor from the assessment is inconsistent with the Impact Assessment Act and ignores the potential risks to communities located along thousands of kilometers of road and rail infrastructure.

Technical concerns regarding transportation containers and radiological safety are also prominent. Northwatch highlights that only one of the three proposed transportation containers has been certified, and they criticize the certification process as opaque and lacking public or peer review. They point out that the existing certification for the Used Fuel Transportation Package relies on half-scale model testing from the 1980s that was only partially successful, with fire and immersion safety being determined by computer modeling rather than physical testing. Furthermore, the commenter challenges the NWMO’s assertion that the solid nature of the fuel prevents "spills," noting that the real public interest lies in radiological releases and exposure, which do not require a liquid state to cause harm.

Ethical and socio-economic concerns are raised regarding the safety of first responders and the lack of transparency in emergency planning. Northwatch cites a study indicating that training for first responders in northern Ontario is minimal and relies on manuals that may downplay the risks of radiation. They argue that the NWMO has not demonstrated an ability to coordinate an effective emergency response and that the current regulatory system for radioactive shipments is "opaque," lacking a public registry for accidents or incidents. The submission also emphasizes that the project is located within Treaty 3 territory and notes that issues of community and Indigenous consent remain unresolved.

Finally, the commenter identifies a significant failure in the NWMO’s consideration of "alternative means" for the project. Northwatch suggests that the NWMO should have evaluated packaging the waste into final disposal containers at the reactor sites rather than transporting it in temporary packages for later transfer at the repository. Citing lessons from the Yucca Mountain project in the United States, the submitter argues that "in-air" transfers of fuel at the repository site—as currently proposed by the NWMO—pose unacceptable risks of worker exposure and facility contamination. They conclude that the NWMO’s refusal to include these transportation and handling alternatives in the assessment further undermines the credibility of the project’s safety claims.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association, representing We the Nuclear Free North, is explicitly opposed to the current progression of the Deep Geological Repository project and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) handling of the impact assessment process. The submission characterizes the proponent’s response to the Summary of Issues as insufficient, arguing that it improperly minimizes the roles of Indigenous Nations and the public while failing to address numerous serious concerns raised in previous stages of the review. The commenter asserts that the NWMO has failed to comply with the Agency's instructions to review all public submissions, leading to the omission of widespread opposition and critical technical concerns from the project's planning documents.

A primary procedural issue raised is the perceived lack of legal justification for the bifurcation of issues into a Summary of Issues and a separate annex, which the commenter argues maintains an unjustifiable distinction that excludes vital concerns. There is a significant emphasis on the need for a comprehensive assessment of alternatives, including the alternative of not proceeding with the project at all or implementing hardened storage facilities at existing interim sites. The commenter identifies a lack of transparency in previous studies and argues that the impact assessment must be broadened to include alternative mining methods, repository designs, and transportation containers, rather than narrowing the scope based on flawed historical decisions.

The submission identifies the exclusion of transportation from the impact assessment as a major red flag and a form of "project splitting." The commenter argues that the decades-long transport of unprecedented volumes of radioactive waste across vast geographic areas and Indigenous territories is not a routine activity and must be assessed for its potential impacts on Treaty rights, Aboriginal Title, and the Great Lakes Basin. Safety concerns are further elaborated through the lack of a "Nuclear Safety Culture," the potential for radiological releases, and the absence of detailed accident scenarios or malevolent act protections. The commenter also notes that the fuel waste inventory has been misrepresented and underestimated in the proponent's initial descriptions.

Ethical and socio-economic concerns are central to the submission, particularly regarding environmental justice. The commenter highlights the inequity of imposing the risks of nuclear waste on Northwestern Ontario when the benefits of nuclear power primarily serve Southern Ontario. There are specific concerns regarding social division, nuclear anxiety, and the stigma associated with the project. Furthermore, the submission points to direct impacts on local communities like Melgund Township, citing potential disruptions to recreational land use, food security, subsistence harvesting, and property values. The commenter disputes the NWMO's claim of having "willing and informed hosts," suggesting that the approach to seeking consent has been contentious and involves the provision of millions of dollars to municipal and Indigenous governments, which complicates the notion of informed consent.

Environmental and technical concerns include the potential for acid mine drainage, metal leaching from excavated rock, and the impacts of dewatering and pumping water to the surface on local hydrology. The submission notes a lack of detail regarding major project components such as the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, underground ventilation systems, and excavation damage zones. Additionally, the commenter raises alarms about the impact on the tourism sector and the physical safety of transportation routes, noting that Highway 17 frequently experiences closures and high accident rates, which complicates emergency response strategies in unorganized townships with limited services. The commenter concludes that the impact assessment process must be corrected to encompass all these serious issues before proceeding to the next phase.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear regarding the overall construction and operation of the Deep Geological Repository itself; however, the submission is explicitly critical of the procedural conduct of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC). The focus of the comment is entirely on the systemic barriers to public participation and the perceived inadequacy of the consultation process, rather than the technical or environmental merits of the repository. The commenter highlights that the current approach to information distribution effectively excludes significant portions of the local population from meaningful engagement.

A primary issue raised is the lack of accessible printed documentation for the Revell Site project. The commenter notes that while the Initial Project Description was announced in early 2026, hardcopies were largely restricted to specific host communities, leaving residents in surrounding areas and along the Highway 17 transportation corridor with limited access. Even where copies were available, such as in Dryden, they were often abbreviated versions subject to strict on-site viewing restrictions, preventing residents from conducting the detailed, long-term study required for a 1,233-page technical document. The substitution of digital formats, such as USB drives, is identified as a significant barrier for those who struggle with screen-based reading or lack the hardware to download large files.

The submission highlights a significant ethical and socio-economic concern regarding the digital divide in Northwestern Ontario. The region’s demographic profile includes a high percentage of seniors and residents in rural or unorganized territories who face limited broadband connectivity and a lack of local public computer facilities. The commenter argues that the proponent’s reliance on digital distribution and a single mailed postcard for notification fails to account for these realities. This creates a practical barrier to meaningful participation, as residents in areas like Melgund Township must travel 1.5 hours round trip just to view project documents, which the commenter views as an inequitable burden on aging and rural populations.

Another major concern involves the use of outdated informational materials and gaps in the notification process. The commenter observes that NWMO information stands often contain pamphlets from 2015–2021, which do not reflect the current federal impact assessment phase, potentially misleading the public about the project's status. Furthermore, residents in unorganized territories—who are often closest to the proposed site—reported receiving no direct mail notification regarding information sessions. The lack of local media, such as newspapers in Dryden, compounds this issue, leading to a reliance on informal channels that often leave residents informed too late to participate effectively in the comment period.

To rectify these issues, the commenter suggests that the proponent and regulators must expand the physical distribution of current project materials to local service boards and libraries. They emphasize the need for updated, clearly dated information and a more robust notification strategy that includes direct coordination with local service boards in unorganized territories. These steps are presented as essential for ensuring that the impact assessment process is inclusive, fair, and meets the basic expectations of effective public engagement for all impacted residents, regardless of their digital literacy or geographic location.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), acting as counsel for We the Nuclear Free North (WTNFN), expresses a stance that is Opposed to the current progression of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) Deep Geological Repository project as outlined in the Initial Project Description (IPD). The submission characterizes the proponent's proposal and the Agency’s Summary of Issues as legally inadequate, non-transparent, and failing to meet the mandatory requirements of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). The commenter highlights widespread opposition from Indigenous nations and local municipalities, arguing that the project lacks the necessary informed and willing host consent and fails to address the extreme long-term risks associated with high-level nuclear waste.

A primary concern raised is the perceived failure of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to properly categorize and address critical issues. The commenter objects to the bifurcation of issues into a Summary of Issues and an Annex A, arguing that relegating mandatory factors—such as the need for the project, alternatives to the project, and Indigenous rights—to an information only annex lacks legal justification under the IAA. They contend that the IPD is insufficient and does not meet the requirements of the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulations. Furthermore, the submission criticizes the Agency for providing vague, high-level direction to the proponent, which they believe allows the NWMO excessive discretion to provide superficial or self-serving responses rather than rigorous, evidence-based analysis.

The submission identifies significant environmental and safety red flags, particularly regarding the transportation and handling of nuclear waste. WTNFN expresses alarm over the proposal to re-package high-level waste twice—once at interim sites and again at the repository site—using unknown processes, which they argue increases radiological and occupational safety risks. They also challenge the project's temporal scope, noting that while the NWMO limits its assessment to 160 years, the waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. Technical concerns include the impact of seismicity, heat, and radiation on the structural stability of the repository and containers, as well as potential contamination of groundwater and surface water. The commenter also notes a lack of assessment regarding the full project's climate change impacts beyond mere transportation effects.

Ethical and socio-economic concerns are centered on Indigenous sovereignty and environmental justice. The commenter emphasizes that the project must adhere to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and secure free, prior, and informed consent from all affected communities, including those along transportation routes. They argue that siting the repository in Northern Ontario constitutes environmental inequity, placing a disproportionate burden on communities far from the point of waste generation. Additionally, the submission questions the validity of the NWMO’s willing host claim, pointing to formal resolutions of opposition from the Treaty 3 Chiefs in Assembly and other local entities. Finally, they raise concerns about potential scope modifications, suggesting the NWMO is seeking open-ended flexibility to increase the volume or change the type of waste stored after the assessment is complete.

The Grand Council Treaty #3 (GCT3), representing the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3, expresses a stance that is Opposed to the project as currently proposed and the regulatory process being followed. The submission outlines a profound dissatisfaction with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s (IAAC) Summary of Issues, which the Nation claims fails to incorporate their specific legal, jurisdictional, and environmental concerns. The commenter characterizes the Agency's approach as random, ad hoc, and lacking transparency, noting a perceived disrespect for the Nation’s inherent authority and laws. The Nation emphasizes that the project is proposed within Treaty #3 Territory and asserts that the current process ignores the Crown’s constitutional and statutory duties.

A primary concern raised is the disregard for Manito Aki Inaakonigewin (MAI), the Nation’s traditional laws, and the failure to harmonize these laws with the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) framework. The Nation identifies significant ethical and legal red flags regarding the Crown’s breach of commitments to work collaboratively on MAI/IAA harmonization. Furthermore, the submission asserts that the project and the Agency’s summary are out of compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The Nation also objects to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a non-Crown entity, taking positions regarding the Nation’s Section 35 constitutional rights, which they argue is entirely outside the NWMO's authority.

The commenter raises critical issues regarding the NWMO’s site selection process, describing it as a unilateral, self-guided, and non-regulatory framework that has avoided independent scrutiny for nearly two decades. The Nation insists that site selection must be evaluated as an "alternative means" of carrying out the project under the IAA, rather than being scoped out of the assessment. They challenge the technical and social validity of the site selection, arguing that the NWMO is attempting to avoid review of serious challenges. Additionally, the Nation disputes the designation of the Township of Ignace as a "host community," noting the project is located 40 kilometers outside municipal boundaries and that the Township lacks regulatory authority or status as a jurisdiction under the Act.

Socio-economic and procedural concerns are centered on the lack of meaningful engagement and the omission of the Nation’s previous detailed comments from the official Summary of Issues. The Nation expresses disappointment that the NWMO and the Agency have ignored the purpose and mandate of the IAA in relation to Indigenous jurisdictions. The submission concludes by demanding that the NWMO explicitly address the Nation's identified deficiencies, including scoping issues and information gaps, to ensure that the impact assessment reflects the Nation-to-Nation discussions and the legal realities of the Treaty #3 Territory.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses strong opposition based on the potential for permanent environmental devastation in Northwestern Ontario. Key issues include the long-term impact on future generations and the perceived prioritization of economic gain over the preservation of nature.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter argues that the project violates international climate obligations, such as the ICJ Advisory Opinion and the Paris Agreement, due to the CO2 emissions associated with transporting high-level nuclear waste over long distances. Specific concerns are raised regarding the 2,900 km transport route from New Brunswick to Ontario, citing risks of road wear, potential accidents, and radiation exposure to communities along the path. The author contends that excluding transportation from the impact assessment is a dereliction of responsibility.

Stance: Support. The commenter supports the project, citing nuclear energy as a clean source and praising the NWMO's safety protocols and public education efforts. They highlight the anticipated economic boost for the community of Ignace and express confidence in the site selection process.

Stance: Opposed. The primary concerns raised involve the risks associated with transporting nuclear waste across Northern Ontario and the potential for pollution. The commenter fears catastrophic effects on water and soil quality, arguing that the project causes unnecessary environmental suffering.

Stance: Support. The commenter views nuclear energy as essential for humanity, emphasizing that it is a highly regulated industry with a strong safety record. They dismiss opposition as being driven by interests supporting other energy sectors.

The Grand Council Treaty #3 (GCT3) is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project as it is currently outlined in the Initial Project Description (IPD). The submission characterizes the IPD as having significant omissions and deficiencies, arguing that GCT3’s status as a traditional governance structure with jurisdiction and authority over Treaty #3 territory is virtually ignored. The commenter asserts that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has failed to acknowledge the Nation’s role, laws, protocols, and ceremony, and has incorrectly characterized the history of their engagement, which dates back to 2011 rather than 2022.

A primary concern raised is the project's non-compliance with Manito Aki Inaakonigewin (MAI), the Anishinaabe law regarding land and resource development. GCT3 states that proponents must seek the consent of the Nation and disclose potential effects in a timely manner, requirements they claim NWMO has not met. The submission highlights the absence of references to the 2011 Anishinaabe Elders Declaration and the Nibi (Water) Declaration, which establishes water as sacred and requires co-development of management plans. Furthermore, GCT3 points to a lack of recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the federal act implementing it, noting that the IPD fails to address the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent from the broader Nation.

GCT3 identifies a major red flag regarding the project's scope, specifically the exclusion of the transportation of used nuclear fuel as an "incidental activity." They argue this exclusion is contrary to the Impact Assessment Act and ignores the potential adverse effects on lands and Indigenous peoples within the transportation corridors of Treaty #3 territory. Additionally, the commenter challenges the designation of the Township of Ignace as the "host community," noting that the project site is actually located within the Kenora District and Treaty #3 territory, where Ignace has no municipal jurisdiction.

Environmental and temporal concerns are also prominent in the submission. GCT3 criticizes the IPD for failing to address the full temporal scale of the project, noting that while the regulatory lifecycle is cited as 160 years, the used nuclear fuel remains toxic for approximately one million years. This is described as a profound spiritual and practical issue for the Anishinaabe people, who intend to remain on the land indefinitely. The submission also notes a critical lack of baseline data regarding the health, social, and economic conditions of Treaty #3 First Nations, rendering NWMO’s conclusions about low environmental risk premature and unsupported.

Finally, the submission raises socio-economic concerns regarding the distribution of benefits. GCT3 argues that the IPD fails to specify how Indigenous people will benefit from the project or explain the regional benefits on a concrete scale. They seek financial resources to independently verify NWMO’s technical work and demand a clear explanation of how Anishinaabe knowledge has been or will be incorporated into the project's planning and implementation. The Council emphasizes that without addressing these fundamental issues of jurisdiction, law, and safety, the project lacks the necessary authorization to proceed within their territory.

Stance: Support. The commenter provides a comprehensive list of benefits, including nuclear energy's role in fighting climate change, the safety of deep geological repositories, and the rigorous testing of transportation containers. They also note the potential for high-paying jobs and the possibility of future waste recycling technology.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter argues that storage containers will eventually fail and leak, leading to the pollution of water and soil. They also express concern for the disturbance of wildlife and suggest that safer scientific alternatives should be pursued instead.

Stance: Opposed. This comment criticizes the project as rash and non-transparent, noting a lack of public inclusion and insufficient time for review. Key issues include the exclusion of transportation from the environmental impact statement and concerns regarding the safety of nuclear waste management compared to renewable energy.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter does not explicitly support or oppose the project but requests additional information. Specifically, they ask for more highway safety studies regarding waste transport and current earthquake statistics for the proposed site and surrounding area.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter, an ecologist, highlights the risks of transporting waste through harsh northern climates and the lack of meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities, specifically Eagle Lake First Nation. They argue it is unethical to impose the risks of radioactive waste on a region that does not benefit from the electricity produced.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter focuses on the dangers of transporting waste on accident-prone highways and criticizes the exclusion of transportation from the project's regulatory scope. They raise questions about liability, emergency response plans, and the protection of local communities in the event of a spill.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter emphasizes the spiritual and cultural value of the land to the Anishinabe people and criticizes the NWMO for dividing communities. Key issues include the dangers of transportation, the lack of safety proof for watersheds, and the perceived violation of Mother Earth.

Stance: Opposed. Representing the Anishnawbe Nation, the commenter expresses total opposition to the DGR plan, asserting that it violates sovereign rights and traditional laws. The primary issue raised is the lack of free, prior, and informed consent from the Traditional Title Rights holders, which is viewed as a direct violation of Nation-to-Nation Treaty agreements. The submission emphasizes the duty to protect traditional lands, waterways, and all forms of life for future generations against what is described as a disastrous deal.

Stance: Opposed. Major concerns include the exclusion of Indigenous groups like Eagle Lake First Nation from the consultation process and potential threats to the Winnipeg River watershed. The commenter also criticizes the 30-day review period as insufficient and highlights the risks of highway transportation accidents.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses fear regarding the safety of the English River water system and the high frequency of accidents on the Trans-Canada Highway. They argue that waste should remain where it is produced rather than being dumped in Northwestern Ontario, which they feel is being exploited for its rock formations.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter identifies the transportation of waste by road or rail as too risky and views the storage in pristine areas as a threat to essential natural resources like water and food. They advocate for a shift toward renewable energy and efficient resource use.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter calls for the inclusion of transportation in the project scope and criticizes the 30-day comment period as inadequate. They highlight the systematic exclusion of Eagle Lake and Grassy Narrows First Nations and request an independent third-party panel to investigate alternatives.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter demands a full impact assessment and an independent review panel, arguing that the transportation of nuclear waste must be included in the project scope due to its unprecedented nature and daily occurrence over 50 years. They criticize the NWMO for failing to consult the Eagle Lake First Nation, whose territory overlaps with the project area, and assert that this exclusion violates constitutional obligations and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Stance: Opposed. The commenter represents residents and tourist camp owners located closer to the site than the host community of Ignace, claiming they have been marginalized and denied a voice in the process. Key concerns include the loss of remoteness and business for established tourist camps, the environmental impact on local wildlife and water, and the social problems associated with a sudden influx of 600-800 workers in a previously secluded area.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses concern regarding the proximity of the proposed repository to major headwaters, arguing that storing nuclear waste in such a location poses a significant risk to Canada's fresh water resources. They suggest that historical precedents make future problems and potential downstream disasters inevitable.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient for a project with such long-term impacts and criticizes the NWMO for excluding long-distance transportation from the review. They request a more detailed project description, specifically regarding radiological risks and waste handling procedures, and call for a full impact assessment including public hearings.

The commenter, Elizabeth Angeconeb, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s used nuclear fuel. As a member of the Lac Seul First Nation and a signatory to Treaty 3, the author states a clear objection to locating the facility within Treaty 3 territory and expresses a fundamental opposition to the deep burial of any nuclear waste. The submission calls for a full review by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the holding of public hearings to ensure the public is fully informed of the project's impacts.

A primary concern raised involves Indigenous rights, governance, and the site selection process. The commenter highlights the Great Earth Law (Manito Aki Inakonigaawin), which requires the collective consent and participation of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty 3 for any development in the territory. While the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation has agreed to co-host the project, the author argues that this represents only a small fraction of the Treaty 3 membership and ignores the stated opposition from other member nations, such as Lac Seul First Nation, as well as broader organizations like the Anishinabek Nation and the Assembly of First Nations. The submission emphasizes that the NWMO should respect the collective decision-making of the Treaty 3 First Nations rather than relying on the consent of a single community.

The commenter identifies the exclusion of transportation from the current assessment as a serious deficiency. The submission notes that nuclear waste would be transported over long distances on highways that pass through many First Nations territories and reserve lands, leading to routine exposure to low-level radiation and the risk of accidents. The author argues that the risk increases with the volume of transport and that the impact of rail transportation must also be assessed. The commenter requests that the Initial Project Description be revised to include a detailed transportation plan for affected communities and the general public.

Environmental and technical concerns are also raised regarding the scope of the project and nearby resource extraction. The author points out that the initial license application focuses on site preparation rather than the nuclear waste itself, which they view as an omission. Furthermore, the commenter references regulatory requirements for assessing natural resource potential, noting that the town of Ignace is situated near significant mining developments, such as the proposed Goliath Complex. The submission suggests that the proximity of these mining interests should inform the safety and characterization of the DGR site.

Finally, the submission addresses long-term ethical and safety concerns, arguing that nuclear energy is unsustainable and that there is no safe way to manage the resulting waste. The author expresses fear that containers will eventually degrade over the thousands of years the waste remains radioactive, potentially contaminating nearby waterways. The commenter advocates for above-ground storage near the point of production to allow for ongoing monitoring and containment of accidents. The submission concludes that the project places an unfair burden on future generations and suggests that the government should instead invest in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and thermal power.

The Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) appears to be Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project as it is currently framed. Their submission emphasizes a lack of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and highlights their support for collective First Nations positions that explicitly resolve against the transportation and burial of nuclear waste. The commenter views the project as a significant threat to their treaty rights and traditional territories, suggesting that the current proposal fails to meet the legal and ethical standards required for such a long-term hazardous undertaking.

A primary concern raised is the legal and policy framework surrounding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The MSIFN argues that the project engages Indigenous rights because it involves the repackaging, movement, and emplacement of high-hazard radioactive materials across Indigenous territories for unprecedented timescales. They identify a major red flag in the proponent's perceived attempt to treat FPIC as a generic consultation outcome rather than a mandatory decision standard. They demand that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) recognize FPIC as a requirement and establish clear criteria for not proceeding with the project if consent is withheld by impacted First Nations.

The scope of the assessment is another critical issue, specifically regarding the transportation of used nuclear fuel and the repackaging activities at existing reactor sites like Darlington and Pickering. The MSIFN contends that these are integral components of the project life cycle and must be included in the federal impact assessment. They express concern over the risks of daily waste shipments by truck over a 50-year period, covering average distances of 1,700km. The submission highlights potential environmental and health risks from "normal-operation" exposure, accidents, and worst-case breach scenarios along transportation corridors that cross numerous treaty territories and watersheds.

Socio-economic and ethical concerns are also prominent, particularly regarding inter-generational equity and the potential for "stranded assets." The MSIFN advocates for a robust analysis of alternatives, specifically the "Extended Interim Storage with Continual Reassessment" (EISCR) model. They argue this alternative offers lower present-value costs for ratepayers, utilizes proven dry storage technologies, and avoids the risks of long-distance transportation. By keeping waste closer to its current locations, they suggest the Crown can better respect First Nations' opposition and maintain flexibility for future technological advancements like waste reprocessing or transmutation.

Finally, the submission identifies significant legal and financial risks stemming from "social unacceptability and consent failure." The MSIFN points to a province-wide pattern of First Nations opposition and ongoing legal mobilization as evidence that the project faces sustained resistance. They request that the IAAC treat the risk of failing to obtain consent as a central project risk on par with technical or geological concerns. Furthermore, they emphasize the need for adequate resourcing and multi-year funding to ensure First Nations have the technical, legal, and administrative capacity to participate meaningfully in the assessment process without being constrained by the proponent's timelines.

Insufficient information. The provided text consists only of a placeholder instruction to refer to an attachment and does not contain any substantive comments, arguments, or data regarding the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's proposed Deep Geological Repository. Consequently, it is impossible to determine the commenter's stance or identify any specific issues, concerns, or benefits.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter emphasizes the ecological and spiritual value of the Northwestern Ontario wilderness and its interconnected watersheds, arguing that the area should be protected for ecotourism rather than used for nuclear waste. They raise concerns about endangered species, the rights of nature, and the historical trauma of mercury poisoning in the region, urging caution to prevent further environmental degradation.

Stance: Opposed. This submission characterizes the targeting of Indigenous lands for nuclear waste as "radioactive racism" and environmental injustice. Key issues include the unprecedented scale of the shipping campaign—estimated at 44,250 packages over 50 years—and the associated risks of accidents, terrorism, and radioactive emissions during transit. The authors strongly object to the NWMO's attempt to exclude long-distance transportation from the project's scope and highlight potential contamination risks to the Great Lakes watershed and downstream communities in the United States.

Insufficient information.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter alleges 'project splitting' by excluding transportation from the assessment and argues that the NWMO has acted in bad faith by excluding Eagle Lake First Nation from the site selection process. They assert that the project violates the Crown's constitutional duty to consult and UNDRIP, calling for a suspension of the assessment until all potentially impacted Indigenous communities are properly engaged.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter cites irreversible environmental risks and violations of Indigenous sovereignty, characterizing the site selection process as 'environmental racism' and 'fraudulent' due to alleged financial manipulation of host communities. They argue that nuclear waste should remain near its production site in Southern Ontario and advocate for investment in green energy alternatives instead of a repository that threatens the region's fresh water.

Stance: Opposed. As a member of the Lac Seul First Nation, the commenter highlights the dangers of transporting nuclear waste on Highway 17, which they describe as prone to frequent winter collisions. They express concern over the long-term safety of the repository under changing climate conditions and demand that the impact assessment include transportation risks and a thorough examination of project alternatives.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter criticizes the 30-day comment period as too short and argues that the project description is inadequate because it excludes transportation and lacks detail on radiological risks. They emphasize the legal requirement to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous peoples under UNDRIP and highlight the exclusion of the Eagle Lake First Nation from the consultation process.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter alleges that the NWMO and local leaders used bullying, harassment, and defamation to secure town approval, creating deep social divisions. They argue that the process lacked good faith and transparency, claiming that critical information was withheld and that online records of these unethical practices have been deleted.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses grave concern over the potential for catastrophic consequences, particularly regarding transportation risks and the contamination of watersheds. They argue that the economic rationale does not justify the immeasurable risks to human safety and ecosystems, and they call for a longer consultation period to allow for more rigorous ethical and community review.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter argues that the initial project description is poorly executed and omits critical information regarding transportation and underground monitoring. They request a full impact assessment by an independent review panel, emphasizing the need for meaningful public participation and the fulfillment of constitutional duties toward Indigenous communities like the Eagle Lake First Nation.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter, an Anishinaabe youth, opposes the project due to the risk of irreversible environmental degradation and the exclusion of transportation from the impact assessment. They demand that the NWMO recognize Eagle Lake First Nation as a host community and adhere to UNDRIP standards, requiring a full review panel and public hearings before the project proceeds.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter focuses on the legal and constitutional obligations under UNDRIP, specifically Article 29.2 regarding the storage of hazardous materials on Indigenous lands. They argue that the NWMO has disregarded these obligations by failing to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of the Eagle Lake First Nation, rendering claims of reconciliation meaningless.

Stance: Opposed. A lifelong resident of Sioux Lookout expresses fear that the project will turn the region into a wasteland, citing risks from transportation on accident-prone highways and potential seismic activity. They characterize the NWMO's 'learning funds' as bribery and argue that the project is a dangerous experiment that prioritizes protecting more populated areas at the expense of Northern communities.

Opposed. The commenter, an Indigenous woman from Treaty 3, argues that the consultation process is a "sham" lacking meaningful discussion and sound science. Key concerns include the desecration of the Canadian Shield, potential poisoning of water and forests, and the risks of transporting radioactive materials on underserviced highways. Additionally, the commenter highlights geopolitical instability as a reason to avoid burying waste and emphasizes that the project ignores Indigenous ties to the land.

Opposed. The commenter argues that current radiation standards are dangerously outdated, relying on a "Reference Man" model that fails to account for the higher vulnerability of women, children, and infants. They criticize the Initial Project Description (IPD) as vague and express significant concern over radiological exposure during transportation and potential catastrophic accidents at the site. The commenter advocates for keeping waste near its generation locales and calls for a full independent review with extensive public participation.

Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding the Impact Assessment process, specifically arguing that the 30-day comment period is insufficient for a project with such long-term impacts. They criticize the project description for being poorly detailed and omitting critical information regarding radiological risks, the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, and container monitoring. A primary demand is the inclusion of long-distance transportation in the project review and the requirement for a full impact assessment with public hearings.

Opposed. The commenter raises several transparency and safety concerns, including the use of taxpayer money for payments to First Nations and the cancellation of the Seaborn Panel report. Technical objections include the potential for radiation exposure along transportation routes, the risk of "rock bursts" or earthquakes caused by high temperatures in the repository, and the reduced thickness of copper canisters compared to international standards. They also challenge the NWMO's claims regarding water flow and the lack of real-world testing for the storage containers.

Opposed. This detailed submission questions the ethical and social defensibility of permanently situating a national hazard in Northwestern Ontario, citing risks to interconnected freshwater systems and the lack of long-term governance capacity. The commenter argues that the project fails to address intergenerational equity, as it transfers risk to future generations without their consent, and emphasizes that Indigenous consent must be ongoing and revocable. They recommend a fully independent, Indigenous-led Impact Assessment and outline several mandatory conditions for the project to be considered fit to proceed.

Opposed. The commenter highlights serious legal and safety concerns, arguing that the exclusion of transportation from the project scope violates the Impact Assessment Act. They emphasize the risks of transporting waste through accident-prone sections of the TransCanada highway, which could jeopardize food security for Thunder Bay and threaten the Great Lakes watershed. Furthermore, the commenter asserts that the NWMO has failed to meet constitutional and international obligations regarding the free, prior, and informed consent of the Eagle Lake First Nation.

Opposed. The commenter objects to the 30-day comment period as being too short for meaningful public participation in such a long-term project. They criticize the NWMO for attempting to exclude long-distance transportation from the review and for providing insufficient detail on project activities, radiological risks to workers and residents, and the technical specifics of the packaging plant and container retrieval. The commenter requests a full impact assessment, including a public hearing, to ensure a thorough and transparent review.

Opposed. Drawing on experience as a resident of a nuclear host region, the commenter warns that "interim" storage often becomes permanent and criticizes the NWMO for a "segmented" approach that ignores the full project lifecycle. Key issues include the exclusion of transportation from the assessment, the potential for negative social impacts like human trafficking and housing pressure, and the lack of financial protections for host communities. They also express deep skepticism about the ability of regulatory institutions to maintain safety and oversight over the 160-year project lifespan.

Opposed. The commenter, a resident of Thunder Bay living on the proposed transportation route, argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient and the project description lacks necessary detail. They strongly advocate for the inclusion of long-distance transportation in the review and express concern over how project activities might negatively impact the harvesting rights of Indigenous communities. The commenter requests a full impact assessment and public hearing to ensure meaningful public participation.

Opposed. An Indigenous resident of Northwestern Ontario, the commenter criticizes the NWMO for attempting to exclude transportation from the Impact Assessment despite previously describing it as a core component of the project. They highlight the lack of detailed information on radiological risks to workers and residents and argue that the potential environmental and safety hazards far outweigh any benefits. The commenter calls for a thorough, transparent assessment that keeps transportation within its scope to protect Indigenous rights and the local environment.

Neutral. The commenter provided no specific feedback or issues within the text, instead referring to an attached submission. Consequently, no stance or key issues could be identified from the provided comment content.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the vast distance of the transportation route must be included in the project scope, citing concerns over highway safety, limited emergency response in remote regions, and potential impacts on watersheds. They criticize the lack of a viable plan for waste retrievability, characterizing the current approach as "abandonment," and highlight the omission of natural disaster mitigation for events like wildfires or seismic activity. Finally, they question the ethics of making a decision with such long-lasting consequences for future civilizations given the lack of public education and the short comment window.

Opposed. The commenter suggests that the NWMO's exclusion of transportation from the Initial Project Description is a strategic move to avoid a "deal-breaker" issue that would likely lead to the project's rejection. They emphasize the high risk of accidents on Highways 11 and 17, as well as concerns regarding security and corruption. Ultimately, the commenter maintains that the repository should not proceed regardless of whether transportation is included in the current assessment phase.

Opposed. The commenter, representing the Nigigoonsiminikaaning community, expresses unanimous opposition to the development of "nuclear tombs" on Treaty 3 land. The primary concern is the introduction of toxic elements into pristine waters that provide life and sustain traditional hunting and fishing grounds. The commenter emphasizes the spiritual and practical importance of maintaining the land's purity for future use.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the NWMO for failing to provide specific details on how safety will be ensured, arguing that current radiation protection regulations are insufficient to protect workers and the public from low-dose exposure. They cite various scientific studies suggesting that even low levels of radiation can cause cancer and other health issues, and they challenge the "As Low as Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) principle as being industry-centric rather than safety-centric. Additionally, the commenter points to a history of contamination at existing nuclear facilities as evidence that the risks of the project are significantly higher than the NWMO claims.

Opposed. The commenter emphasizes Indigenous rights and sovereignty, arguing that the project violates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and lacks the free, prior, and informed consent of the Eagle Lake First Nation. Key concerns include the potential for environmental and cultural destruction, the risks of transporting nuclear waste over dangerous highways for 50 years, and the necessity of a full impact assessment that includes transportation, alternatives, and a more detailed project description.

Opposed. The commenter expresses a general opposition to the expansion of the nuclear industry in Canada, citing safety concerns regarding waste management. They advocate for the development of renewable energy sources as a more sustainable alternative for the economy and the environment.

Opposed. The commenter demands a full impact assessment and public hearing for the project, specifically insisting that transportation and a thorough examination of alternatives be included in the scope. They argue that the Initial Project Description is insufficient and requires more detailed information to be properly evaluated.

Opposed. The commenter rejects the project outright, viewing it as the creation of a "sacrifice zone" that will lack stability for millennia. Major issues raised include escalating costs, the failure to stop nuclear waste production at the source, the lack of informed consent from Indigenous peoples, and the irreversibility of potential catastrophic failures in a 160-year timeframe.

Opposed. The commenter highlights the historical environmental damage to river systems in Northwestern Ontario and the continued exclusion of Treaty partners from development decisions. They argue that the region has already borne a disproportionate burden for Ontario's energy needs and suggest that waste should be stored near the point of generation rather than transported to a remote location, while also criticizing the lack of detail in the project description and the exclusion of transportation from the review.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the 30-day public comment period is insufficient for a project spanning 160 years. They cite widespread opposition from various sectors and contend that Northwestern Ontario should not bear the risks of transporting and storing waste from which it did not benefit.

Opposed. This detailed comment focuses on the technical risks of rail and road transportation, noting the lack of formal agreements with rail companies and the high accident rates on specific highway stretches. The commenter calls for updated crash testing of containers, comprehensive security and emergency response plans, and the identification of "critical groups" at risk of radiation exposure, ultimately advocating for the "Proximity Principle" of keeping waste at reactor sites.

Opposed. The commenter focuses on the environmental and ethical impacts of the project, specifically regarding wildlife and animal welfare. They express concern over the toxicity of spent fuel, the potential for animal testing in pollution monitoring, and the destruction of habitat, urging the adoption of non-lethal wildlife management and humane pest control strategies.

Opposed. The commenter identifies five major concerns: the staggering logistics and risks of transporting 5.9 million fuel assemblies over 50 years, the perceived untrustworthiness of developers who label nuclear power as "clean," the lack of a project budget, the difficulty of maintaining safety over a 160-year multigenerational timeframe, and the unprecedented nature of the project which necessitates a full Environmental Impact Assessment.

Opposed. The commenter alleges corruption and a lack of respect for Indigenous leadership and local communities. They criticize the site selection and voting process in Ignace and Wabigoon First Nation, claiming that the inclusion of minors and out-of-province voters undermined the legitimacy of the results while excluding residents living in close proximity to the proposed site.

Opposed. The commenter, an elected councillor of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai, argues that the project lacks the required free, prior, and informed consent of all affected Indigenous Nations along the transportation route. They challenge the geological stability of the Canadian Shield, question the "clean" energy label, and advocate for on-site storage and a neutral cost-benefit analysis comparing nuclear to renewable energy.

Opposed. The commenter expresses concern over the long-term dangers of radioactive waste and the risks associated with transportation and emergency preparedness. They cite failed international examples of underground storage, such as in Germany, and argue that the project is unjust to communities that did not benefit from nuclear power, suggesting that resources should instead be directed toward renewable energy and conservation.

Opposed. Representing the Lake Superior Watershed Conservancy, the commenter argues that the 30-day comment period is inadequate for a project of this magnitude. They criticize the exclusion of transportation from the review, the lack of technical detail regarding waste packaging and retrieval, and the potential risks to the Lake Superior watershed, suggesting that traditional Indigenous knowledge and modern technology could provide safer alternatives.

Opposed. The commenter focuses specifically on the safety of the transportation route, citing the high frequency of motor vehicle and transport truck accidents in Northwestern Ontario. They argue that shipping nuclear waste under these conditions poses an unacceptable long-term risk to local ecosystems and communities and demand a rigorous assessment of highway safety.

Opposed. The commenter raises concerns about the geological stability of the Canadian Shield, suggesting that drilling and underground work could trigger tremors or gas releases that threaten water sources and wildlife. They question the necessity of nuclear power and suggest that economic development in the region should focus on solar or wind farms rather than a nuclear waste repository.

Opposed. The commenter expresses concern over the long-term safety of nuclear waste burial and the exclusion of downstream residents from the decision-making process. Key issues include the high risk of transportation accidents on Northwestern Ontario's limited highway infrastructure and the potential for devastating environmental and social consequences.

Support. The commenter argues that opposition is largely based on misinformation regarding seismic risks in the Canadian Shield and suggests that transportation concerns are manageable compared to other hazardous materials. They advocate for better public education and more accessible information facilities to address community questions.

Opposed. This resident criticizes the 30-day public comment period as insufficient and argues that the Initial Project Description lacks critical data on transportation, health impacts, and water management. The assessment highlights gaps in monitoring plans, climate change considerations, and the exclusion of communities along transportation routes and shared watersheds.

Neutral. The comment focuses on the project's alignment with carbon neutrality goals, pointing out that current plans for heating and transportation rely on greenhouse-gas-emitting fuels. The analyst notes a recommendation for the NWMO to transition to electric or hydrogen-based systems to ensure the project truly supports Canada's 2050 climate targets.

Opposed. The commenter demands a full impact assessment and public hearing, citing inadequate information on long-term safety, transportation, and emergency response. Specific concerns are raised regarding water contamination, the lack of detail on fuel packaging plants, and the ethics of continuing to produce nuclear waste without a proven permanent solution.

Opposed. The stance is based on the potential for accidental spills during transportation to contaminate the Great Lakes and northern water systems. The commenter emphasizes the need to keep nuclear waste out of the region to protect vital water resources.

Opposed. The commenter objects to the short 30-day review window and the exclusion of long-distance transportation from the project's scope. They highlight a lack of technical detail regarding radiological risks to workers, waste retrieval methods, and the operational safety of the Used Fuel Packaging Plant.

Opposed. This comment reiterates concerns about the insufficient public participation period and the omission of transportation from the impact assessment. It calls for a more detailed project description addressing worker safety, container monitoring, and the potential for waste retrieval in case of failure.

Opposed. The commenter challenges the fairness of the site selection process, noting that downstream communities like Dryden were excluded from voting while upstream Ignace was designated as the host. Issues raised include the dangers of long-distance trucking on single-lane highways and allegations of financial coercion involving local First Nations.

Opposed. The assessment identifies concerns regarding the exclusion of transportation risks from the review, specifically citing the dangers of winter driving and climate-related highway closures. The commenter also emphasizes the potential for radioactive contamination of the Great Lakes watershed and the lack of detailed plans for emergency response or malevolent acts.

Opposed. The commenter raises ethical objections to the 100,000-year lifespan of nuclear waste and the lack of long-term risk communication plans for future generations. They argue that the project is a poor use of public funds and that investments should instead be directed toward renewable energy and efficiency standards.

Opposed. The commenter disputes the NWMO's safety assurances, citing the toxic nature of ionizing radiation and the high probability of transportation accidents. Key issues include the potential for groundwater and surface water contamination over millennia, the impact of climate change on repository integrity, and the lack of a clear definition for "acceptable" health risks.

Opposed. This academic perspective calls for a full panel review to examine the project's rationale, the handling of various waste types, and the definition of "consent" from affected communities. The summary highlights concerns regarding long-term malfunctions and the project's overall contribution to sustainability.

Opposed. The commenter, a Treaty #3 rights holder, objects to the project based on a lack of meaningful consultation with individual families and the absence of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. They argue that the transportation and storage of waste violate treaty rights and place an unjust environmental burden on Indigenous lands and future generations.

Opposed. The commenter expresses concern over the impact on the region's tourism and wilderness, criticizing the NWMO's financial incentives as a means of buying community favor. Major issues include the risks of transporting waste to the headwaters of major river systems and the lack of transparency regarding groundwater and air contamination from the repository.

Support. The commenter argues that transportation risks are negligible based on historical safety data and views the project as a vital economic opportunity for Northern Ontario, providing high-paying, non-polluting jobs. They criticize the Impact Assessment process as an unnecessary delay caused by a lack of public education.

Opposed. The commenter highlights the extreme danger of nuclear waste and the risks associated with transporting it over thousands of kilometers on accident-prone northern highways. They criticize the Initial Project Description for omitting transportation risks and call for a full environmental impact assessment and a significantly longer public consultation period.

Support. The commenter expresses full support for the proposal without providing specific technical or economic justifications.

Opposed. This detailed critique argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient for such a complex project. Key issues include the omission of transportation and groundwater risks from the project description, and the failure to acknowledge the informed opposition of Eagle Lake First Nation, which the commenter suggests misleads the public about the level of Indigenous consent.

Opposed. The commenter focuses specifically on the safety risks of Highway 17, expressing concern that a 50-year transportation window makes a nuclear accident or explosion likely, and requests a reassessment based on these transportation risks.

Opposed. The commenter expresses skepticism regarding the technical feasibility of permanent storage, citing failures in Germany and the US. They also raise concerns about corporate accountability, the potential for diversion of nuclear materials, and the impossibility of creating a truly permanent solution for radioactive waste.

Opposed. The commenter advocates for "rolling stewardship" rather than burial, emphasizing the extreme longevity of plutonium-239. They criticize the NWMO for omitting transportation risks from the current assessment and question the feasibility of building any structure that can remain effective for tens of thousands of years.

Opposed. The commenter urges a long-term perspective focused on protecting waterways and future generations. They express concern that any accident could lead to catastrophic environmental failure, impacting the plants and life that sustain human existence.

Opposed. The commenter demands a full impact assessment by an independent review panel, arguing that the current project description is deficient. Major concerns include the exclusion of transportation risks, the lack of recognition and consent from Eagle Lake First Nation, and the unproven nature of deep geological repositories.

Opposed. The commenter identifies fundamental flaws in the project description, specifically the exclusion of transportation logistics from the assessment despite the 1,700km distance from reactor sites. They also call for the assessment to be halted pending a judicial review regarding the rights and territory of Eagle Lake First Nation.

Opposed. The commenter views all nuclear use as inherently dangerous to health and the environment. They advocate for shutting down all reactors and focusing research on neutralizing existing waste rather than pursuing burial.

Opposed. The commenter insists that the assessment must include alternatives such as on-site storage. They raise concerns regarding Indigenous rights, the dangers of repackaging and transporting waste, and the risks of nuclear proliferation.

Opposed. The commenter questions the safety of transporting hazardous materials along accident-prone highway corridors and argues that all communities along the transport route must provide consent. They find it illogical to claim the material is safe for transport but unsafe to remain at its point of origin.

Opposed. The commenter suggests on-site storage in improved containers as a safer alternative to the DGR. They criticize the lack of information on emergency response and the exclusion of transportation from the project description, calling for a full impact assessment by an integrated review panel.

Opposed. The commenter expresses fear that the project will poison the water in Treaty 3 territory and Rainy Lake. They criticize the omission of transportation plans and risks, emphasizing the danger to wildlife and the traditional lands of Indigenous peoples.

The Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF), representing the National Government of the Red River Métis, is Opposed to the project as it is currently described and scoped. The MMF argues that the Initial Project Description (IPD) fails to provide meaningful, distinction-based engagement for the Red River Métis and relies on incomplete Indigenous baseline information. The MMF asserts that the current process risks failing to identify and mitigate adverse impacts on their constitutionally protected section 35 rights, claims, and interests. They explicitly reject the proponent’s current project scoping and the "pan-Indigenous" approach to consultation, stating that without significant changes and MMF-led studies, the project represents a potential failure in regulatory consultation and reconciliation.

A primary concern raised by the MMF is the lack of distinction-based engagement. They argue that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has focused on municipal and First Nations communities while neglecting the specific governmental status and rights of the Red River Métis. The MMF emphasizes that they are the only party capable of articulating impacts on their citizens' rights and demands a formal relationship that includes a Project-specific Red River Métis Knowledge and Land Use Study (RRMKLUS). They criticize the proponent's reliance on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) public hearing process as a substitute for meaningful relationship-building, noting that such a narrow focus limits the depth of participation and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

Environmental and health concerns are central to the MMF’s submission. Citizens have identified potential downstream effects on water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and the safety of harvested wildlife, plants, and medicines. There is significant concern regarding the health of species such as moose and caribou, which are already in decline due to climate change and existing development. Furthermore, the MMF highlights psychological and perceived effects, noting that even the perception of contamination can lead to behavior modification, where citizens avoid traditional harvesting areas, thereby impacting their mental wellness and cultural connection to the land. They also raise red flags regarding the cumulative effects of the project when added to existing industrial developments within the Red River Métis National Homeland.

The MMF strongly disputes the current scope of the project, specifically the exclusion of nuclear waste transportation from the impact assessment. They argue that the transportation of radioactive materials is inherent to the project and that its exclusion creates a gap in understanding potential significant adverse impacts along transportation corridors. The MMF points to precedents in other impact assessments where transportation was included in the scope and requests that the IAAC and CNSC require the proponent to include all upstream activities from the point waste leaves a production facility. Additionally, they request that the assessment explore the potential for the repository to receive fuel from other sources not currently listed, such as Small Modular Reactors and the Point Lepreau facility.

Socio-economic and operational concerns are also detailed, including the impacts of a transient workforce, increased traffic, and the uncertainty of energy costs over the project's 160-year lifespan. The MMF identifies a need for clear economic opportunities, including procurement, training, and employment specifically tailored for Red River Métis Citizens. Regarding safety, they emphasize the necessity of collaborative emergency management notification protocols and a robust decommissioning and reclamation plan to ensure the land is returned to pre-existing conditions. The MMF concludes that early collaboration and MMF-led assessments are mandatory to avoid unmitigated adverse effects on their rights and the overall way of life for future generations.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient for public understanding and that the impact assessment must include transportation risks, specifically citing hazardous winter conditions on Northern Ontario highways. They also request details on alternative disposal methods closer to the waste's origin and more information on accident response and radiological risks.

Stance: Support. The Canadian Nuclear Association views the repository as a safe, long-term solution that follows international best practices and supports Canada's low-carbon energy goals. They support excluding transportation from the impact assessment, citing existing federal regulatory frameworks as sufficient for managing transport safety.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter highlights concerns regarding the exclusion of transportation risks, the lack of adequate emergency services in remote areas, and the need for substantiated risk data. They call for a comprehensive assessment that includes the project's full life cycle, carbon emissions, and the informed consent of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter objects to the project on the grounds that it threatens sacred Indigenous lands and future generations within Treaty 3 territory. They argue that nuclear waste should remain at its site of production rather than being moved to Northern Ontario.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter focuses on the risks of long-distance transportation through the Great Lakes watershed and populated areas, noting high highway collision rates in the region. They insist that transportation must be included in the project review to properly assess risks to public health and the environment.

Stance: Opposed. As a volunteer firefighter, the commenter expresses concern about the lack of personnel and emergency response capacity along the transportation route. They emphasize that engagement with local first responders is a critical priority that has not been adequately addressed.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter criticizes the short 30-day comment period and the exclusion of transportation from the review process. They demand a more detailed project description that addresses radiological risks, waste monitoring, and retrieval procedures in case of container failure.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter, a former MP, argues that the site selection process is politically motivated and ignores the safety of communities along the 1,700 km transport route. They highlight the dangers of two-lane highways and the potential for catastrophic environmental impacts on the Great Lakes watershed.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter raises multiple concerns, including the exclusion of transportation, lack of transparency in community agreements, and the potential for the site to expand into a global dumping ground. They characterize the "bury and forget" approach as a neglect of responsibility rather than a management solution.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter calls for a full impact assessment including transportation and alternatives, arguing that nuclear waste poses a multi-generational threat. They suggest that the only responsible path is to stop producing nuclear waste and transition to renewable energy sources.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter requests a full impact assessment that includes transportation and an independent review panel. They stress the importance of recognizing Eagle Lake First Nation as a host community and adhering to UNDRIP principles regarding informed consent for hazardous waste storage.

Stance: Opposed. This academic critique focuses on intergenerational ethics, noting that the 160-year management plan is insufficient for waste that remains toxic for millennia. The commenter argues that the review must address the lack of long-term hazard communication and the unproven nature of deep geological repositories.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter challenges the "need and purpose" of the project, citing inaccuracies regarding long-term monitoring and energy security. They insist that transportation and the health impacts of waste repackaging must be included in a complete impact assessment.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter focuses on the extreme safety risks of transporting nuclear waste on Highways 11 and 17, citing high accident rates and treacherous road conditions. They criticize the NWMO for omitting transportation details from the project description, leaving the public misinformed.

The Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) is explicitly opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project. The submission states that NAN has maintained a firm and public opposition to the DGR for decades, viewing the burial of nuclear waste as a betrayal to future generations and a contradiction of their mandate as stewards of the land and water. They advocate for "above ground rolling stewardship" where waste is stored near its place of origin, rather than the proposed permanent underground disposal.

A primary concern raised is the exclusion of the 50-year transportation phase from the Initial Project Description (IPD). NAN argues that the transportation of 5.9 million bundles of nuclear fuel over thousands of kilometers is an incidental activity that must be included in the federal impact assessment. They highlight significant safety risks associated with the Trans-Canada Highway 11 corridor, which is prone to severe accidents and has slow emergency response times due to its remoteness. The commenter notes that the perceived risk of transporting radioactive materials through their territory will have a "chilling effect" on the ability of member First Nations to exercise their constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

The submission identifies major ethical and legal concerns regarding Indigenous rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). NAN asserts that the current project scope fails to facilitate Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) because it artificially fragments the project, preventing impacted Nations from fully understanding the risks within their territories. They argue that the Crown cannot fulfill its duty to consult and accommodate if the assessment excludes the transportation routes and the numerous Indigenous communities situated along them.

Environmental concerns focus on the long-term integrity of watersheds and groundwater. NAN criticizes the proponent’s "westernized" and "artificially narrow" approach to defining affected watersheds, arguing that geological stability and water movement cannot be guaranteed over the thousands of years the waste remains dangerous. They point to historical human interventions, such as water diversions, as evidence that natural patterns are easily disrupted. The potential for contamination of water systems used for drinking, fishing, and ceremonies is a significant red flag, especially given the lack of a concrete plan for the retrievability of the waste once the repository is sealed.

Finally, the submission highlights regulatory and technical deficiencies, claiming the IPD fails to meet the legal requirements of the Impact Assessment Act and its associated regulations. NAN argues that the proponent has omitted critical information regarding greenhouse gas emissions, adverse impacts on cultural heritage, and alternative means of carrying out the project. They reject the proponent's reliance on alternative regulatory processes, such as those under the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, asserting that these processes are technical in nature and do not adequately assess the social, economic, or Indigenous rights impacts of the project.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter opposes both the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in the region, citing hazardous winter road conditions. They argue that waste should be kept at the point of production where it can be safely monitored by experts.

Opposed. The commenter argues against generating more nuclear waste without a proven disposal plan and criticizes the brief public comment period. Key concerns include the exclusion of transportation risks from the assessment, the need for a comprehensive integrated review under federal acts, and potential radioactive contamination of water systems over a 100,000-year timescale. The commenter highlights historical failures in water management in Northern Ontario as a reason for distrust.

Opposed. The commenter challenges the project's "best practice" designation and "permanent management" claims, noting the lack of operational precedents and the intergenerational burden of radioactive waste. Major issues raised include the exclusion of transportation risks from the impact assessment, the inadequacy of Indigenous consultation—specifically regarding First Nations along transportation corridors—and the potential for accidents on hazardous Northern Ontario highways. The commenter advocates for renewable energy alternatives and continued on-site storage.

Opposed. As a science educator, the commenter disputes the "settled science" and "safety" claims, arguing that no operational DGR exists to provide empirical data. Primary concerns involve the lack of independent regulatory oversight, the high risks associated with transporting waste over 1,600 km of dangerous highways, and the omission of transportation from the federal impact assessment. The commenter also criticizes the NWMO's risk assessment methodology for failing to account for catastrophic consequences and total project risk.

Opposed. This brief follow-up comment highlights a specific economic concern regarding the lack of home insurance coverage for accidental radiation exposure for properties located along the proposed transportation route to Ignace. It implies that residents bear uncompensated financial risks due to the project's logistics.

Opposed. The commenter, a rights-holder of the Naotkamegwanning First Nation, asserts that the NWMO has failed to meaningfully consult with individual families and rights-holders, violating Treaty #3 and UNDRIP standards. Key issues include the irreversible risks to traditional lands and waters from waste transportation, the lack of regional benefit from nuclear energy, and the rejection of "Learn More Agreements" as a substitute for free, prior, and informed consent.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the lack of democratic participation for Dryden residents and the absence of financial or environmental protections in the event of a failure. Major concerns include the use of unproven technology, the extreme risks of transporting waste over dangerous Northern Ontario highways, and the perceived inadequacy of self-monitoring by the NWMO. The commenter suggests the project places a disproportionate burden on local communities while offering few benefits, citing historical environmental injustices as a basis for distrust.

Opposed. The commenter prioritizes the dangers of transporting high-level waste on the Trans Canada Highway and the resulting uninsurable risks to property values. They advocate for the "Proximity Principle," suggesting waste should remain in secure above-ground storage at production sites to ensure visibility and monitoring. Additional concerns include the high cost and environmental impact of nuclear energy, the insufficiency of the proposed 160-year monitoring plan for waste that remains toxic for millennia, and the exclusion of transportation from the impact assessment.

Opposed. The commenter expresses deep concern over the high likelihood of transportation accidents and the potential for long-term failure of the repository. Key issues raised include the lack of clear emergency response and evacuation plans for both humans and animals, as well as the potential negative impacts on the health of regional water systems, plants, and wildlife.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the Initial Project Description fails to adequately address potential radioactive releases into the air and water from the Used Fuel Packaging Plant and the underground repository. Significant concerns are raised regarding the contamination of downstream watersheds, including the Wabigoon and Winnipeg rivers, and the exclusion of downstream communities from the consultation process. The commenter references the historical mercury poisoning in the region as a warning against introducing toxic substances into the headwaters.

Opposed. This brief comment expresses a categorical opposition to the project based on safety concerns.

Neutral. The commenter focuses on the need for a broader regional scope in the impact assessment, noting that communities like Dryden will experience significant socio-economic effects despite not being designated as "hosts." Key issues include the potential for negative perceptions to harm the regional tourism economy and the need to evaluate alternative worker accommodation strategies, such as housing workers within established communities rather than temporary camps, to better distribute benefits and reduce infrastructure pressure.

Opposed. Local business owners express concern over the repository's proximity to Dryden and its location at the headwaters of major watersheds, which they fear will negatively impact the tourism and fishing industries. They strongly criticize the dangers of transporting nuclear waste over treacherous sections of Highway 17 and argue that waste should be stored near its point of production. The commenters also highlight a lack of direct engagement with private landowners and business interests in the region.

Opposed. The commenter opposes the project due to the high frequency of accidents on local highways and the need to protect land and water resources. They characterize the project as a form of environmental injustice and racism against Indigenous peoples who already suffer from historical environmental harms.

Opposed. The commenter calls for a full federal impact assessment and public hearings, arguing that the current process lacks transparency and adequate consultation. They emphasize that transportation risks specific to Northern Ontario must be included in the assessment and demand a thorough examination of project alternatives and a more detailed project description for all constituents.

Opposed. While the commenter supports a full federal impact assessment, they strongly oppose the NWMO’s current proposal to exclude transportation routes and risks from the project scope. Key issues include the need to uphold Indigenous rights under UNDRIP, the application of an environmental justice lens to prevent environmental racism, and the requirement for public transparency regarding the long-term management of 5.9 million fuel bundles.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the site selection process is flawed because it prioritizes community willingness over a logical harm reduction strategy that accounts for transportation risks. They express significant concern regarding the potential for accidents along the Great Lakes waterway during the transport of waste, which could jeopardize the water system and the wellbeing of the Great Lakes basin.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter raises ten distinct concerns, focusing on transportation safety, the impossibility of communicating hazards to future generations over a million-year period, and the lack of a "safe" radiation dose. Additional issues include the potential for environmental destruction in the event of leaks, the inadequacy of nuclear power as a climate change solution compared to renewables, and the lack of clear liability and long-term safety guarantees. The author calls for a cease and desist of the project, favoring investment in social infrastructure over nuclear waste burial.

Opposed. The commenter raises concerns about the lack of consultation with Indigenous communities located along the proposed transportation route (Highway 17). They emphasize the long-term environmental risks to land and water that persist far beyond the project's operational life, questioning whether the economic benefits justify the permanent risk to relatively untouched natural areas.

Opposed. The commenter characterizes the project as an instance of environmental racism, suggesting that the placement of the repository or the process behind it unfairly targets or impacts marginalized communities.

Opposed. The commenter rejects the project and all future nuclear initiatives, citing a lack of proven scientific data to support the safety of transporting and burying nuclear waste. They express concern over the extreme duration of radioactive risk (one million years) and argue that financial influence has superseded scientific integrity and safety considerations in the decision-making process.

Opposed. The commenter calls for a full impact assessment and public hearing, arguing that the current process lacks proper consultation and transparency. They specifically demand that transportation risks in Northern Ontario be included in the assessment, that alternative solutions be thoroughly examined, and that a more detailed project description be provided to the public before proceeding.

Opposed. Drawing on professional experience in environmental assessments, the commenter argues that transportation must be included in the project description due to the unprecedented nature of moving expended nuclear fuel over vast distances. They highlight risks associated with unpredictable weather, frequent truck accidents, and the proximity of the route to distinct ecosystems, while advocating for investment in renewable energy and demand reduction instead.

Opposed. The commenter views the project as a dangerous experiment and criticizes the exclusion of long-distance transportation risks from the project description. They express deep distrust of the nuclear industry and the CNSC, alleging that the community of Ignace has been manipulated through aggressive PR campaigns, and argue that the public will bear the long-term costs and risks while private entities profit.

Opposed. The commenter expresses deep concern regarding the project's impact on Northern Ontario and requests a full impact assessment and public hearing. Key issues include the omission of transportation from the current assessment, the need for a thorough examination of alternatives, and the inadequacy of the Initial Project Description in providing necessary information to constituents.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the 30-day comment period as insufficient for meaningful public participation and argues that the project description lacks critical technical details regarding waste packaging, underground monitoring, and container retrieval. They strongly advocate for the inclusion of long-distance transportation in the review and request a full impact assessment with public hearings to ensure a thorough and transparent process.

Opposed. Residing in the affected watershed, the commenter expresses concern over the potential for radioactive contamination to poison future generations and the broader ecosystem. They argue that the 30-day feedback window is inadequate for such a complex project, highlight the dangers of transporting toxic materials on hazardous highways, and reject nuclear energy as a viable climate solution due to its high cost and waste management issues.

Opposed. The commenter advocates for above-ground storage to allow for monitoring and potential future recycling of nuclear waste rather than permanent burial. They express skepticism regarding the safety of transporting waste through Ontario and emphasize that the project should require the consent of all affected First Nations, including those along the transportation route and surrounding the site, rather than just a single community.

Opposed. The commenter demands a comprehensive impact assessment that includes transportation and packaging, highlighting the risk of radioactive contamination to watersheds shared with Manitoba. They challenge the sustainability of nuclear power, arguing it is expensive and slow to deploy, and criticize the 30-day comment period as insufficient for a project with such long-term environmental and safety implications.

Opposed. The commenter highlights the extreme risks associated with transporting highly radioactive waste over 1,500 kilometers. They argue that all communities along the rail and highway routes must be included in the assessment process, as they are directly affected by the potential hazards of the transportation plan.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the 30-day comment period is too short for meaningful engagement and that the project description lacks essential details. They specifically call for the inclusion of long-distance transportation in the review and express concern regarding how project activities might negatively impact the harvesting rights of Indigenous communities.

Opposed. As an Anishinaabe woman, the commenter expresses concern over the project's potential impact on the land and requests a full impact assessment with public hearings. They emphasize that the 30-day comment period is inadequate, the project description is vague, and that the review must address long-distance transportation risks and potential harm to Indigenous harvesting rights such as fishing, hunting, and foraging.

Opposed. The commenter, representing Nipissing First Nation, argues that excluding transportation from the project scope is a major failure that ignores treaty rights and the lack of consent from nations along transit routes. They highlight significant risks to watersheds, traditional food sources, and sacred sites from potential accidents, while criticizing the narrow definition of consent and the long-term environmental and spiritual implications for Indigenous territories.

Opposed. The commenter expresses concern over the brevity of the 30-day comment period and the lack of detail in the project description. They specifically demand that long-distance transportation be included in the review and emphasize the need to assess impacts on Indigenous harvesting rights, requesting a full impact assessment with public hearings.

Opposed. While acknowledging potential economic benefits for host communities, the commenter raises serious concerns regarding the safety of transporting radioactive materials on winding, accident-prone northern highways. They argue for storage closer to reactor sites to minimize transport risks and highlight the lack of consultation with neighboring First Nations, ultimately questioning the sustainability of nuclear energy.

Opposed. The commenter strongly rejects the project, citing the high frequency of highway collisions in Northwestern Ontario as evidence that transporting nuclear waste is too dangerous. They express a lack of confidence in emergency cleanup procedures and argue that the region should not bear the long-term burden of waste generated elsewhere.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient and the project description lacks necessary detail. They insist that long-distance transportation must be included in the review and call for a full impact assessment to address potential harm to Indigenous harvesting rights and ensure meaningful public participation.

Stance: Opposed. The National Council of Women of Canada expresses significant concerns regarding the safety of nuclear waste transport and burial. They demand a full impact assessment and public hearings, insisting that long-distance transportation must be a central component of the regulatory review. The submission questions why the NWMO has excluded transportation from its initial description and calls for the inclusion of independent scientists to evaluate the long-term environmental, health, and social impacts on Canadian families.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the safety assessment is flawed because it cannot account for human error in container manufacturing and handling. They also highlight the increasing risks of highway accidents due to poor road maintenance and high traffic volumes, concluding that using public roads for nuclear waste transport is unacceptably dangerous and must be included in safety reviews.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the 100-year monitoring plan as insufficient for waste that remains toxic for much longer and opposes the transport of nuclear materials due to risks of spills or terrorism. They advocate for a transition to renewable energy sources like solar and hydro to avoid the creation of long-lived nuclear waste.

The commenter, Celina McCoy Reitberger, an Elder of the Fort William First Nation and member of the eagle clan, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Her opposition is rooted in both the physical implications of the project and the procedural methods employed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). She characterizes the project as an existential threat to her community’s way of life and a violation of the spiritual and cultural responsibilities to protect the earth for future generations.

A primary concern raised is the exclusion of transportation from the Impact Assessment. The commenter argues that the proposal to transport dangerous nuclear waste through traditional territory without Indigenous input or full, prior, and informed consent is a sign of disrespect and a failure of the regulatory process. She indicates that the community will seek recourse through the courts if their rights and territories are not respected. Furthermore, she criticizes the timeline of the assessment process, describing the one-month period allowed for submitting results as a rushed and unfair approach that lacks humility.

Ethical concerns regarding transparency and honesty are also highlighted. The commenter points to a specific advertisement in the Chronicle Journal which she claims was dishonest for showing a hand near a fuel rod without a disclaimer that such bundles are radioactive and cannot be touched. She views this as a manipulation of the truth and an attempt to minimize the perceived danger of the waste. Additionally, she expresses frustration over the financial resources being spent by the NWMO to advance the project, noting that these funds include contributions from her own utility payments.

From an environmental and socio-economic perspective, the commenter frames the burial of nuclear waste as a direct threat to "Mamma Aki" (Mother Earth). She emphasizes the duty to protect the next seven generations from the risks associated with the long-term storage and decades of transportation of radioactive materials. The submission concludes by calling for a decision-making process that incorporates the wisdom of Elders and prioritizes the protection of the land over the "foolish plot" of the repository.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project, as their submission focuses exclusively on potential negative impacts and the necessity of protecting communities and land from the proposed development. The stance is characterized by a cautionary tone regarding the risks associated with the repository.

The primary environmental concern raised involves the potential for accidents that could damage the natural surroundings. The commenter emphasizes that the safety and protection of the environment are paramount, echoing concerns that the project poses a threat to ecological integrity. This risk to the environment is directly linked to the safety of the people living in the area, with the commenter stressing the importance of keeping local populations safe from harm.

Ethical and socio-political concerns are also central to the submission, specifically regarding Indigenous sovereignty and Treaty rights. The commenter highlights that the project impacts Treaty land and insists that Indigenous voices must be heard and respected. There is a clear focus on the cultural impacts of the project, noting the deep ties between the community and the land. Furthermore, the commenter advocates for community autonomy, suggesting that the project may infringe upon the rights of local populations to remain self-governing and protected from external industrial impositions.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project based on the significant safety concerns raised regarding the logistics of the proposal. The request for an impact assessment is framed through a lens of skepticism and apprehension, specifically focusing on the risks associated with the movement of hazardous materials over long distances and through inhabited areas.

The primary issue identified in this submission is transportation safety, specifically the movement of what the commenter describes as extremely dangerous goods. The commenter highlights the geographic challenge of transporting these materials over a distance exceeding 1,000 kilometers. A major point of concern is the route selection, which includes highways that pass directly through population centers, thereby increasing the potential exposure of the public to hazardous substances in the event of an incident.

The commenter raises a significant red flag regarding the reliability of the existing transportation infrastructure. By noting that accidents occur daily on the roads intended for use, the submission suggests that the baseline risk of the transit environment is high. This implies an ethical and safety concern that the project may not be able to guarantee the containment of dangerous goods when integrated into a high-accident transportation network. The focus is entirely on the potential for human or mechanical failure during the transit phase of the waste management process.

The commenter, Larissa Desrosiers, a member of the Couchiching First Nation in Treaty #3, is explicitly Opposed to the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project. She states clearly and repeatedly that she does not consent to the project moving forward in any form. Her opposition is rooted in her stated responsibility as an Anishinaabekwe to protect the animals, lands, and waters for both current and future generations. While she acknowledges that the proposal attempts to address safety concerns, she argues that the potential for a catastrophic accident remains a reality that would have devastating consequences for thousands of years, impacting both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

A primary socio-economic and ethical concern raised in the submission is the safety of Indigenous women, children, and 2SLGBTQ+ individuals. The commenter highlights a direct correlation between the presence of extractive and development industries and the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two-Spirit people (MMIWG2S+). She characterizes the project’s written acknowledgments of these truths as insulting, arguing that the physical reality of bringing frequent truck traffic and transient workers into Indigenous communities poses a tangible threat of harm. Furthermore, she views the project as a continuation of colonization, noting that communities along the proposed transportation routes have already suffered significant damage to their social fabric and lands.

The submission also raises significant legal and jurisdictional issues by invoking Manito Aki Inakonigaawin, also known as the Great Earth Law, found in Treaty #3. This law asserts that the Anishinaabe Nation maintains rights to all lands and waters within their territory across Northwestern Ontario and Southeastern Manitoba. The commenter emphasizes that under this legal framework, any development—including nuclear waste management, forestry, mining, and transportation—requires the explicit consent, agreement, and participation of the Anishinaabe Nation. By formally withholding her consent, she challenges the project's alignment with treaty law and asserts the necessity of Indigenous sovereignty in the decision-making process.

The commenter is explicitly opposed to the project proceeding in its current state, characterizing the proposal as a direct threat to human life. Their stance is rooted in a fundamental concern for public safety, specifically regarding the logistical aspects of the project rather than the technical specifications of the repository itself. The commenter demands that the assessment process be halted or expanded to include a more rigorous evaluation of specific risks before any further progress is made.

The primary issue raised is transportation safety within the specific geographic context of Northwestern Ontario. The commenter identifies the existing high frequency of vehicular accidents in the region as a critical baseline risk that must be addressed. By linking the transportation of nuclear waste to these documented road safety challenges, the commenter highlights a significant socio-economic and public health concern. The core of their argument is that the regional infrastructure and current driving conditions are unsuitable for the safe transit of hazardous materials, and that doing so would introduce an unacceptable level of risk to the local population.

A major red flag identified in this submission is the explicit framing of the project as a threat to human life. This indicates a profound lack of public trust in the safety protocols and risk mitigation strategies currently proposed for the movement of nuclear materials. From a regulatory standpoint, the comment suggests that the scope of the environmental and impact assessments may be perceived as inadequate if they do not heavily weigh regional accident data and infrastructure limitations. The commenter’s insistence on including transportation as a prerequisite for the assessment reflects a demand for greater transparency and accountability regarding the potential for catastrophic road incidents.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in a combination of environmental stewardship, technical skepticism, and a demand for socio-economic equity for Northern Ontario communities. The individual draws upon eight years of experience working in the region and their educational background in an Aerospace Manufacturing Engineering Technology program to argue that the proposed location is neither scientifically nor environmentally viable.

The primary environmental concern raised is the protection of the regional watershed. The commenter highlights the interconnectedness of the Northern Ontario water system, noting its links to the Great Lakes and Hudson’s Bay. They emphasize that this region is responsible for a significant portion of the world’s freshwater supply. Given the global context of water insecurity and scarcity, the commenter views the potential risk of contamination to this vast watershed as an unacceptable threat that outweighs the justifications for the project.

From a socio-economic and ethical perspective, the commenter argues against the unfair distribution of nuclear burdens. They contend that nuclear waste should not be transported to or stored in communities that do not directly benefit from nuclear power generation. A specific red flag is raised regarding the lack of local benefit; the commenter suggests that if the project does not result in reduced electricity bills for the host region, the waste should remain at its point of origin. This reflects a concern over environmental justice, where remote or Indigenous-adjacent areas are used to solve problems created by more populated, power-consuming regions.

Finally, the submission suggests that the NWMO should explore alternative scientific avenues rather than geological burial in the North. The commenter proposes that the waste should either be kept closer to the production sites or repurposed for energy production using technologies such as thermoradiotropic generators. By questioning the scientific viability of the current plan and offering technological alternatives, the commenter reinforces their position that the risks to the wilderness and remote communities are unnecessary and poorly calculated.

The commenter, Sylvia Davis, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed nuclear waste site and the associated transportation of nuclear waste through Northwestern Ontario. Her opposition is rooted in the potential for catastrophic environmental impacts on her traditional territory and the perceived failure of the proponent to engage in meaningful consultation with downstream Indigenous communities.

The primary environmental concerns raised involve the geological integrity of the site and the potential for groundwater contamination. Davis notes that rock naturally contains moving water, which could serve as a pathway for radioactive material to spread if a leak occurs due to structural failure or geological changes. This poses a direct threat to the water quality, wildlife, and food security of downstream communities who rely on these ecosystems for drinking water and traditional sustenance. The commenter emphasizes that her activities, such as hunting, fishing, and gathering, are central to her way of life and responsibilities to future generations, making any environmental degradation a direct threat to her health and livelihood.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on transportation safety and the lack of transparency regarding emergency management. Davis highlights that the highways in Northwestern Ontario are frequently closed due to serious accidents involving transport trucks. She identifies a critical lack of information concerning emergency response plans, spill containment procedures, and community notification protocols in the event of a transit accident. This absence of clear, accessible data regarding the risks of transporting nuclear waste is presented as a major red flag, leaving local residents feeling vulnerable and uninformed.

From an ethical and socio-economic perspective, the commenter raises serious concerns regarding Indigenous rights and the principle of free, prior, and informed consent. She expresses a sense of exclusion from the decision-making process, noting that as a resident of a downstream community, she has no meaningful say in a project that carries significant long-term risks for her people. The submission argues that it is an ethical failure to exclude those who will bear the environmental burdens of the project while receiving none of the benefits. Davis urges the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to address these gaps in transparency and ensure that Indigenous voices are prioritized in decisions affecting their lands and futures.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. Their stance is rooted in significant concerns regarding the safety of transporting nuclear materials and the potential for irreversible environmental and human catastrophe. The commenter expresses a lack of confidence in the existing transportation studies and the current emergency response capabilities, suggesting that the project poses an unacceptable risk to the region.

The primary issue raised is the inadequacy of transportation safety planning, specifically concerning the routes adjacent to Lake Superior. The commenter highlights that highway accidents are already a daily occurrence in the area and questions the specific plan for managing an accident involving nuclear materials. They argue that the consequences of such an event would be catastrophic and that no amount of financial resources could rectify the damage immediately, noting that remediation would likely take years. This points to a major concern regarding the long-term environmental integrity of the Great Lakes watershed.

Furthermore, the submission introduces ethical and socio-economic concerns related to proximity and representation. The commenter notes that their family lives within 100 kilometers of the deposit site and they reside in Thunder Bay, indicating a direct personal stake in the project's safety outcomes. They raise ethical questions about the lack of a "say" or consent from vulnerable or non-human entities, specifically mentioning children, animals, and insects. Finally, the commenter demands accountability regarding the potential for human fatalities, asking for a clear assessment of how many people might die in the event of a transportation accident.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project, specifically challenging the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's (NWMO) assertion that the transportation of spent nuclear waste should not be considered a project impact. The individual, who resides along the Highway 17 corridor in Northwestern Ontario, expresses significant concern regarding the safety and feasibility of moving hazardous materials over long distances. They argue that transportation is a major impact that must be formally included in the ongoing public discussions and impact assessments.

A primary issue raised is the perceived danger of the regional infrastructure, specifically Highway 17, which the commenter describes as notoriously dangerous, particularly during winter months. They note an anecdotal increase in tractor-trailer accidents and argue that the logistics of transporting accumulated nuclear waste over a 1,600 km route through high-density cities and towns is a monumental and risky task. The commenter emphasizes that the high number of vehicles required for this venture substantially increases the statistical probability of a serious accident involving what they describe as lethal waste.

The submission also highlights a deep skepticism regarding the technical safety measures proposed by the NWMO. The commenter challenges the claim that radioactive pellets will be encased in indestructible containers, noting that these claims have not been tested in real-world scenarios, such as a fiery crash near a human settlement. They argue that the project is entering unknown territory because there is no existing global model to provide objective solutions or proven outcomes. This lack of precedent leads the commenter to conclude that the project's assumptions are untested and that the public is being misled about the risks of nuclear transport.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is categorized into three primary areas of concern: the physical risks associated with transporting radioactive materials, the long-term strategy for nuclear waste management, and the lack of meaningful socio-economic benefits for the local community of Ignace. While the commenter expresses general support for nuclear power as an essential component of the future electricity grid, they strongly disagree with the current proposal for waste disposal at this specific location.

Regarding transportation, the commenter identifies the highway leading to Ignace as a significant safety hazard. They describe the route as being prone to frequent transport truck rollovers and fatal collisions, noting that the geography—characterized by steep rock faces and precipitous drops into water—increases the likelihood of a catastrophic accident. A major environmental red flag is raised concerning the potential for radioactive waste to enter the Lake Superior watershed. Although the commenter acknowledges the safety protocols and the durability of transport containers based on prior experience in Saskatchewan, they argue that the treacherous terrain of the Ignace region makes the risk of transporting toxic pollutants multiple times a day an unacceptable "disaster waiting to happen."

The submission also challenges the long-term waste management philosophy of the project, suggesting that the current plan is driven by short-term economics rather than holistic thinking. The commenter advocates for a model similar to the one used in France, which involves deep recycling of nuclear waste to reduce its volume and maximize its energy potential. They argue that "dumping" waste that still contains potential energy is short-sighted and wasteful. Furthermore, the commenter suggests that storage facilities should be located closer to the reactors where the fuel is used to avoid the risks associated with shipping materials thousands of kilometers.

Finally, the commenter raises ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding the project's impact on the community of Ignace. They express concern that the facility may be operated by out-of-region workers who do not relocate permanently, which they argue diminishes the economic benefits to the local housing market, schools, and healthcare facilities. Ethically, the commenter suggests that workers who do not live in the community may lack the necessary care and attention to their work because they do not share the long-term environmental risks or intergenerational connection to the land. They conclude that the industry must prioritize minimizing beyond-human-lifespan impacts over short-term financial considerations.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, primarily due to the perceived high risks associated with the long-distance transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The submission focuses on the safety of the Highway 17 corridor, which the commenter describes as an already dangerous route characterized by two-lane sections, limited passing lanes, sharp curves, rock cuts, and treacherous shoulders. The commenter argues that the sheer scale of the transportation plan—involving multiple shipments per day over an 1,800-kilometer journey for a duration of 50 years—makes a catastrophic accident feel nearly inevitable despite any safety measures or lead vehicles.

A significant portion of the concern relates to human behavior and road conditions. The commenter highlights frequent aggressive and foolish driving witnessed on the route, noting that slower-moving transport convoys are likely to provoke dangerous passing maneuvers from other motorists attempting to make up time. This environmental and behavioral context is presented as a major safety hazard that technical planning may fail to mitigate. The commenter suggests that the length of the journey is the primary factor in the risk assessment, stating that the longer the journey, the greater the likelihood of a failure.

The submission also raises significant socio-economic and ethical concerns. The commenter asserts that an accident would not only be catastrophic for human health and the natural environment but would also decimate the tourism, lodging, and outfitting sectors in Northern Ontario. Furthermore, the commenter expresses a sense of regional marginalization, suggesting that the project reflects a government perspective that views Northern Ontario as a vast, empty expanse to be exploited for waste disposal. While acknowledging that the town of Ignace has agreed to host the repository, the commenter emphasizes that the risks are shared by all communities along the extensive transit corridor.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project in Revell Lake, Ontario. Their primary objection centers on the risks associated with the long-distance transportation of high-level nuclear waste, which they argue should have been an integral part of the Initial Project Description. The commenter highlights the massive scale of the logistics involved, noting that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) plans to transport 150,000 tons of waste over distances exceeding 1,500 kilometers, requiring two to three shipments per day for up to 50 years.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the potential for accidents resulting from both technical failure and human error. The commenter identifies infrastructure vulnerabilities, such as collapsing bridges and road washouts, alongside mechanical failures in trucks and trains. They further emphasize that human operators are prone to distraction and may fail to navigate hazardous weather conditions like snow and wind effectively, citing statistics of over 9,000 transport truck accidents in Canada in 2022. These factors lead the commenter to conclude that the inherent fallibility of both technology and people makes the transportation phase unacceptably risky.

The commenter raises a specific technical red flag regarding the safety testing of waste containers. They argue that the NWMO’s testing protocols—specifically the nine-meter drop test—are insufficient for the actual geography of the transport route. Using the Nipigon River bridge as an example, the commenter points out that a container could fall 70 meters onto sharp rocks, a scenario far more severe than the flat-surface or steel-bar drop tests conducted by the proponent. They assert that while the probability of such an event may be low, the environmental consequences would be devastating and permanent, potentially contaminating water systems across North America for thousands of years.

Furthermore, the submission challenges the use of Finland’s DGR as a successful precedent for the Canadian project. The commenter provides a comparative analysis showing that Finland’s waste is largely generated on-site or within 350 kilometers of its repository, whereas Canada’s waste must be moved up to 2,600 kilometers. They argue that the significantly higher volume of waste in Canada (62,000 tonnes compared to Finland’s 2,400 tonnes) and the vast distances involved make the comparison invalid.

In conclusion, the commenter advocates for an alternative approach where nuclear waste is stored at its point of production. They suggest that if technology can be designed to move waste safely over long distances, it can be designed to store it safely on-site. From a socio-economic perspective, the commenter proposes that the estimated $26 billion project budget would be better spent on solar power initiatives, which they claim could provide clean electricity to over half a million homes.

Opposed. The commenter likens the exclusion of transportation routes from the assessment to ignoring blood vessels in a circulatory system, noting that communities along these routes have not been consulted. They emphasize the poor safety record of northern highways and suggest that nuclear waste should be managed at reactor sites rather than transported across the province.

Opposed. Despite living far from the site, the commenter expresses anxiety over potential radioactive contamination of northern watersheds and the exclusion of transportation risks from the assessment. They cite past incidents of unconsented waste transport and advocate for "proximity disposal" at reactor sites and a shift toward wind and solar power.

Support. As a retired geologist, the commenter supports the project based on the geological stability of the Revell Batholith and the societal responsibility to manage nuclear waste. Their support is conditional on the consent of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the residents of Ignace, viewing nuclear power as a necessary component of the future energy mix.

Opposed. The commenter insists that the impact inquiry must include transportation, citing the extreme risks of driving on Highway 17 and the proximity of the route to major water bodies. They argue that the high frequency of accidents in the region necessitates a full and transparent study of the risks associated with moving nuclear waste through Northern Ontario.

Opposed. The commenter expresses extreme distress over the proposal, specifically citing the unaddressed risks of transportation. They argue that the decision-making process is undemocratic and call for a public referendum, emphasizing that the project endangers both current and future generations.

Opposed. The commenter requests that transportation be included in the environmental assessment, noting that the scale of the planned transport activities far exceeds current practices and requires thorough evaluation.

Opposed. The commenter demands the inclusion of transportation in the assessment, focusing on factors such as weather, traffic patterns, and accident frequency. They express concern over the potential for spillage and the resulting long-term harm to communities along the route.

Neutral. The commenter provides a unique metaphysical perspective, comparing the fission process to the breaking of family systems and drawing parallels to the trauma of residential schools. While they commend the NWMO for its thorough research and respectful tone, they focus on the spiritual and sentient nature of atomic particles and propose the development of a "healing technology" rather than taking a definitive stance for or against the physical repository itself.

Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding the exclusion of waste transportation from the project review. Residing near a major highway, they highlight the high frequency of accidents on notoriously dangerous local stretches and demand that transportation risks be formally considered in the assessment.

Opposed. The commenter strongly criticizes the exclusion of transportation from the review, citing daily accidents on Northern Ontario highways and questioning the qualifications of commercial drivers. They express a fundamental lack of trust in the authorities' ability to manage the project safely, characterizing the proposal as a mistake.

Opposed. Drawing on 47 years of local residency, the commenter argues that the high volume of dangerous goods cannot be transported safely on Highways 11 and 17, especially during winter. They further critique nuclear energy as expensive and inherently dangerous, noting a lack of engineering precedent for millennial-scale storage and advocating for safer, cheaper renewable alternatives.

Opposed. The commenter identifies several critical failures in the initial project description, including the absence of a clear need for the repository, a lack of comprehensive safety and transportation plans, and insufficient transparency. They emphasize the dismissal of Indigenous land rights and the lack of informed consent, requesting a full impact assessment with public hearings to address these high-risk concerns.

Opposed. A former nuclear industry worker expresses fear regarding the cross-country transportation of waste past residential areas and drinking water sheds. The commenter highlights a lack of meaningful Indigenous consultation, insufficient public notification, and potential for government-driven cost overruns, ultimately advocating for a halt to the project in favor of renewable energy feasibility studies.

The commenter, representing the Local Services Board of Melgund and the residents of Dyment and Borups Corners, is Opposed to the project as currently proposed and expresses significant dissatisfaction with the regulatory process. The submission emphasizes that as an unorganized territory, Melgund lacks the municipal infrastructure, tax base, and local services available to incorporated townships. This unique status forms the basis of their primary demand: that the Proponent must demonstrate 100% self-sufficiency in emergency response and physical safety services. The commenter argues that any reliance on distant regional hubs for fire, police, or ambulance services is unacceptable and potentially fatal due to response times, insisting that the Proponent supply these services for all project phases, including worker camps and transportation corridors.

Environmental and health concerns are central to the submission, particularly regarding water security and data accuracy. The commenter rejects the use of generic regional models and meteorological data from Dryden, which is 55 km away, citing significant margins of error for modeling local air quality and radiological dispersion. Because the residents rely exclusively on private wells, they demand a rigorous, quantitative hydrogeological analysis that includes direct testing of local wells. Furthermore, the commenter challenges the exclusion of Melgund from the design of baseline programs and demands access to raw technical data and independent review funding, stating that simplified summaries are insufficient for assessing risks to health and property values.

Procedural fairness and democratic integrity are major red flags raised in the submission. The commenter describes the 30-day consultation window as "grossly inadequate," "undemocratic," and a "structural barrier" designed to preclude meaningful participation. They argue that expecting volunteers to review over 1,200 pages of technical data in four weeks is unreasonable and serves to disenfranchise those living closest to the site. Additionally, the commenter strongly opposes any attempt to exclude socio-economic oversight from the Impact Assessment Act, rejecting "jurisdictional carve-outs" that would limit federal scrutiny over the project's 160-year lifecycle.

The submission identifies the transportation of high-level nuclear waste as a critical, high-risk component that must be included in the formal Impact Assessment. The commenter views the separation of the repository from its transit network as "project-splitting." They highlight the hazards of Highways 11 and 17, including severe winter icing and wildlife collisions, and characterize the risk of a radiological breach as a "mathematical inevitability" over a 50-year window. They express concern that local volunteer responders lack the training and equipment to manage such an event, which could contaminate watersheds and paralyze the national supply chain.

Finally, the commenter demands the establishment of a dedicated, legally binding Community Benefit and Mitigation Fund exclusive to Melgund. They insist that this fund must be independent of agreements with the Township of Ignace to ensure direct support for local infrastructure and the protection of property values from industrial "stigma." The submission concludes that Melgund must be recognized as a distinct receptor separate from Ignace to ensure that impacts on their social cohesion and community well-being are accurately measured rather than diluted by regional data.

Opposed. This detailed submission argues that the project is an untested, high-risk endeavor requiring a full integrated panel review. The commenter challenges the exclusion of transportation from the project scope as illogical, criticizes the narrow geographic study area that ignores downstream impacts on Manitoba and the Great Lakes, and asserts that the proposed 100-year monitoring period is woefully inadequate for waste that remains radioactive for millennia. They also highlight unresolved legal challenges from Eagle Lake First Nation and advocate for storage at existing reactor sites to eliminate transportation risks.

Opposed. The commenter expresses concern regarding the chosen location's proximity to water sources and the potential impact on human populations. They also argue that transporting nuclear waste via Canada's busiest and most populated roads presents an unacceptable safety risk.

Opposed. A member of the Fort William First Nation strongly opposes storing nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario, citing the high potential for human error. They argue that the risks of irreversible environmental damage and threats to community well-being far outweigh any potential benefits.

Opposed. The commenter provides an extensive critique of the bury and abandon philosophy, arguing it violates the proven principles of Rolling Stewardship and Proximity. They highlight significant technical risks, including tectonic instability at the Revell Lake site, the lack of full-scale shipping container testing, and the extreme danger of transporting waste through high-accident corridors. The submission concludes that the project is an environmental nightmare and advocates for a shift toward wind, solar, and future fusion technologies.

Neutral. The commenter raises four specific technical and scope-related questions that they feel have not been addressed. These include the exclusion of transportation from the assessment, the management of waste from future small modular reactors, the disposal of lower-level radioactive equipment, and the feasibility of retrieving spent fuel if future technologies allow for its reuse.

Opposed. The commenter strongly objects to the exclusion of transportation from the impact assessment, citing dangerous highway conditions and failing rail infrastructure. They express deep distrust of the NWMO and CNL due to their private corporate ownership and limited financial liability for accidents, ultimately calling for a nationwide referendum and a transition to existing green energy technologies.

Opposed. Representing a youth perspective, the commenter expresses shock at the volume of waste and opposes its transportation through traditional territories. They raise concerns about impacts on groundwater, biodiversity, and traditional harvesting rights, while highlighting the inequity of Northwestern Ontario bearing the waste burden for electricity primarily consumed by large southern cities.

Opposed. The commenter supports a federal impact assessment but finds the current proposal flawed for ignoring Indigenous rights and downstream community risks. They demand that transportation risks, including routing and emergency preparedness, be included in the project scope and emphasize the legal necessity of obtaining free, prior, and informed consent from impacted Indigenous Nations.

Opposed. The commenter expresses unequivocal opposition based on irreversible environmental risks to the Treaty 3 watershed and a consultation process they describe as lacking transparency and genuine consent. They argue that the project relies on financial incentives rather than broad participation and reject the notion that the facility can remain secure for the required millennia, asserting that Treaty 3 lands should not be treated as a dumping ground.

Opposed. The commenter cites four primary reasons for opposition: the high frequency of accidents on Northern Ontario transportation routes, documented seismic activity near the proposed site, the potential for future glaciation to destabilize the repository, and the lack of a formal public health assessment. They emphasize that the environment is a social determinant of health and that residents must be informed of the long-term risks.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses significant fear regarding the safety of storing and transporting nuclear waste in their region. Key issues include the lack of a truly safe location for hazardous materials, concerns about how the site will be marked for future generations over thousands of years, and ethical questions regarding who profits from the project versus who bears the environmental and health risks.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter raises concerns about the long-term integrity of the repository and the potential for radioactive leaks into the Wabigoon and Rainy/Turtle river watersheds, which could impact Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay. They criticize the exclusion of transportation from the project scope, citing the dangers of Northwest Ontario highways, and highlight the opposition of 13 First Nations in Treaty 3. Additionally, they argue that nuclear energy is not a viable solution to climate change and advocate for cleaner, more cost-effective energy alternatives.

The commenter, Nancy E. Phillips, is explicitly Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically citing what she describes as the "hopelessly inadequate" nature of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) Impact Assessment Report. Her opposition is rooted in her experience as a lifelong resident of Northwestern Ontario and focuses heavily on the perceived negligence of the NWMO in addressing the risks associated with the long-term transportation of radioactive waste.

A primary concern raised is the safety of Highway 11/17, which the commenter describes as an unpredictably dangerous and often deadly stretch of road. She highlights well-documented safety issues, including frequent fatal accidents involving transport trucks, and expresses significant worry regarding the lack of experience and training among drivers, particularly concerning winter driving conditions in the region. The commenter finds it negligent that the proposed report outline omits transportation considerations despite the project requiring two to three transports per day over a period of fifty years or longer, spanning a 2,500-kilometre route from New Brunswick to Northwestern Ontario.

The submission also raises significant ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding the decision-making process and the rights of Canadian citizens. Phillips argues that the NWMO has ignored rights entitled under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to a Healthy Environment. She characterizes the current engagement process as shameful, noting that it places the burden of decision-making on two small, economically vulnerable communities—Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation—while dismissing the protests and concerns of many other citizens and communities located along the proposed transportation corridor.

Furthermore, the commenter identifies a lack of transparency and a failure to consider alternative solutions, such as maintaining storage at existing nuclear reactor sites. She asserts that the multi-faceted risks of the project have not been sufficiently documented and notes that various experts, including nuclear scientists, physicians, and environmentalists, have raised credible questions that remain unanswered. The commenter concludes that the current outline for the Impact Assessment Report is fundamentally flawed and must be revised to reflect the seriousness of transporting highly radioactive waste across the country.

Stance: Opposed. Representing the Local Services Board of Melgund, the commenter argues that the communities of Dyment and Borups Corners are the closest human receptors but have been treated as peripheral. They demand a site-specific socio-economic and environmental impact study, citing concerns over food security, loss of Crown land access for subsistence harvesting, and property devaluation. They also call for a binding Socio-Economic Betterment Plan, a Community Protection Fund, and a formal framework for community co-design in research to ensure procedural equity.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter focuses on the risks associated with transporting nuclear waste, specifically the potential for accidents on regional highways. They urge the proponent to rethink the project due to the current frequency of highway accidents and request that impact studies include specific contingency plans for transportation-related incidents.

Stance: Opposed. Writing from an Anishinew perspective, the commenter refuses consent for the deposit of nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario. They emphasize the spiritual and life-sustaining connection to the land, water, and wildlife, arguing that the long-term impacts are unimaginable and that the decision should prioritize the health of all life forms and future generations.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter is concerned that Northwestern Ontario will become a "sacrifice zone" for the benefit of southern energy users. Key issues include the risk of radioactive contamination in downstream watersheds (Manitoba), the exclusion of transportation from the project scope despite dangerous highway conditions, and the lack of respect for First Nations opposition. They question the feasibility of millenia-long containment and argue that burying waste is a short-sighted solution compared to more sustainable power generation.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter criticizes the 30-day public comment period as insufficient and highlights the exclusion of Eagle Lake and Grassy Narrows First Nations from the consultation process. They request that transportation be included in the project scope under the Impact Assessment Act and call for an independent third-party panel to investigate alternative means of carrying out the project, emphasizing that the unprecedented nature of off-site waste transport requires rigorous scrutiny.

Stance: Opposed. While acknowledging the economic benefits of nuclear jobs, the commenter argues that nuclear energy is not green due to its toxic waste. They raise concerns about geological instability (earthquakes), potential leaks near water sources, and the dangers of waste transportation. They suggest alternatives such as transitioning from fission to fusion, investing in solar and wind, and maintaining current monitored storage until better decontamination methods are discovered.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter provides a brief procedural request, asking for the inclusion of transportation in the impact assessment process.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter explicitly supports halting the impact assessment process until Eagle Lake First Nation is formally recognized as a host community, indicating that current consultation efforts are inadequate.

Stance: Opposed. This comment mirrors concerns regarding the inadequate 30-day consultation window and the systematic exclusion of Eagle Lake and Grassy Narrows First Nations. The commenter demands that transportation be included in the regulatory scope and that an independent third party evaluate alternatives, citing the high risks of transporting used nuclear fuel over public highways in Northwestern Ontario.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses skepticism regarding the safety of long-term geological storage, noting that the earth is dynamic and cannot guarantee containment. They also highlight the risks of transporting waste over long distances near vital waterways and argue that the carbon emissions from transport traffic undermine the "clean" energy claims of nuclear power, suggesting a shift toward solar and wind energy.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter raises several technical and safety questions, including why fuel rods are not recycled and why the site is not located closer to reactors to minimize transport on undivided highways. They express concern over the use of private contractors for government services and demand a full, transparent impact study that includes all aspects of the project, particularly transportation safety.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter insists on a full impact assessment and public hearing, with a specific requirement for a comprehensive transportation analysis. This analysis must cover routes, distances, road safety, and environmental risks along the entire transit corridor.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter highlights the disparity between the 24,000-year half-life of plutonium and the 30-day public comment period. They express significant concern regarding the inherent dangers of transporting spent fuel by rail or road and argue these risks must be a central part of the assessment process.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter demands a full impact assessment and public hearing, specifically insisting that transportation be included in the review. Key concerns include the safety of transporting nuclear waste over 1,800 km on two-lane roads prone to accidents and the perceived inadequacy of the 30-day public comment window.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter emphasizes the necessity of a full impact assessment and public hearing that includes the transportation of radioactive waste. They identify nuclear waste transportation as a national security risk and express concern for the safety of residents living along the proposed transport routes.

Stance: Opposed. A resident of Ignace, the commenter raises multiple issues including the need for transportation to be included in the assessment, concerns over road safety and first responder capacity, and potential impacts on watersheds and wildlife. They also cite geological concerns regarding seismic activity, community division, lack of transparency from the NWMO, and the inadequacy of local infrastructure to support the project.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter criticizes the exclusion of transportation from the impact assessment, arguing it is an essential component of the project. They highlight the high frequency of transport truck crashes on Ontario highways and express fear regarding the catastrophic risks to humans and the environment in the event of a nuclear waste transport accident.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter objects to the short 30-day comment period and the exclusion of long-distance transportation from the project review. They demand a more detailed project description covering radiological risks, waste packaging, and emergency scenarios, while advocating for a full impact assessment and the protection of northern watersheds from toxic waste.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter challenges the suitability of the bedrock for a repository, citing frequent seismic activity in Ontario that could lead to fractured rock and groundwater contamination. They advocate for surface or near-surface storage solutions that allow for continuous monitoring and easier access compared to deep geological burial.

Stance: Opposed. Key issues include the inadequacy of northern highways for increased nuclear waste transport, the lack of consultation with northern cities, and health risks associated with radiation. The commenter characterizes NWMO's financial incentives to Ignace as a bribe and suggests that investments should instead be directed toward hydroelectric power.

Stance: Opposed. A member of Grand Council Treaty Three argues that the project offers no benefit to Northwestern Ontario and criticizes the NWMO for trivializing radioactive risks during promotional tours. Key issues include the lack of information on long-term safety, emergency response, and potential contamination of traditional food sources and waterways. The commenter also objects to the 30-day comment period as being insufficient for a project with a million-year risk profile and advocates for sustainable, renewable energy solutions instead.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses concern over the inadequate review time and the exclusion of transportation from the impact assessment. They call for greater transparency regarding radiological risks to workers and residents, as well as more detailed information on waste packaging, monitoring, and emergency retrieval procedures.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter presents a comprehensive list of concerns regarding environmental impacts on fish and migratory birds, the effects of blasting on nearby properties, and the safety of transportation containers. They also raise questions about seismic monitoring, air quality, potential property value decline, and the long-term management of waste and infrastructure decommissioning.

The Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project within Treaty #3 territory. The Nation declares that it cannot and will not support the development, emphasizing that this position stands regardless of whether other Treaty #3 First Nations have expressed support. The submission serves as a formal declaration of non-consent and a critique of the current regulatory and consultative approach regarding the use of Treaty lands.

A primary issue raised is the perceived failure of the Crown to uphold its legal and treaty obligations. The Nation asserts that the original intent of Treaty #3 was to ensure the Anishinaabeg remained actively involved in land use to maintain cultural continuity and unimpeded access to their territory. The commenter argues that the ongoing, unregulated "taking up" of land threatens the existence of Indigenous peoples and lacks the necessary standards to safeguard inherent rights protected under Section 35 of the Constitution and international law. This represents a significant ethical and legal red flag regarding the "honour of the Crown" and the fulfillment of constitutional duties.

The submission highlights a critical concern regarding the scope of consultation and the requirement for consent. The Nation maintains that because the potential harms of a nuclear repository will reverberate far beyond the immediate Wabigoon Lake and Ignace areas, the Crown must obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of all Treaty #3 First Nations. The commenter suggests that the current process is insufficient and fails to meet the threshold of active involvement promised during treaty negotiations.

Environmental and socio-economic concerns are centered on the long-term health and well-being of future generations. The Nation views the nuclear repository as a threat to the ancestral way of life and the physical safety of the broader territory. By framing the project as a potential source of far-reaching harm, the commenter underscores the intergenerational risks associated with nuclear waste storage and the necessity of broad Indigenous consensus before such a project can proceed.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter opposes the project based on its potential environmental impact on the wilderness areas of Northeast Manitoba and the surroundings of Lac du Bonnet, urging the authorities to find an alternative plan.

Stance: Opposed. Representing Rainy River First Nations, the commenter cites unacceptable risks to lands, waters, and Treaty rights. They raise specific concerns regarding groundwater protection, long-term liability, emergency response, and the need for ongoing Indigenous consent and independent oversight throughout the project's lifespan.

The Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc. (PRGI), representing the Peskotomuhkati Nation, is Opposed to the project as currently proposed in the Initial Project Description (IPD). Their opposition is rooted in the assertion that the project intersects with unceded Passamaquoddy territory and rights without their free, prior, and informed consent. The commenter specifically opposes the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) attempt to exclude transportation activities from the federal Impact Assessment (IA) and expresses a lack of confidence in the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to protect their interests.

A primary issue raised is the violation of Indigenous rights and the failure of the Crown to uphold the Honour of the Crown and Treaty obligations. The PRGI argues that the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, which produced much of the waste destined for the repository, was established without their consent, and the current proposal continues this pattern of exclusion. They emphasize that under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Impact Assessment Act, their consent is a constitutional requirement, not a procedural checkbox. The submission highlights a significant distrust of the CNSC, characterizing it as a "laggard" in implementing UNDRIP and arguing that its licensing process is too narrow and piecemeal to serve as a substitute for a comprehensive federal IA.

Environmental concerns are a major focus, particularly regarding the Bay of Fundy ecosystem. The PRGI identifies potential adverse effects on fish and fish habitat, migratory birds, and species at risk, such as the North Atlantic right whale. They point to existing radiological contaminants at the Point Lepreau site, such as tritium levels exceeding drinking water limits, as evidence of the ongoing environmental burden. They argue that the handling, packaging, and transport of over 250,000 fuel bundles pose significant risks of radiological release that must be studied within the IA, rather than being dismissed as outside the project's scope.

The submission raises serious ethical and socio-economic red flags, explicitly labeling the transportation of nuclear waste across Indigenous lands as "environmental racism." The PRGI asserts that Indigenous communities bear a disproportionate burden of environmental hazards while being excluded from decision-making. They argue that the NWMO’s "reconciliation journey" is impoverished because it failed to recognize the Peskotomuhkati as a directly impacted Nation. Furthermore, they cite procedural fairness concerns, including a lack of advance notice for comment periods, inadequate capacity funding for Indigenous participation, and the use of arbitrary geographic radii rather than rights-based analysis to determine who is impacted by the project.

Finally, the PRGI identifies critical gaps in the IPD regarding transportation and the definition of "informed" stakeholders. They argue that the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and the Impact Assessment Act require the inclusion of all project phases, including the handling and transport of waste. They reject the NWMO’s use of the term "informed host," stating that no party can be truly informed until a full, independent IA is completed. The commenter insists that the IA must be the forum to remedy these gaps, ensuring a robust, transparent review that respects Indigenous sovereignty and environmental justice.

Stance: Opposed. Representing the Northern Ontario Coalition Against Nuclear Dumping Underground, the commenter argues the site is located in a seismic area with active faults. They criticize the site selection process as being influenced by financial payments, label long-distance transportation as dangerous, and advocate for rolling stewardship and retrievable storage instead of permanent burial.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter criticizes the NWMO's lack of transparency and the "Adaptive Phased Management" approach. They express significant concern over the safety of transporting nuclear waste through congested or weather-affected northern routes and argue that waste should be managed at its source rather than moved to a central repository.

Stance: Opposed. A resident of North Bay, the commenter focuses on the extreme risks of transporting toxic materials on dangerous northern highways and potential security threats. They argue the project's long-term feasibility is speculative and call for a full impact assessment with a public hearing and a significantly longer comment period.

Stance: Opposed. An Indigenous individual residing in Treaty #3, the commenter opposes the project based on their cultural duty to protect the land. They express concern that the repository will cause irreversible harm to the environment and negatively impact both present and future generations.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding the safety of transporting radioactive materials on public roads and the lack of a realistic long-term management plan. They highlight the risks posed by climate change and future pandemics, questioning the ability of future generations to maintain the knowledge and language necessary to manage waste that remains hazardous for millennia. Ultimately, the commenter advocates for divesting from nuclear technology, arguing that its limited benefits do not justify the long-term risks to the future.

Stance: Opposed. Drawing on personal trauma from the Cold War and the Chernobyl disaster, the commenter voices deep-seated fear regarding nuclear contamination and its long-term health effects. They are specifically concerned about the safety of transporting high-level waste on notoriously dangerous Northern Ontario highways and the potential for an accident to permanently contaminate the pristine boreal forest. The commenter emphasizes the social anxiety and division within local communities, fearing that the region could become an uninhabitable exclusion zone if the project fails.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter, a biologist, raises concerns about the presence of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste in the boreal ecosystem, arguing for a zero-waste threshold. They question the theoretical nature of the storage system and demand successful case studies rather than unproven models. Key issues include the high risk of transport accidents on Highway 11/17, the long-term environmental impacts of land clearing, potential water emissions, and the threat to biodiversity and species at risk in the region.

Stance: Opposed. Writing as a physician, the commenter opposes the project based on irreversible environmental risks, violations of Indigenous sovereignty, and a flawed consultation process. They argue that the repository threatens the watershed sustaining Treaty 3 communities and that the concept of a fail-safe repository over thousands of years is not credible. Furthermore, they criticize the use of financial inducements to secure community consent and assert that the project fails the medical obligation to prevent foreseeable and irreversible harm.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter calls for a full environmental assessment, specifically highlighting the extreme dangers associated with the transportation of nuclear waste. They question the feasibility of permanent underground storage in an era of climate crisis, citing geological instability such as earthquakes and melting glaciers as significant risks. The commenter views the current plan as fundamentally flawed and urges the government to seek better alternatives for waste management.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter focuses on the lack of consultation and veto power for communities located along the transportation route, noting that travel through Northwestern Ontario is exceptionally dangerous. They argue it is unfair for only the host communities to have a say when many more people are affected by the transit of hazardous materials. Additionally, they point out that the residents of Northwestern Ontario do not benefit from nuclear energy and should not be forced to bear the risks associated with its waste.

Stance: Opposed. A resident of Thunder Bay, the commenter objects to the frequent transport of high-level radioactive waste through their community, citing the poor safety record and frequent closures of Highways 11 and 17. They argue that moving waste thousands of kilometers from its source is negligent and demand that transportation corridors be included in a formal impact assessment. The commenter highlights the potential for accidents to devastate northern communities, wildlife, and the environment, dismissing the idea that transportation can be foolproof.

Stance: Opposed. As a member of the Fort William First Nation, the commenter opposes the repository as a dangerous project that ignores the positions of numerous First Nations and treaty organizations. They specifically criticize the exclusion of transportation from the project description, viewing it as a strategic move to limit Indigenous input and silence opposition. The commenter asserts that the project cannot exist without mass transportation across Anishinaabe territories and demands that the project description be amended to reflect the full scope of the risks.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter identifies transportation as the most significant risk factor of the project and suggests that a divided four-lane highway must be constructed from North Bay to the Manitoba border to mitigate these risks. They also recommend that the government investigate alternative storage methods, specifically pointing to Finland's approach of storing spent fuel directly under reactors as a potential model to follow.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter argues that the massive increase in the volume of high-level waste transport makes current safety standards and emergency procedures insufficient. They contend that the risk of nuclear contamination is significantly higher during transit along Northern Ontario highways than when contained at reactor sites where expertise is concentrated. The commenter requests that the government mandate a thorough engineering and risk management plan that explicitly addresses the dangers of transporting waste through northern watersheds and communities.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter identifies several gaps in the current assessment, including the lack of a defined transportation route and the need for independent reviews of transport casks under real-world Northern Ontario conditions. They express concern over admitted radioactive releases during the fuel transfer process and the potential impact on human health and wildlife within the DGR watershed. Finally, they question the sustainability of nuclear energy compared to renewables, arguing that the long-term liabilities of nuclear waste represent an unfair burden on future generations.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter objects to the 30-day comment period as being too short for a project with such long-term impacts and criticizes the NWMO's attempt to exclude long-distance transportation from the impact assessment. Specific concerns are raised regarding the poor safety record and single-lane infrastructure of Northwestern Ontario highways, which are prone to frequent collisions. The author requests a full impact assessment with public hearings to ensure meaningful participation for affected communities.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter challenges the project's scientific and legal credibility, asserting that no country has successfully mastered safe nuclear waste management and that leakage is inevitable. They argue that the project violates the UNDRIP Act because it lacks the free, prior, and informed consent of local First Nations. The commenter advocates for a rigorous, evidence-based risk assessment involving all federal departments to prevent dangerous outcomes and avoid future legal battles.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter urges the implementation of a full impact assessment that encompasses the entire scope of the project, including transportation, safety, and emergency preparedness. They emphasize that all towns and Indigenous communities located along the proposed transportation route must be fully consulted. The focus of the comment is on ensuring procedural rigour and comprehensive planning rather than expressing outright support or opposition to the repository itself.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter criticizes the NWMO for relying on theoretical safety and using financial incentives to "bribe" host communities. They highlight the inadequacy of the Trans-Canada Highway for nuclear transport, citing a lack of four-laning, poor emergency preparedness, and the high rate of fatal accidents. Furthermore, they raise issues of environmental racism, noting the project's location upstream from communities already suffering from industrial pollution, and demand a full federal assessment that includes security risks and the logic of long-distance transport.

Stance: Support. The commenter supports the DGR as a necessary and responsible solution for managing spent nuclear fuel, which they view as essential for low-carbon energy production and climate change mitigation. They argue that the current above-ground storage is unsustainable and vulnerable to natural disasters, whereas the DGR's multi-barrier system and deep geological placement offer a much higher level of security. The commenter also appreciates the project's design for retrievability and its consideration of long-term social stewardship.

Opposed. The commenter identifies significant deficiencies in the Initial Project Description, specifically regarding the lack of detail on fuel types, transportation routes, and the design of transport casks. They advocate for the use of multi-purpose containers to reduce radiation exposure and suggest that repository design alternatives, such as ramps instead of vertical shafts, must be evaluated for safety. Furthermore, they criticize the exclusion of transportation impacts from the assessment and question the siting process that places the repository far from the waste's origin.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient and that the project description lacks necessary detail. They emphasize that long-distance transportation must be included in the project review and express concern regarding potential harm to Indigenous harvesting rights, such as fishing and hunting. A request is made for a full impact assessment and public hearing to ensure meaningful public participation.

Opposed. This comment demands a full impact assessment conducted by an independent review panel. The commenter specifically states that the process should not move forward until Eagle Lake First Nation is officially recognized as a host community, indicating a requirement for Indigenous consent and procedural rigor.

Opposed. The commenter highlights a lack of trust in the NWMO and insists that a full environmental assessment is necessary for all communities along the transportation route. They argue that without transparency and a comprehensive assessment of transportation risks, the public may resort to protests or blockades to prevent the movement of waste from Bruce Power to Ignace.

Opposed. Key concerns include long-term environmental safety, potential water contamination of the Great Lakes, and the lack of broad Indigenous consent beyond a single community. The commenter also cites highway safety risks associated with nuclear waste transport and advocates for alternative waste management strategies such as reprocessing, recycling, and on-site storage.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the project for failing to consider the cumulative environmental impacts of the nearby Whiteshell reactor decommissioning. They point to documented abnormalities in local wildlife and existing health advisories as evidence of regional sensitivity. The assessment is viewed as incomplete because it ignores the proximity of other nuclear projects and the potential risks to food safety and ecosystem integrity.

Opposed. The commenter raises ethical concerns about the long-term safety risks and responsibilities being passed to future generations without their consent. They suggest that such a significant decision should require a public referendum and request detailed information regarding the long-term funding and maintenance costs of the repository. They also call for more transparent warnings about waste risks in nuclear expansion documentation.

Opposed. The commenter expresses concern over the risks of transporting radioactive materials and the impact of site preparation—such as deforestation and blasting—on local biodiversity. They question the adequacy of the 160-year project timeline given the much longer lifespan of radioactive waste and raise concerns about seismic risks and the high costs of the project. Ultimately, they reject nuclear energy as being neither clean nor safe.

Opposed. The commenter emphasizes the need for consultation with all communities along the transportation route and expresses skepticism regarding the safety of road and rail transport for nuclear waste. They also note a lack of long-term monitoring plans for the deposit site and advocate for the development of less expensive, non-nuclear electricity sources.

Opposed. The commenter voices strong opposition to the use of regional highways for transporting radioactive waste and criticizes the lack of consultation with Eagle Lake First Nation. They argue that the project lacks social license and express deep distrust of the proponents, suggesting that the project is being forced upon Northwestern Ontario without proper consent or consideration for local safety.

Opposed. The primary concern is the safety of transporting nuclear waste on Highway 11/17, which the commenter describes as dangerous based on a history of fatal accidents. They criticize the NWMO for excluding road safety from its assessment and question the fairness of allowing a small number of communities to make a decision that carries risks for all Canadians along the transport corridor.

Opposed. The commenter calls for a full impact assessment that includes a specific transportation assessment and public hearings. They highlight the poor quality of Northern highways and the existing high rate of fatal accidents as critical reasons why adding nuclear waste transport to these routes is unacceptably risky.

Opposed. The commenter argues that transportation is a critical factor that must be included in the initial project assessment. They cite the hazardous road and weather conditions of Northern Ontario, along with risks of driver error and fatigue, as major safety concerns that could lead to environmental disasters if a waste transport accident were to occur.

Opposed. This is a brief statement of non-support, characterizing the initiative as dangerous to the environment.

Opposed. The commenter represents a long-standing opposition from rural unincorporated townships, arguing that waste should remain in Southern Ontario where emergency infrastructure and professional services are more accessible. They criticize the siting process for being discriminatory against unincorporated areas and express significant concern over the safety of Northern highways and the lack of local emergency response capacity.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the nuclear industry for failing to establish a waste solution before production and strongly objects to the exclusion of transportation from the Impact Assessment. Key concerns include the safety and feasibility of transporting large quantities of fuel bundles, the high accident rates on Ontario highways, seismic risks near the proposed site, potential for air attacks, and a lack of clarity regarding liability and emergency response funding.

Stance: Opposed. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Canada highlights grave public health concerns, including the risk of cancer from accidental radioactive releases and the inadequacy of the 160-year monitoring timeframe for waste that remains toxic for millennia. The submission criticizes the omission of transportation risks and the lack of an independent public health assessment. They argue that the nuclear regulator's mandate is insufficient to protect public health and that the industry must be held responsible for waste management in perpetuity.

The City of Dryden provides a stance that is Neutral/Unclear, characterized as conditional support contingent upon comprehensive, binding mitigation measures and financial commitments. While the City acknowledges the national importance of the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) and the potential for regional economic development, the submission emphasizes that the project currently poses a significant risk of net negative impacts. The City positions itself as a regional hub that provides essential services to a population far exceeding its tax base, expressing concern that the costs of accommodating project-related growth will fall disproportionately on its municipal taxpayers rather than the project proponent or host communities.

A primary concern raised is the disproportionate impact on Indigenous residents, who make up over 22% of Dryden’s population and nearly half of the broader census division. The City argues that existing systemic barriers in healthcare, housing, and social services will be amplified by increased competition for resources. Socio-economic red flags include a pre-existing housing crisis with a low 3% vacancy rate and high construction costs, which the City fears will be exacerbated by an influx of well-compensated DGR workers. This demand is expected to drive up prices and rents, potentially displacing vulnerable populations, seniors, and Indigenous families who are already economically marginalized.

The submission highlights critical infrastructure and healthcare concerns, noting a $372 million infrastructure deficit and a healthcare system already operating at capacity. The City points out that it lacks the ability to implement development charges to fund growth, meaning increased service demands for water, wastewater, roads, fire, and police would lead to unaffordable tax hikes for a population already facing high property tax rates. Healthcare risks include worsened physician shortages, increased emergency department wait times, and a lack of long-term care capacity, which the City asserts will lead to deteriorating health outcomes for the existing population without significant new investment.

Economic and reputational risks are also identified as major concerns. The City warns of potential workforce disruption, where competition for labor could destabilize existing employers like the local fiber mill and municipal services, leading to unsustainable wage increases or operational reductions. Furthermore, the City raises concerns regarding community image and the tourism sector, which relies on the perception of pristine natural resources. The submission warns that the stigma associated with proximity to a nuclear waste facility could devastate the local tourism economy and hinder the recruitment of healthcare professionals and business investment. The City concludes by demanding enforceable commitments for funding across municipal services, healthcare, housing, and social services to ensure the community is protected throughout the project's lifecycle.

Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding the safety of transporting spent fuel rods via highway or rail, citing a poor safety record. They also suggest that financial incentives offered to communities have compromised the integrity of the process and advocate for investing funds into alternative energy solutions rather than the DGR.

Opposed. This assessment highlights technical concerns regarding the stability and permeability of storage caverns and the exclusion of transportation from the project scope. The commenter cites historical incidents like the WIPP explosion and regional wildfires to illustrate risks of radioactive fallout, while also questioning the project's economic transparency, the reliability of regulatory oversight, and the vulnerability of the site to military or drone strikes.

Opposed. The commenter focuses on the high risks associated with transporting nuclear waste on dangerous northern highways characterized by frequent fatal collisions. They urge the inclusion of transportation routes in the project scope and emphasize the need to protect Indigenous rights and ensure free, prior, and informed consent as per international and Canadian law.

Support. While the resident supports the project based on safety education and the potential for community prosperity, they express concern over a perceived shift in the NWMO's commitment to economic partnership. They request that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) mandate enforceable economic development and employment commitments to ensure the long-term sustainability of Ignace.

Support. The commenter supports the DGR and the exclusion of transportation from the impact assessment, arguing that existing regulatory frameworks under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act are sufficient. They view the project as a necessary generational solution for long-term waste containment and caution against "scope creep" that could unfairly delay the project due to opposition from communities outside the immediate area.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient for a project with such long-term impacts and criticizes the project description for being incomplete. They specifically demand that long-distance transportation be included in the review and request more detailed information on radiological risks, packaging plant operations, and container monitoring and retrieval protocols.

Opposed. The commenter focuses specifically on the inadequacy of research regarding transportation safety. They highlight the risks of moving hazardous waste over long distances on two-lane highways prone to accidents and closures, such as the Nipigon bottleneck, and request a full assessment of the chosen transportation routes.

Opposed. Representing a grassroots organization, the commenter argues that transportation is an integral part of the project that must be included in the Impact Assessment. They characterize the exclusion of road transport as egregious and call for a full Federal Impact Assessment to scrutinize the risks to transportation corridors and downstream communities over the project's long lifespan.

Opposed. The commenter objects to the short duration of the public comment period and the exclusion of transportation from the project review. They express a need for more technical information regarding the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, underground waste transfer, and container repair procedures, ultimately requesting a full impact assessment with public hearings.

Opposed. Writing from a medical perspective, the commenter emphasizes the toxic effects of low-dose radiation and the lack of a proven long-term storage method. They raise concerns about container deterioration, environmental seepage, and the significant public health risks posed by transporting 150,000 tonnes of radioactive material through residential and sensitive areas, calling for a comprehensive health impact assessment.

Support. The commenter expresses general support for the DGR, viewing it as a responsible way to manage nuclear waste generated by Ontario's electricity needs. They specifically note the importance of nuclear energy as a stable baseload and appreciate the engagement with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway First Nation.

Support. The resident expresses confidence in the safety and technology of the DGR following personal research and site visits. Their primary interest is ensuring that the NWMO's promises regarding economic development, workforce training, and long-term job creation for Ignace are made legally enforceable and clearly defined in the project agreements.

Opposed. The commenter calls for a full impact assessment that explicitly includes transportation, citing the cumulative risks to communities and watersheds along the 1,800 km route. They argue that proceeding without such an assessment constitutes procedural injustice and a failure of public accountability, effectively excluding impacted communities from the consent process.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the lack of a disposal plan at the industry's inception and objects to Northwestern Ontario bearing the burden of waste created for the benefit of other regions. They express concern over highway safety and suggest that scientific efforts should focus on neutralizing or reusing waste rather than underground burial.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the NWMO's definition of a "willing host," noting that many impacted residents and downstream communities were excluded from the consent process. Key concerns include the lack of transparency in community engagement, the exclusion of transportation risks from the assessment, and the conceptual nature of the Initial Project Description. They request a full impact assessment with public hearings to address environmental, social, and economic risks.

Opposed. While the commenter supports a federal impact assessment, they strongly oppose the current project scope for excluding transportation risks and failing to uphold Indigenous rights under UNDRIP. They emphasize that the transport of high-level radioactive waste across multiple provinces poses significant social and environmental risks that require the highest level of public scrutiny and an environmental justice lens.

Opposed. The commenter expresses total opposition to both the Deep Geological Repository and the transportation of nuclear fuel rods, citing the dangerous nature of the waste and the treacherous conditions of the highways involved in the transport route.

Neutral. The commenter requests a mandated federal impact assessment that includes a comprehensive review of the transportation of high-level waste from its origin to the delivery location. They argue that a federal-level assessment is necessary to prevent a fragmented or narrow decision-making process regarding the project.

Opposed. The commenter views the project as a continuation of colonial exploitation, using Indigenous territories as a "dumping ground" for waste generated by centers of power. They raise concerns about the lack of reparations for Treaty #3 lands, the validity of science generated outside the territory, and the ethical implications of pushing nuclear waste problems onto Indigenous peoples. They suggest alternative storage solutions closer to where the waste is produced.

Opposed. The commenter objects to the exclusion of site-to-site transportation from the risk assessment, citing personal safety concerns for those living near Highway 17. They demand a thorough and transparent study of the risks posed to human and non-human life along the proposed transportation routes.

Opposed. The commenter criticizes the NWMO for a lack of public engagement and a "ridiculously short" comment period. Their primary concern is the exclusion of long-haul transportation from the assessment, noting that radioactive waste will travel through numerous communities. They highlight the risks of radiation exposure during transit and the potential for catastrophic accidents on major highways like Highway 11 and 400, which are already prone to closures.

Opposed. The commenter expresses a lack of trust in the project due to the exclusion of transportation from the impact assessment. Drawing on Indigenous teachings and an environmental education background, they question the long-term geological stability of the repository and the ethics of burying waste for future generations. They advocate for keeping the waste in retrievable, on-site storage until safer, more ecologically sound solutions are developed.

Opposed. The commenter argues that Northern Ontario should not become a "dumping ground" for waste from a power grid it did not benefit from. They suggest that waste should remain at existing, specialized "brownfield" sites in Southern Ontario to save taxpayer money and avoid the risks of long-distance transportation. They also criticize the selection process as being influenced by financial incentives offered to economically disadvantaged northern communities.

Neutral. Representing the Dryden Regional Health Centre, the commenter outlines significant concerns regarding the project's impact on regional healthcare infrastructure. They highlight that increased population and potential industrial accidents would strain already limited primary care, emergency services, and mental health resources. The submission emphasizes that the hospital lacks the physical capacity and staffing to meet the increased demands or handle large-scale incidents related to the project's construction and transportation phases.

Opposed. The commenter requests a full impact assessment that includes transportation risks and evaluates alternatives to the DGR. They argue that the NWMO has failed to prove the repository's safety over a million-year timeframe and advocate for the German model of on-site, hardened, above-ground concrete vaults. This approach, they suggest, would allow for easier detection of leaks and avoid the risks and costs associated with transporting waste to Northern Ontario.

Opposed. The Green Coalition raises concerns about the long-term safety of the DGR, citing potential geological shifts and the risk of underground fires. They argue that the project must include transportation in its scope and that waste should be vitrified and remain recoverable. Additionally, they request more time for the public to provide informed feedback on the proposal.

Support. The commenter strongly supports the DGR as a necessary solution for the long-term management of radioactive waste and the sustainability of Canada's nuclear power grid. They emphasize that the project's success depends on frequent, meaningful engagement and the informed, willing consent of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the community of Ignace.

Opposed. The commenter argues that the Initial Project Description (IPD) is totally inadequate and lacks essential details regarding the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, mining methods, and long-term monitoring. They criticize the exclusion of transportation as an attempt to sidestep due process and express concern that mining operations could compromise the stability of the repository rock. They recommend that the IPD be retracted and replaced with a more detailed version for a longer public review period.

Opposed. The commenter expresses strong concern over the transportation and burial of radioactive waste in Northern Ontario, citing risks from seismic activity and fractured rock. They call for a full impact assessment that includes transportation routes and containment methods, while also advocating for a shift away from nuclear power toward cheaper and safer energy alternatives.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding the long-term security of nuclear waste and the potential risks to future generations. They argue that transporting waste over long distances without a comprehensive environmental assessment is irresponsible and suggest that waste should remain at existing sites under constant monitoring until a more definitive solution is identified.

Stance: Neutral. This comment focuses on procedural requirements, demanding that the project undergo a full impact assessment and public hearing. The commenter specifically identifies the need to include transportation risks, a thorough examination of alternatives, and more detailed project descriptions than what was provided in the initial documentation.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter, residing near the proposed site and transportation route, raises concerns about the safety and economic implications of moving high-level radioactive waste across the country. They advocate for a full impact assessment and suggest that the repository should be located closer to the waste's source to minimize risks to population centers and major transport corridors.

Stance: Opposed. As a senior ecologist, the commenter highlights the potential for irreparable damage to biodiversity and environmental quality resulting from transportation accidents. They also criticize the adequacy of public and First Nations consultation and express concern that the project could degrade land specifically conserved for nature preservation.

Support. The commenter argues that the risks of used nuclear fuel are greatly exaggerated and that the proposed repository would be safe. Drawing on epidemiological data, they suggest that radiation thresholds for harm are much higher than public perception suggests and that long-lived isotopes like Iodine-129 pose negligible health risks due to low dose rates. The submission concludes that the project will not place an undue burden on future generations and that current safety margins are more than sufficient for licensing.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository is Neutral/Unclear. The submission does not explicitly state whether the individual supports or opposes the project's implementation. Instead, the comment serves as a procedural directive or a demand for the inclusion of a specific scope within the regulatory review process.

The primary issue raised is the necessity of including transportation in the impact assessment. This indicates a concern regarding the movement of nuclear waste from its current locations to the proposed repository site. By demanding that transportation be assessed, the commenter highlights a potential gap in the current evaluation or emphasizes that the risks associated with transit—such as safety, environmental contamination, or public health—are critical factors that must be scrutinized by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

Due to the extreme brevity of the submission, there is insufficient information to identify specific socio-economic, ethical, or detailed environmental concerns beyond the broad category of transportation logistics. There are no explicit red flags mentioned, other than the implication that an assessment excluding transportation would be incomplete or inadequate in the eyes of the commenter.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project as currently scoped, specifically regarding the exclusion of transportation from the federal Assessment process. They describe this exclusion as unacceptable and express serious concerns about the limitations of the regulatory review. The stance is rooted in the belief that the assessment is incomplete without a thorough evaluation of the risks associated with moving radioactive waste.

The primary issue raised is the safety and environmental risk associated with the transportation of used nuclear fuel from reactor sites to the Deep Geological Repository. The commenter emphasizes that this waste will be moved through thousands of communities, including their own, posing a considerable risk to public safety. They argue that the sheer scale of the transportation logistics necessitates a robust and comprehensive impact assessment to ensure the protection of the affected populations and environments along the transit routes.

Furthermore, the commenter highlights a procedural concern regarding the public consultation process. They point to the high volume of similar objections submitted within a short timeframe as evidence that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada must reconsider the scope of the project. There is a clear demand for greater transparency and a more inclusive assessment that accounts for the entire lifecycle of the waste movement, asserting that communities are entitled to a full understanding of the impacts before the project proceeds.

The commenter, Melanie Cookson, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. Her opposition is rooted in a deep-seated concern for public safety, environmental integrity, and the long-term ethical implications of nuclear waste management. She characterizes the decision to proceed with the repository and the associated transport of waste as reckless, selfish, and unforgivable, emphasizing that the risks to the community and the environment far outweigh the perceived benefits.

A primary issue raised in the submission is the safety of transporting nuclear waste along Highway 17. Drawing a parallel to the "Highway of Tears" in British Columbia, the commenter labels Highway 17 the "Highway of Fears" due to the high frequency of alarming vehicle crashes involving large transport trucks. She expresses a firm belief that it is only a matter of time before a catastrophic accident occurs during the projected 50-year transportation window. The commenter argues that the consequences of such an event would be permanent, noting that it would take thousands of years for nature to recover, if it ever could, and asserts that current technology is incapable of properly remediating nuclear waste contamination.

The submission also highlights significant ethical and socio-economic concerns, particularly regarding intergenerational equity and the rights of vulnerable populations. The commenter criticizes the nuclear industry for "kicking the can down the road" and forcing future generations to deal with hazardous waste they did not create. She expresses specific concern for the burden placed on Indigenous People, young families, children, and local ecosystems. While acknowledging the benefits of nuclear technology in medicine and energy, she maintains that these do not erase the global damage caused by the industry, citing the Fukushima disaster as a pivotal point in her personal study of the subject. Ultimately, she views the project as an unacceptable risk to the water and life cycles of the region during an already unstable time.

The commenter is explicitly and firmly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. They state their lack of support in absolute terms, characterizing the initiative as disgraceful and calling for an immediate cessation of the project.

The primary concern raised in the submission revolves around the logistics and safety of transporting used nuclear fuel rods. The commenter highlights the risks associated with moving high-level radioactive waste through established transportation corridors that are frequently used by the public and families. There is a specific emphasis on the proximity of these routes to local communities and the Great Lakes, suggesting significant apprehension regarding potential environmental contamination and public health hazards in densely populated or ecologically sensitive areas.

From a regulatory perspective, the comment serves as a red flag regarding public perception of transportation safety and the perceived lack of social license. The use of strong emotive language indicates a deep-seated ethical concern regarding the safety of citizens living along the proposed transit routes. The commenter views the current plan as an unacceptable risk to human life and the environment, particularly concerning the protection of major water bodies like the Great Lakes.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the current Initial Project Description (IPD) and the associated consultation process, characterizing the document as technically and ethically premature. They argue that the IPD fails to meet the rigorous standards required for a federal impact assessment and formally protest the 30-day public comment period, which they deem fundamentally disproportionate and unacceptable given the project's 160-year scope and complexity.

A primary concern identified is the NWMO’s adoption of a host-centric assessment model. The commenter argues this model incorrectly assumes impacts are confined to a single community, thereby ignoring the rights of neighboring Indigenous nations and communities that share the same watershed. This is viewed as a procedural failure that creates an arbitrary hierarchy of rights, potentially violating Section 35 rights related to water stewardship and harvesting. The commenter asserts that this narrow focus leaves the project vulnerable to litigation and undermines the integrity of the Impact Assessment Act.

The submission highlights significant transparency and ethical gaps, specifically regarding the confidentiality of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation Hosting Agreement. The commenter describes this as a regulatory black box that prevents the public and neighboring communities from verifying social, economic, and cultural safeguards. They maintain that a private agreement cannot replace the Crown’s non-delegable duty to consult with all affected rights-holders. Furthermore, the commenter points out that the NWMO admits key baseline data regarding Indigenous social, cultural, and health factors remains uncharacterized, making informed participation impossible.

Technical deficiencies are also a major point of contention. The commenter raises alarms over the reliance on only six boreholes to characterize a 40 km by 15 km rock unit, calling it statistically insufficient to ensure long-term stability. They also criticize the proponent for assigning a low risk rating to residual water effects without having conducted site-specific modeling. Additionally, the commenter expresses socio-economic and safety concerns regarding the reliance on local volunteer fire departments, which they argue lack the specialized training and equipment required for a complex nuclear industrial project.

Finally, the commenter addresses the long-term uncertainty and intergenerational risks of the 160-year timeline. They argue the proposal lacks a formal framework for re-evaluating consent over time or managing site markers into the 22nd century. To rectify these issues, the commenter demands the completion of all Indigenous-led baseline studies, the provision of a non-confidential summary of the hosting agreement, and the establishment of a formal inter-nation consultation framework that integrates all impacted communities with the same level of rigor as the host community.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the current framework of the Impact Assessment for the Revell Deep Geological Repository, specifically regarding the exclusion of transportation risks from the formal scope. They characterize the decoupling of transportation impacts from the repository assessment as unacceptable and argue that the project should not be allowed to proceed without a full, public study of the logistics and risks involved in moving high-level radioactive waste from Southern Ontario to the proposed site.

A primary concern raised is the physical suitability and safety of the proposed transport corridors, specifically Highway 17 and Highway 11. The commenter describes these routes as hazardous due to their narrow two-lane construction, constrained rock cuts, and lack of safe pull-off areas. These infrastructure limitations are exacerbated by severe winter weather conditions, such as ice and whiteouts, which frequently lead to highway closures. Environmental risks are further highlighted through the predicted inevitability of wildlife collisions, particularly with moose, and the potential for a radiological release that could contaminate the Lake Superior watershed. The submission notes that many Canadians view the transport plan as a potential "mobile Chernobyl" scenario.

The submission identifies significant socio-economic concerns regarding the lack of emergency response capacity in the rural and northern communities along the transport routes. The commenter points out that these areas often rely on volunteer fire departments that lack the specialized training, equipment, and resources required to manage a high-level radioactive waste incident. Additionally, there is a major concern that a significant accident could sever the Trans-Canada Highway, which would isolate northern communities and disrupt a critical national transportation and supply corridor.

From a regulatory and ethical perspective, the commenter accuses the proponent of "project-splitting" by treating the repository and the transportation of waste as separate entities. They argue that this approach precludes a comprehensive evaluation of cumulative risks and undermines public confidence in the federal review process. The commenter asserts that without a rigorous assessment of accident scenarios, routine radiation exposure during transit, and emergency preparedness over a 50-year shipping timeline, the Impact Assessment cannot be considered complete or credible. They urge the Agency to adopt a precautionary approach that evaluates the risks borne by all affected ecosystems and communities along the corridors.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository and the broader nuclear power industry. They characterize the project as a dangerous and misguided experiment, arguing that the risks of catastrophic contamination far outweigh any perceived benefits. The submission calls for an immediate halt to the plan, suggesting that the nuclear industry should be phased out entirely due to its high costs and the inherent dangers of managing toxic waste that remains hazardous for over a million years.

A primary concern raised is the inevitability of human error. The commenter cites historical nuclear accidents, such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, to illustrate that even the best engineering cannot account for human fallibility. They argue that the complex processes of loading, transporting, and repackaging high-level waste provide numerous opportunities for mistakes. Furthermore, the commenter identifies security risks, including the potential for terrorism and civil unrest, noting that the lengthy timeframe of the project makes it impossible to guarantee protection against aggressive human behavior.

The submission also focuses on existential and geological risks over a million-year horizon. The commenter asserts that geology is not a predictive science and cannot account for future events such as ice ages, tectonic plate movements, continental drift, or asteroid impacts. They express deep skepticism that any scientific authority can guarantee the stability of the surrounding rock for such a vast period. The presence of plutonium-239, with its long half-life and potential for use in nuclear weapons, is highlighted as a persistent risk to global security and environmental safety.

Environmental and health concerns are central to the opposition. The commenter describes the waste as a poison capable of causing cancer and genetic mutations that could affect generations. They specifically flag the risk to the Arctic and Atlantic watersheds, arguing that an inevitable leak would jeopardize these vital water systems. The commenter rejects the idea that nuclear energy is a viable tool for climate change mitigation, viewing the long-term environmental legacy of radioactive waste as a form of "self-serving madness."

The commenter identifies a significant regulatory red flag regarding the scope of the project, accusing the proponents of "project-splitting" by excluding transportation from the initial description. They argue that the risks associated with transporting waste over public roads and the Trans-Canada Highway are integral to the project and must be included in a full impact assessment. The submission suggests that a failure during transport or at the repackaging site could lead to centuries of contamination that would be impossible to remediate.

Finally, the submission addresses socio-economic and ethical issues. The commenter views the projected costs as astronomical and a burden on provincial debt, suggesting that renewable alternatives like hydroelectric power are more sensible. They also raise ethical concerns regarding the NWMO’s engagement with local communities, characterizing financial incentives offered to impoverished towns and First Nations as "bribes" that undermine the organization's credibility. As an alternative, the commenter suggests keeping the waste at its current locations in accessible storage to allow for future technological solutions while avoiding the risks of province-wide transportation.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project and the continued use of nuclear energy. Their submission advocates for the cessation of nuclear power generation and suggests that the proponent should investigate alternative methods for neutralizing harmful nuclear waste rather than proceeding with the current burial plan.

The primary concerns raised in the submission center on the risks associated with the transportation and permanent storage of radioactive materials, specifically within Northern regions. The commenter expresses a lack of confidence in the long-term safety of the project, citing the inevitability of human error as a significant risk factor that could lead to negative outcomes. Furthermore, the submission reflects a broader opposition to the nuclear industry as a whole, calling for a complete transition away from nuclear power.

The commenters, Sharon and Ace Hoffman, are explicitly opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in the assertion that the project is based on two unsupported assumptions: that nuclear waste can be safely stored for the required duration and that nuclear power is a viable tool for climate change mitigation. They argue that the project documentation inappropriately limits its impact discussion to a 160-year timeline, which they find insufficient given that radionuclides remain lethal for millions of years. Furthermore, they highlight a lack of information regarding how the waste will be monitored once the repository is sealed.

A significant socio-economic and ethical concern raised is the project's potential to enable the production of more nuclear waste. The commenters argue that any waste management plan must first involve stopping the production of new waste, whereas they claim this project encourages new reactor development. They also challenge the economic viability of nuclear power, stating it is too expensive and takes too long to build to be an effective climate solution. Additionally, they raise the issue of inter-generational equity, noting that the project places a permanent burden on future generations and creates potential targets for future nuclear conflicts.

Regarding environmental and technical risks, the submission critiques the risk assessment methodology, specifically the use of a damage-versus-likelihood matrix. The commenters contend that it is impossible to accurately predict the integrity of radioactive containment over thousands or millions of years. They identify several red flags, including potential groundwater impacts and significant knowledge gaps. They also point to the lack of consultation with Indigenous groups as a major outstanding issue. The commenters emphasize that once radioactivity is released into the environment, the damage to plants, animals, and humans across multiple generations is difficult to assess.

Finally, the commenters highlight a major perceived flaw in the project's scope regarding transportation safety. They note that the current evaluation excludes transport issues beyond immediate access routes, ignoring the risks associated with moving nuclear waste over public roads, bridges, and railways. They express concern that accidents during transport could result in significant radioactive exposure for large populations. As residents of the United States, they argue that the potential for global impact necessitates a more rigorous risk assessment and well-publicized public hearings before any regulatory approval is granted.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) near Revell Lake. The submission characterizes the project as a primitive and ill-advised attempt to hide hazardous materials rather than managing them responsibly. The author argues that the nuclear industry is attempting to abandon a proven waste management system—specifically Rolling Stewardship and the Proximity Principle—in favor of a multi-billion-dollar plan that introduces unnecessary risks. The commenter asserts that nuclear waste is uniquely toxic and hazardous for hundreds of thousands of generations, making the concept of "abandonment" in a deep hole ethically and technically unsound.

A primary concern raised is the safety and scale of transportation. The commenter highlights that the project would require between 30,000 and 50,000 trucks to move existing waste across Canada, passing through densely populated areas like the Greater Toronto Area and Montreal, as well as sensitive agricultural lands. The submission points to alarming traffic statistics, noting that transport trucks are involved in over 60% of accidents on the Trans Canada Highway stretch between Nipigon and Dryden. The author identifies a significant regulatory red flag in the omission of transportation risks from the NWMO’s initial Project Description, arguing that the risks of accidental release during transit or at sea are being ignored.

Environmental and geological concerns are also central to the opposition. The commenter challenges the assumption that the host rock is solid, citing microscopic fissures, the presence of groundwater, and the existence of an "earthquake cluster" in the Revell Lake area. They argue that tectonic instability and the natural movement of water through the Precambrian Shield guarantee that any contamination escaping the burial casks will eventually reach the watersheds, affecting the environment for hundreds of kilometers. Furthermore, the commenter criticizes the lack of full-scale physical testing for shipping containers, noting that the industry relies on computer simulations rather than the "gold standard" of physical trials.

The submission raises serious ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding the site selection process and Indigenous rights. The commenter describes the NWMO’s approach as manipulative, alleging that the organization targeted Ignace—a community described as economically vulnerable—while ignoring the concerns of downstream communities and the broader region. Regarding Indigenous consultation, the author claims the NWMO has been selective, excluding groups within the affected watershed and misrepresenting a vote to "continue the process" as definitive approval. The commenter also characterizes the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) as a "captive regulator" that is funded by the industry it is meant to oversee, leading to a perceived lack of objective oversight.

Finally, the commenter advocates for alternative energy and management strategies. They suggest that the funds intended for the DGR should be redirected toward wind and solar power, which they view as safer and more cost-effective. The submission concludes that the safest course of action is to maintain the waste at its current reactor sites under continuous human oversight (Rolling Stewardship), rather than proceeding with a permanent disposal plan that the author deems an "environmental nightmare" based on "second-world thinking" and industry arrogance.

The commenter is categorized as Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically advocating for more rigorous federal oversight and expressing significant concern regarding the safety of the project's logistics. The submission explicitly calls for a federal impact assessment to be conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for the facility located west of Ignace. This demand indicates a lack of confidence in any assessment process that does not meet the federal standard or one that excludes the broader implications of the project's operations.

The primary issue raised is the transportation of high-level nuclear waste, which the commenter insists must be included in the federal impact assessment process. The commenter highlights the environmental and socio-economic risks associated with moving hazardous materials over hundreds of kilometers. There is a specific concern that the transport route passes through numerous natural and inhabited areas, making them vulnerable to significant harm. The commenter identifies the potential for a spill caused by a transportation incident as a major threat to both the environment and human settlements along the corridor.

A significant red flag identified in this submission is the perceived risk of catastrophic harm to ecosystems and communities located far from the actual repository site. By focusing on the "hundreds of kilometres" of transit, the commenter points to a wide-reaching geographic impact that extends beyond the immediate vicinity of Ignace. The use of the term "nuclear waste dump" further reflects a negative perception of the facility's safety and purpose. The commenter’s focus on the potential for a spill suggests that they view the current transportation plan as a high-risk component that has not been sufficiently addressed or regulated.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed and scoped, specifically advocating for a more rigorous and inclusive federal impact assessment to address significant safety and ethical gaps. Their position is rooted in the belief that the current proposal fails to account for the full spectrum of risks associated with high-level radioactive waste, particularly regarding the long-term safety of future generations and the rights of affected communities.

A primary concern raised is the exclusion of transportation from the scope of the impact assessment. The commenter argues that transportation is a core component of the project’s risk profile and that its removal from the assessment process eliminates essential public review of accident risks, routing decisions, and emergency preparedness. They emphasize that hundreds of communities along potential transportation corridors are being denied the opportunity to understand or weigh in on the risks posed to their residents and children, which they view as a failure of transparency and public safety.

The submission also highlights significant concerns regarding Indigenous rights and environmental justice. The commenter asserts that the proposal for the Northwestern Ontario site fails to adequately address Indigenous rights, specifically the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent as affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There is a specific focus on the lack of comprehensive assessment for downstream ecosystems and communities, which may face irreversible, long-term impacts. The commenter views the current approach as a violation of environmental justice principles, as it excludes potentially affected populations from meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

Ethical and intergenerational concerns are central to the commenter's argument. They characterize the project as having irreversible consequences that demand the highest level of care and public accountability. By focusing on the well-being of future generations, the commenter argues that any credible assessment must prioritize long-term risks over immediate project goals. They urge the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to expand the project scope to include all transportation risks and to ensure that the protection of Indigenous rights and the safety of all affected communities are central to the regulatory process.

The commenter expresses a stance that is Opposed to the project, primarily due to significant concerns regarding the transportation of high-level nuclear waste. The central argument is that the risks associated with moving toxic materials from production sites to the disposal site have not been adequately addressed or included in the current scope of the assessment. The author emphasizes that transportation safety is a paramount concern for the general public and must be a core component of the regulatory review.

Several specific safety and environmental red flags are raised within the submission. The commenter points to the alarming frequency of vehicular accidents involving large trucks, which result in loss of life and infrastructure closures. There is a specific focus on the geographical vulnerabilities of Ontario, particularly the high number of water crossings along both highway and rail corridors. This suggests a high risk of environmental contamination should a spill occur near these water bodies. Furthermore, the commenter highlights the logistical challenge of emergency remediation in remote locations, questioning the feasibility of a timely response in the event of a transit accident.

From an ethical and socio-economic perspective, the submission identifies a lack of procedural fairness for communities located along the proposed transportation routes. The commenter argues that these populations face the highest degree of risk by having toxic waste transported past their doorstep, yet they are denied a voice in the decision-making process. This raises concerns regarding the inclusivity of the consultation process and the potential for disproportionate impacts on bystander communities who do not host the facility but bear the risks of its operation.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project as currently proposed and strongly advocates for a full Impact Assessment and public hearing. The submission characterizes the Deep Geological Repository as one of the most ambitious and potentially hazardous proposals in Canadian history, involving highly toxic, long-lived substances. A primary concern is the perceived lack of scientific certainty regarding the long-term safety and predictability of nuclear waste management. The commenter dismisses current safety demonstrations as educated guesses or computer models that may be unreliable or biased toward the proponent’s interests.

A significant portion of the comment focuses on the perceived lack of transparency and accountability of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. The commenter identifies a profound lack of trust in the proponent, describing the organization as entitled and suggesting that its Initial Project Description functions more as a political mission statement than a factual argument. There are specific allegations that the proponent is intentionally withholding details or lacks the necessary plans to address risks and uncertainties, which the commenter argues diminishes public trust and necessitates rigorous regulatory oversight through a public hearing process.

The commenter identifies several critical gaps and omissions in the Initial Project Description that represent major red flags. A central issue is the exclusion of the transportation of used nuclear fuel waste from the assessment, which the commenter insists must be included due to the inherent risks of moving radioactive materials across the country. Additionally, the submission highlights a lack of detail regarding the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, noting that the absence of operational specifics prevents an adequate assessment of risks to human health, worker safety, and the environment from potential radioactive releases.

Finally, the submission raises ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding the failure to consider alternatives to the project. The commenter argues that the proponent has prematurely committed to deep burial while ignoring the alternative of robust, monitored on-site storage at reactor locations. Furthermore, the commenter lists numerous technical alternatives—such as different mining methods, repository layouts, and packaging locations—that have been omitted or inadequately explored. The commenter concludes that a full Impact Assessment is the only way to evaluate these alternatives and ensure that international best practices are actually being followed to mitigate environmental and human disasters.

The commenter, Carol Bruni, writing on behalf of her family and future generations, is explicitly opposed to the proposed project. Her opposition is primarily centered on the risks associated with the transportation of nuclear waste through Northern Ontario. She characterizes the proposed transportation corridor as an accident waiting to happen and argues against the necessity of moving toxic materials far from their source.

The primary issue raised is the safety and suitability of the existing transportation infrastructure. The commenter describes the Trans Canada Highway north of Lake Superior as a hazardous, two-lane road featuring hills, curves, poor shoulders, and limited passing lanes. She notes that both the highway and the CP Rail main line pass through rock cuts, intersections, and the urban center of Thunder Bay. Based on frequent media reports of truck overturns and train derailments, the commenter views accidents as inevitable and expresses significant concern for the safety of residents living near these corridors.

Furthermore, the submission identifies a perceived regulatory failure, calling it a scandal that the transportation of nuclear waste is not a central focus of environmental impact studies. The commenter suggests that the waste should be sequestered near its point of origin rather than being transported across the province without a demonstrated need. This position is driven by a desire to protect the local environment and the safety of current and future generations from the potential consequences of a transportation-related disaster.

The commenter is Opposed to the current regulatory timeline and expresses significant skepticism regarding the project's safety and the adequacy of the assessment process. The primary procedural concern raised is the 30-day public comment period, which the commenter argues is insufficient given the extreme complexity of a Deep Geological Repository. They advocate for a minimum of six months to allow the public and experts to properly understand the project and identify potential deficiencies that could impact the environment and human health.

The submission highlights significant environmental and socio-economic concerns, specifically the potential for unidentified risks to human health and ecological systems. The commenter suggests that the current timeframe prevents a comprehensive evaluation of these risks, which is a critical requirement for a project of this magnitude. This indicates a perceived threat to public safety and a lack of confidence in the current oversight schedule to catch critical flaws.

A major red flag identified in the comment is the technological uncertainty surrounding the project. The commenter points out that nowhere in the world is a Deep Geological Repository currently functioning, which introduces a high degree of experimental risk. Consequently, the commenter argues that it is incumbent upon the Impact Assessment process to proceed with the utmost caution, consideration, and clarity. The lack of a proven global precedent serves as the basis for their demand for a more rigorous and extended review process, implying that the current approach lacks the necessary diligence for an unproven technology.

The commenter, Natalie Owl, is Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project as currently described. The submission expresses deep concern regarding the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s site selection process and the perceived inadequacy of the Impact Assessment review. A primary procedural concern is that the 30-day comment period is insufficient to allow for a critical analysis of the 1,233-page Initial Project Description. The commenter argues that more time is required for professional, legal, and academic review, and calls for a full impact assessment and public hearings to facilitate meaningful community engagement.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the risks associated with long-distance transportation of nuclear waste. The commenter criticizes the proponent's attempt to exclude transportation from the formal review process despite its central role in the project. Specific concerns include the potential environmental impact of a transportation accident on the Great Lakes and international boundary waters, the lack of clarity regarding cleanup responsibilities and financial compensation, and the current emergency response capacity of the Ministry of Transportation. Additionally, the commenter raises issues regarding highway safety, weather impacts, and the training of transportation staff.

Socio-economic and ethical concerns are raised regarding health assessments and Indigenous rights. The commenter states that there is insufficient information on the radiological risks to workers and residents near current storage facilities and calls for a dedicated health assessment strategy for the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and surrounding First Nations. There are also questions regarding the transparency of the WLON Regulatory Assessment and Approval Process and the level of consultation with other regional Indigenous communities whose territories would be used for waste transportation.

The submission also identifies technical gaps and transparency issues. The commenter notes a lack of detail regarding the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, specifically how waste will be monitored underground and the procedures for retrieving or repairing failed containers. To justify these concerns, the commenter cites a specific incident at the Blind River Uranium Refinery where reporting was delayed and public data sets remained inaccessible. This leads to a broader concern regarding whether federal, provincial, and Indigenous governments can ensure accessible and timely reporting of nuclear waste incidents. The commenter concludes by requesting a full impact assessment to ensure public participation at every stage.

The commenter, representing the Citizens’ Network on Waste Management, is explicitly Opposed to the project as currently scoped. The submission argues that the Initial Project Description is fundamentally flawed and requires significant revisions before proceeding. The commenter expresses deep skepticism regarding the proponent's ability to manage the long-term risks associated with used nuclear fuel and calls for a much more rigorous and transparent regulatory process, including a full impact assessment and public hearing.

A primary concern raised is the projected 160-year lifespan of the project. The commenter argues that this timeframe is dangerously inadequate because used nuclear fuel remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. They characterize the plan to end active management after 160 years as being based on a foolhardy assumption that future government regulations will be sufficient to prevent unexpected occurrences. The submission recommends that the project span be extended indefinitely, requiring a permanent agency and ongoing monitoring to address potential failures over the actual hazardous life of the waste.

The commenter also identifies the exclusion of off-site transportation from the project scope as a major red flag. They point out that the repository has no purpose without the transportation of waste from across Canada, involving thousands of shipments over 50 years on potentially inadequate two-lane roads. The submission argues that the safety of the entire project is dependent on the safety of the transportation system, and therefore, transportation methods, infrastructure adequacy, and canister reliability must be evaluated as core components of the project rather than being deferred to separate regulatory certifications.

Regarding socio-economic and ethical concerns, the commenter highlights the lack of clarity surrounding "host community approval." They note that the NWMO’s previous siting process caused community conflict due to a failure to define what constitutes a "willing host." The submission insists that the hearing process must explicitly define who decides willingness—whether it be local councils, residents, or those living along transportation routes—and establish what percentage of approval is required to move forward with any future expansion of the facility’s capacity.

Finally, the commenter challenges the ethical and technical adequacy of current safety standards and regulations. They argue that the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) standard is insufficient because it allows financial factors to weaken environmental protections. The submission contends that for substances as hazardous as radionuclides, the only acceptable standard is "no discharge." Furthermore, the commenter warns that current regulations fail to account for low-probability catastrophic events and that the massive, inaccessible nature of a deep geological repository makes it nearly impossible to implement corrective changes once waste has been deposited. They conclude by demanding a neutral hearing panel and substantial financial support for public intervenors to ensure the project is properly vetted.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently scoped, specifically arguing that the Impact Assessment is incomplete because it excludes the transportation of high-level nuclear waste. The commenter characterizes this exclusion as "project splitting," asserting that the Revell repository cannot be separated from the 1,500 kilometers of transportation required to reach it. They argue that by ignoring the corridor communities, the assessment leaves residents unprotected from the inherent risks of the project and fails to account for the essential link between the site and the waste delivery route.

A primary concern raised is the public health risk to residents of Dryden, where Highway 17 serves as the main thoroughfare lined with businesses and sidewalks. The commenter highlights the risk of constant exposure to gamma rays emitted by nuclear casks. They express concern that while shielded, these casks still release radiation, and the cumulative effect of two to three trucks daily over a 50-year period constitutes a chronic, multi-generational exposure rather than a brief encounter. They specifically note that children are more vulnerable to this radiation than adults and that the proximity of the community to the transport route makes this a significant long-term safety issue.

The submission identifies a major socio-economic and national security risk regarding the use of Highway 17, which is described as Canada's only major east-west land artery. The commenter warns that a radiological accident could lead to an indefinite closure of the road for decontamination, effectively separating Eastern and Western Canada. This bottleneck scenario poses a threat to national commerce and the essential supply of food, fuel, and medicine, as millions of dollars in goods move through this corridor daily. The commenter argues that a nuclear spill would not just stop traffic but would physically compromise the country's economic connectivity.

Finally, the commenter points to a critical lack of medical and emergency preparedness in rural communities. They state that local hospitals lack the specialized decontamination suites and radiological training necessary to treat contaminated patients without endangering staff and other patients. Furthermore, they argue that the existing infrastructure in Northern Ontario—characterized by ice, fog, wildlife hazards like moose, and heavy congestion—is not designed to handle 50,000 nuclear shipments. There is a significant concern that local volunteer first responders would be forced to manage high-risk situations for which they are neither funded nor trained, especially if specialized response teams are delayed by distance or traffic blockages.

The commenter is explicitly opposed to the proposed project, characterizing the overall plan as a "terrible idea" and a "recipe for disaster." Their opposition is rooted in significant safety concerns regarding the logistics of the project, specifically the movement of hazardous materials through existing infrastructure.

The primary issue raised is the safety and suitability of transporting nuclear waste along Highway 17. The commenter describes this specific route as extremely dangerous and claims that accidents occur there constantly. They highlight specific physical constraints of the infrastructure, noting that the highway consists of only two lanes, lacks shoulders, and features numerous rock cuts. These geographical and structural factors are presented as major risk multipliers for the transport of what the commenter describes as "deadly materials."

The submission also raises a significant concern regarding the scope and integrity of the impact assessment process. The commenter argues that the transportation risks associated with these specific road conditions must be formally included in any regulatory evaluation. From their perspective, failing to account for these logistical hazards would be appallingly irresponsible. This suggests a demand for a more comprehensive analysis of the public safety and environmental risks inherent in the project's transportation requirements.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, specifically expressing deep concern regarding the selection of Ignace, Ontario, as the site for the nuclear waste repository. The primary basis for this opposition is the perceived risk and lack of logic involved in transporting highly toxic nuclear waste over thousands of kilometers. The commenter argues that the transportation aspect of the project has not received adequate attention or scrutiny within the current project scope.

A central issue raised is the safety of the transportation route, specifically the TransCanada highway. As a resident of Thunder Bay, the commenter highlights the hazardous nature of local travel, citing recent serious accidents, fatalities, and highway closures involving semi-trucks on the very route intended for the waste transport. The submission asserts that the safety of these vehicles cannot be guaranteed over such vast distances due to a combination of questionable road conditions, variable and severe weather incidents, and the inevitability of human error.

Furthermore, the commenter identifies environmental and socio-political concerns. They point to the negative environmental impact of increased fossil fuel consumption necessitated by the large number of trucks required for the operation. From an ethical and regulatory standpoint, the commenter demands that the rights of all impacted communities, including Indigenous territories, be protected. They call for the implementation of a more thorough and just consultation process to ensure the safety and justice of both the environment and the human populations affected by the project.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. As a long-term resident living near Wabigoon Lake, she expresses significant concern regarding the location of a high-level nuclear waste site within the watershed of Dryden’s drinking water. Her environmental concerns focus on the potential for water contamination, specifically noting that excavation tailings will contain blasting chemicals that may not be treated to potable standards, thereby threatening the local water supply.

A major portion of the submission is dedicated to the risks associated with the transportation of nuclear waste. The commenter raises health and safety concerns regarding radiation exposure, stating that radiation extends in a half-mile radius from transport trucks. She highlights a demographic vulnerability gap, arguing that safety regulations based on healthy young men fail to protect more sensitive populations such as women, pregnant individuals, and children. She expresses alarm that children playing in their yards could be exposed to radiation multiple times a day as trucks transit to the site.

The commenter also identifies significant infrastructure and socio-economic red flags regarding the local highway system, which she refers to as the "Highway of Death." She points out that the highway frequently closes due to accidents in the winter and lacks alternative routes, leading to concerns about transport delays and the radiation exposure of motorists stuck behind waste-carrying vehicles. Furthermore, she questions the reliability of transport safety by citing recent investigations into fraudulent commercial driver licensing in Ontario, suggesting that the drivers operating these vehicles may lack proper training.

In conclusion, the commenter insists that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada must conduct a full impact assessment that specifically includes transportation. She argues that the repository and the transportation of waste are inextricably linked, asserting that the project should not proceed without a comprehensive evaluation of the risks involved in moving nuclear materials to the Revell site.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a profound distrust of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), citing a history of unaddressed concerns and a perceived lack of transparency. A significant portion of the submission focuses on procedural red flags, specifically alleging that the NWMO provided inaccurate population growth projections to the community of Ignace to secure its status as a host. The commenter further characterizes the site selection process as coercive, alleging that financial distributions to area communities amounted to bribery rather than genuine consent. They also claim that the NWMO deliberately removed research papers from their website after the commenter raised safety questions, which they interpret as a move to mislead the public.

Environmental and safety concerns form the core of the technical objections. The commenter highlights the extreme longevity of the hazard, noting a 10,000-year heating period and a 250,000-year half-life for the radioactive material. They raise critical questions regarding long-term monitoring and financial liability, specifically asking who will be responsible for remediation and costs if the site fails after its planned closure in 160 years. Water security is a primary environmental concern; the commenter disputes the NWMO’s claims that water will not be affected, citing personal experience in regional mines to suggest that heat-induced cracks could facilitate groundwater movement. They emphasize the importance of the massive watershed that flows from the site through Wabigoon Lake and eventually to the Arctic Ocean, arguing that any contamination would have catastrophic consequences for central Canada.

The submission also raises significant ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding Indigenous rights and regional livelihoods. The commenter points to the historical trauma of the Grassy Narrows First Nation regarding mercury contamination and questions why the concerns of downstream Indigenous communities are being ignored. They argue that the project threatens the region’s current "pristine wilderness" and its established tourism-based economy. Furthermore, the commenter identifies transportation as a major risk factor, citing the frequency of fatal accidents and long road closures on the region’s predominantly single-lane highways. They express skepticism about the safety of moving radioactive material over 2,000 kilometers and question the emergency response capabilities in remote areas for both road and rail transport.

Finally, the commenter identifies a specific technical concern regarding the on-site handling of materials. They challenge the narrative that the waste will simply be buried, pointing to the repackaging process which generates secondary "low-level nuclear waste." They highlight a significant regulatory and logistical gap, noting that a repository for this secondary waste does not currently exist. The commenter concludes by demanding absolute certainty regarding the safety of their family and the region for the next quarter-million years, suggesting that the current evidence and process have failed to provide such assurance.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. A primary concern raised involves the risks associated with transporting nuclear waste over long distances from its point of origin. The commenter argues that the project description fails to adequately address these risks and points to outstanding questions regarding the safety and rigorous testing of the proposed transportation containers. Furthermore, the commenter identifies a significant procedural and ethical gap, noting that communities located along the potential transportation routes have not been consulted, despite being the most vulnerable to the negative impacts of a potential nuclear accident.

The submission highlights a failure to apply the proximity principle, suggesting that the project has not sufficiently considered the alternative of building reinforced on-site storage closer to where the waste is generated. The commenter proposes that such storage should be situated further back from large bodies of water to allow for continuous monitoring. A specific technical and safety concern is raised regarding the lack of a plan for indefinite monitoring of the waste and the absence of a strategy for waste retrieval should it become necessary in the future.

From an environmental and socio-economic perspective, the commenter asserts that the project presents a perpetual risk to the land and water resources of Northwestern Ontario. These resources are described as invaluable to the entirety of Canada and to future generations. The commenter emphasizes the impact on their own fourteen grandchildren, framing the project's potential long-term hazards as a threat to intergenerational equity. The submission concludes by stating that these unresolved concerns regarding resource protection, safety, and the lack of a retrieval plan must be addressed when considering the viability of the project.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project at Revell River, concluding their submission with the statement that the project needs to be "stopped dead." They raise an immediate procedural concern regarding the 30-day time period for responding to the Initial Project Description (IPD), characterizing it as wholly inadequate for a project with such far-reaching impacts and reserving the right to provide supplemental comments.

A primary issue raised is the exclusion of transportation from the IPD. The commenter argues that the plan to transport 150,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste over 1,700 km for a 50-year period is integral to the project and must be included in the assessment. They highlight the unprecedented scale of this transport and the associated risks of accidents on Ontario’s highways and railways. Furthermore, they identify a significant security red flag, noting that waste in transit for five decades would be vulnerable to malevolent acts.

Environmental and technical concerns are also prominent. The commenter criticizes the IPD for glossing over the complexities of repackaging and burying waste, expressing skepticism about the long-term containment of radiation. They argue that it is "pure hubris" to suggest that the safety of the site can be predicted over hundreds of thousands of years. They specifically mention the risk of eventual leakage into the watershed, air, and soil, noting that the project introduces radioactive risk to a pristine area where none currently exists.

The submission outlines several ethical and socio-economic concerns, labeling the plan to bury and abandon the waste as "immoral." The commenter suggests that the project’s benefits are directed toward corporations while the risks and costs are forced upon the environment and future generations. They also raise a major concern regarding Indigenous rights and community consent, stating that while some host communities have been offered large sums of money, many other First Nations and downstream communities along the transportation corridor have not been adequately consulted or given their consent.

Finally, the commenter challenges the necessity of the project, suggesting that the IPD provides only a cursory look at alternatives such as on-site monitoring and management near the reactors. They argue that the DGR is a political move to "greenwash" the nuclear industry and facilitate its expansion by moving waste "out of sight and out of mind." Given these risks and complexities, the commenter demands that the project undergo a Full Impact Assessment and be referred to an Integrated Review Panel for public hearings.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project in its current form, or at the very least, highly critical of the existing assessment framework. Their statement suggests that the current plan is fundamentally flawed or incomplete because it lacks a comprehensive evaluation of a critical component, leading to a lack of confidence in the overall proposal.

The primary issue raised is the necessity of including transportation within the scope of the impact assessment. The commenter asserts that transportation is an integral element of the overall plan that has been neglected. By stating that this aspect has been given little to no thought, the commenter highlights a perceived gap in the regulatory or planning process. This concern implies potential risks associated with the movement of nuclear waste from its current locations to the proposed repository, which could encompass environmental safety, public health, and logistical security.

The comment serves as a critique of the project's thoroughness and the adequacy of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s review process. The commenter’s focus on transportation suggests that the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the project cannot be fully understood or mitigated without a detailed analysis of the transit routes and methods used to move hazardous materials. This represents a significant procedural concern regarding the transparency and completeness of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's proposal.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a lack of confidence in the safety of transporting nuclear waste through Northwestern Ontario, citing a high frequency of truck-related accidents in the region. The author claims that the area experiences at least two accidents per week, suggesting that the introduction of nuclear waste transport would pose an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of local families and future generations.

A major socio-economic concern raised is the inadequacy of the current healthcare infrastructure in Northwestern Ontario. The commenter highlights a chronic shortage of specialty doctors, nurses, equipment, and resources, noting that the region already struggles to support its own residents and those visiting from other areas for care. They argue that the local healthcare system would be unable to manage the consequences of a nuclear spill or emergency, casting doubt on the effectiveness of any proposed safety initiatives or long-term mitigation strategies.

Environmental and technical concerns are also prominent in the submission. The commenter describes Northwestern Ontario as an area of "untouched beauty" and questions the ethics of placing nuclear waste in a region characterized by Crown land, reserves, farms, and recreational properties like cottages and camps. They raise specific technical red flags regarding the durability of the waste containers, questioning whether the "pot" or storage vessels will suffer from long-term degradation or inherent design flaws that could lead to leaks.

Finally, the commenter expresses significant distrust regarding the governance and motivations behind the project. They characterize the available information as convoluted and suggest that the project is being driven by financial interests for the benefit of individuals who will not be present to experience the long-term effects. The submission emphasizes the proximity of the proposed waste routes to sensitive locations, including elementary schools and primary commuting roads, and concludes that the project should be denied approval due to its potential negative impacts on the environment, agriculture, and the general well-being of the local population.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. They characterize the proposal as a terrifying idea and describe the current planning process as entirely poor and inconsiderate of the communities that would be affected. The tone of the submission is one of deep concern and urgency, suggesting that the project, as currently envisioned, poses a significant threat to the well-being of the region.

The primary issues raised in the comment center on procedural fairness and the lack of meaningful public engagement. The commenter highlights a perceived failure in transparency, noting that many individuals have either not been informed about the project or feel that their voices are being ignored in the decision-making process. This points to a significant ethical concern regarding the adequacy of the consultation process and whether the Impact Assessment Agency and the NWMO have secured informed consent or properly addressed the grievances of the impacted populations.

Furthermore, the commenter raises broad environmental and socio-economic concerns, urging the authorities to consider the actual environmental and overall societal impacts of the plan. While the submission does not detail specific technical failures, it suggests that the negative impacts on communities will be certain and substantial if the project proceeds. The commenter’s focus on the lack of consideration for those who will be negatively impacted indicates a belief that the current assessment of the project's societal and environmental footprint is insufficient or fundamentally flawed.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a lack of confidence regarding the long-term safety of burying high-level used nuclear fuel underground. The submission explicitly states concerns that unforeseen geological changes occurring over millennia could compromise the integrity of the repository, even when multiple engineered barriers are utilized.

The primary issue raised is the perceived risk of terrestrial burial compared to the alternative of space disposal. The commenter suggests that the project should be re-evaluated in favor of permanent removal from the Earth’s biosphere by launching waste into a heliocentric orbit or a solar impact trajectory. This suggestion is supported by the commenter's reference to historical NASA feasibility studies from the 1970s and 1980s, which they claim established the technical feasibility of such methods for processed waste.

Furthermore, the commenter identifies modern advancements in aerospace technology as a reason to reconsider the current DGR proposal. They highlight the emergence of reusable heavy-lift rockets, specifically mentioning the SpaceX Starship, as a means to dramatically increase payload capacity while reducing costs and the frequency of launches. The commenter argues that these modern developments change the risk profile and economic viability of space-based isolation, warranting a formal comparison between space disposal and the proposed deep geological repository.

The commenter is explicitly opposed to the proposed project and the regulatory process, which they describe as convoluted, confusing, and fundamentally flawed. They express significant frustration with the current approach, suggesting that the Impact Assessment Agency and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization are ignoring critical facts and the broader impact on hundreds of communities. The commenter views the entire undertaking as being driven by financial interests and the bottom line of shareholders rather than a genuine commitment to public interest or safety.

A major ethical and socio-economic concern raised involves the perceived influence of financial incentives on local community support. The commenter highlights the provision of a new fire truck to the community of Ignace as a suspicious gesture, implying it may be a form of inducement to secure consent. They argue that Ignace’s support is motivated by economic desperation—specifically the need for jobs in a town they describe as "slowly dying"—rather than a rigorous assessment of the project's long-term safety. This points to a red flag where the promise of immediate economic revitalization might be overshadowing the potential risks inherent in hosting a nuclear waste repository.

Regarding safety and infrastructure, the commenter identifies the transportation of spent nuclear fuel as a critical issue that is being neglected in the current considerations. They express deep skepticism about the region's emergency response capabilities, noting that a volunteer fire department is woefully underprepared to manage potential incidents over the project's multi-millennial lifespan. They assert that Northwestern Ontario lacks the necessary resources and capacity to host such a project, suggesting that the project is being rushed to benefit decision-makers who will never have to deal with the environmental or safety consequences of their actions.

The commenter, Margaret Rafter, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed nuclear waste repository in Northwestern Ontario, which she characterizes as the "abandonment" of nuclear waste. She expresses significant skepticism regarding the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), noting that because the organization is comprised of nuclear power companies with a stake in continued production, their proposed solutions should be viewed with scrutiny. She advocates for the reduction or total abandonment of nuclear power in favor of safer and more cost-effective energy technologies.

A primary concern raised is the safety and scale of transportation. Rafter highlights the risks of trucking 100,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste over thousands of kilometers daily for a period of forty years. She criticizes the NWMO for allegedly removing transportation concerns from the table for public discussion and questions the risks associated with the necessary repackaging of the waste. Furthermore, she argues that the project is experimental, noting that no operating deep geological repository for high-level waste exists globally. She points out a technical red flag regarding containment, stating that the casks and underground chambers cannot outlive the waste they are meant to contain, specifically citing the 290,000-year life of plutonium.

Environmental and socio-economic concerns are centered on the protection of the pristine environment and vital watersheds of Northwestern Ontario. Rafter questions the safety of placing a repository within a freshwater chain that connects to the Great Lakes and Hudson Bay. She notes that the long-term impacts of climate change and geological shifts on the burial site are unknown and could have catastrophic consequences for the connected water systems. She also raises ethical issues regarding governance and "willing host" consent, arguing that the NWMO has failed to define how consent will be measured and may ignore stakeholders located along transportation routes or within affected watersheds.

As an alternative to the repository, the commenter suggests that it may be safer to keep the waste at its current locations to minimize transportation risks and limit the geographical area of potential devastation in the event of a leak. She calls for a comprehensive, public, and unbiased impact and risk assessment, urging that the project should not be fast-tracked and that all potentially impacted stakeholders must be properly educated and consulted.

The commenter is Opposed to the project proceeding in its current form, as evidenced by their explicit request for a full impact assessment and a public hearing, alongside their characterization of the current project description as unacceptable. The submission reflects a high level of concern regarding the safety, transparency, and legal compliance of the proposal, suggesting that the project should not move forward until significant gaps are addressed and alternatives are explored.

A primary issue raised is the omission of transportation from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s Initial Project Description. The commenter argues that the transportation of highly toxic nuclear waste is an integral component of the project that carries substantial risks to workers, communities, and ecosystems along the routes. They characterize the long-term, daily transport of waste over decades as an accident waiting to happen and demand detailed information regarding accident and emergency response scenarios, occupational health risks, and the potential for damage to human health and surrounding environments.

Environmental concerns are further elaborated through the identification of shortcomings in water management. The commenter identifies the contamination of water as a dire risk and calls for a rigorous assessment of groundwater pumping and the handling of waters from the used fuel packaging plant. Specifically, they request detailed data on the volumes, storage, contamination levels, and release protocols for these water sources to ensure the protection of the local environment.

The submission also emphasizes ethical and legal requirements regarding Indigenous rights and consent. The commenter asserts that the project must respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and adhere to Canadian law. Finally, the commenter stresses that because this is one of Canada’s largest proposed infrastructure projects, it is imperative that alternatives to the deep geological repository be fully explored and that all impacts be transparently assessed before any further progress is made.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear regarding the overall approval or rejection of the Deep Geological Repository project. The submission does not explicitly state support or opposition to the facility itself but focuses heavily on the necessity of including transportation risks within the formal project assessment. The commenter’s tone is one of significant concern, emphasizing that the movement of spent fuel is a critical component that requires the same rigorous standards as any other aspect of a nuclear program.

The primary issue raised is the long-term safety and environmental risk associated with transporting nuclear waste along major highways. The commenter highlights a temporal concern, noting that over a 160-year period, the probability of an accident becomes a statistical likelihood. They characterize the potential implications of a nuclear waste spill as horrific, suggesting a high perceived risk to public health and environmental integrity. This represents a significant socio-economic and environmental red flag regarding the potential for contamination along transit corridors.

To mitigate these risks, the commenter suggests several safety requirements and ethical considerations for the planning process. These include the use of police escorts, the imposition of maximum speed limits for transport vehicles, and the engineering of specialized containers capable of withstanding severe damage. While the commenter admits to a lack of technical expertise, they insist that factoring these transportation safety measures into the project plan is a necessity for a responsible assessment. The core of the submission is a demand for comprehensive risk management and transparency regarding the logistics of waste movement.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a series of perceived risks associated with the lifecycle of nuclear waste management, ranging from the logistics of transportation to the long-term security and integrity of the storage site itself. The submission calls for the regulatory body to take appropriate actions in response to these identified threats.

A primary concern raised is the safety of transporting nuclear waste along the Trans-Canada Highway. The commenter argues that any accident during transit poses a significant threat to water systems, local wildlife, and human communities. They emphasize the intergenerational nature of this risk, suggesting that the environmental and social consequences of a transportation mishap would persist for many years. This highlights a specific socio-economic and environmental concern regarding the infrastructure used for the project.

The commenter also expresses significant apprehension regarding the storage phase of the project, specifically the risk of nuclear waste leakage. This technical concern is compounded by a security-related red flag involving the current global political climate. The commenter questions the adequacy of protections against acts of war or terrorism targeting the waste site. Furthermore, the submission points to the site's proximity to established communities and the "boundary waters" as a major point of contention, noting that these waters are of critical importance and should not be jeopardized by the potential for leakage or targeted attacks.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their language characterizes the current proposal as an "improper" method of nuclear waste disposal and dismisses the project as a "chance" rather than a legitimate or "real" solution. The tone of the submission suggests a fundamental rejection of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s current approach.

The primary issue raised in the comment is the safety and planning surrounding the transportation of nuclear waste. The commenter asserts that transportation logistics have not been sufficiently addressed or considered in the project's development. They specifically highlight the frequency of vehicle accidents as a major risk factor, suggesting that the movement of radioactive materials over public infrastructure poses an unacceptable threat to safety.

Furthermore, the submission raises a significant red flag regarding the perceived lack of rigor in the planning process. By claiming that transportation has not been given any thought, the commenter expresses a deep-seated distrust in the project's safety assessments and logistical frameworks. This indicates a socio-economic and safety concern where the public perceives the project as a gamble with human life and environmental safety rather than a scientifically sound waste management strategy.

The commenter explicitly states that she is absolutely opposed to the project, specifically regarding the transportation of nuclear waste. Her opposition is rooted in her identity as a Mohawk and Ojibwe woman with personal ties to the communities located along Highway 17. She expresses a clear rejection of moving hazardous substances over long distances due to the perceived risks involved for both the people and the environment.

The primary issues raised in the submission center on transportation safety and the potential for environmental degradation. The commenter identifies the proposed corridor as passing through vulnerable ecosystems and communities, raising significant concerns about the protection of clean water and the safety of travel routes. These environmental concerns are framed as a shared priority between Indigenous peoples and the general Canadian public, suggesting that any risk to water quality is a major red flag for the project's viability.

Ethical and socio-economic concerns are also evident in the commenter’s plea to protect the well-being of the people and animals living along the transportation route. By emphasizing the need to do right by the "Original Inhabitants" and the local wildlife, the submission highlights a perceived threat to the safety and integrity of traditional territories. The commenter views the project as a risk to the fundamental right to a safe environment and clean resources, positioning the transportation plan as a danger to the long-term health of the corridor's inhabitants.

Stance: Opposed. A physician-scientist raises technical concerns regarding groundwater intrusion and corrosion, citing the failure of the Yucca Mountain repository as a cautionary example. The commenter criticizes the absence of a transportation risk assessment, calling it the riskiest part of the proposal. Additionally, the submission challenges the industry's "low-carbon" claims, arguing that a full cradle-to-grave analysis reveals a significant carbon footprint and that expanding nuclear power before securing a safe repository is irrational public policy.

Stance: Opposed. This resident of Dryden expresses concern regarding the potential for "temporary" above-ground storage of nuclear waste at the site. The commenter fears that waste will be moved to the location immediately upon project approval, posing risks to downstream communities before the deep geological repository is even constructed.

Stance: Opposed. The commenter, living downstream in Dryden, is concerned about the safety of temporary surface storage of nuclear waste during the repository's construction phase. Specific risks mentioned include forest fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, and flooding. The author also notes a perceived lack of transparency, claiming that NWMO proponents have failed to address these specific questions regarding temporary storage on public social media platforms.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in a perceived lack of consultation and a direct threat to their multi-generational livelihood. The submission expresses significant frustration with the proponent, alleging that the concerns of local business owners have been ignored for over two years. The commenter views the project as a destructive force that is currently undermining a tourist camp operation that has existed for 78 years, suggesting that the mere proximity of the site—located five miles away—is already causing economic harm and a loss of clientele.

A primary socio-economic concern raised is the disruption of traditional outdoor activities, specifically hunting and fishing, which are vital to the local tourism industry. The commenter notes that these disruptions have occurred multiple times and that there has been a lack of consideration for the broader impacts on the tourism sector. Furthermore, the submission identifies a lack of transparency regarding workforce logistics, specifically mentioning that the proponent has not discussed plans for employee accommodations. The commenter expresses concern over the potential setup of remote work camps within the area, which could further alter the local landscape and social fabric.

Environmental and safety concerns are also prominent in the submission, particularly regarding the transportation of nuclear waste. The commenter highlights a lack of safety guarantees and a failure to provide detailed information on how waste will be moved through the region. There is a strong emphasis on the value of the area’s remote and quiet character, which the commenter believes is being ruined by the project. The submission serves as a red flag regarding the potential for long-term industrial impacts to permanently displace established, non-industrial economic contributors like heritage tourism operations.

Based on the provided text, the collective stance of the public submissions is predominantly Opposed to the project in its current form. While a minority of stakeholders express support by citing economic benefits and technical trust in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, the majority of commenters characterize the project as an unproven experiment involving unacceptable intergenerational risks. Even those categorized as neutral are described as conditionally withholding judgment due to significant procedural concerns rather than indifference.

The primary procedural issues identified include a 30-day public comment window that stakeholders describe as a mockery of democratic engagement, given the requirement to review over 1,200 pages of technical data. This timeline is viewed as a functional barrier to entry that disenfranchises volunteer groups and Indigenous stakeholders. Furthermore, the lack of transparency regarding hosting agreements—specifically the confidentiality of the agreement with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and alleged "virtual gag orders" in municipal agreements—has created a perception of secrecy. Red flags are raised regarding a significant disparity in negotiated funds between communities, which commenters suggest has led to internal social fragmentation, a toxic governance environment, and the erosion of public trust.

Environmental and technical concerns focus on the long-term stability of the Canadian Shield and the effectiveness of engineered barriers. Commenters challenge the assumption that the host rock is unfractured, citing risks from seismic activity and future glacial cycles. There are specific technical fears that the thermal pulse from high-level waste could degrade the bentonite clay buffer, leading to radioactive leakage. Ecological concerns involve the potential bioaccumulation of radionuclides in a pristine wilderness, impacting wildlife such as moose and migratory birds, as well as ethical objections to the use of live animal testing for effluent monitoring.

A critical point of contention is the exclusion of transportation logistics from the formal Impact Assessment. Stakeholders argue that moving high-level waste along Highways 17 and 11 poses an inevitable risk of accidents due to severe winter weather and wildlife collisions. There is a pervasive fear that local volunteer emergency responders are ill-equipped to handle a radiological breach. Commenters view the omission of transportation from the regulatory scope as a strategic move to avoid federal scrutiny, effectively rendering "corridor communities" procedurally invisible despite the potential for a catastrophic "mobile Chernobyl" scenario.

Regarding Indigenous rights, the submissions highlight a perceived failure to meet the standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. While the proponent has engaged with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, opposition from other Treaty #3 communities like Eagle Lake First Nation and Grassy Narrows suggests a lack of broad territorial consent. Ethical concerns are raised regarding "economic coercion," where financial incentives are viewed as a divisive tactic that exploits economic vulnerabilities. Finally, there are allegations of collusion between regulatory bodies and the proponent, leading to a widespread perception that the assessment process is designed to manufacture consent for a predetermined outcome.