Assessment of IAAC Public Comments

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: 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository project is Neutral/Unclear. The submission does not explicitly state support for or opposition to the project’s ultimate approval or construction. Instead, the author focuses on the procedural and inclusive requirements of the planning process, specifically concerning the logistics of waste movement.

The primary issue raised is the critical importance of including transportation routes within the scope of nuclear waste management planning. The commenter emphasizes that the determination and management of these routes must involve a wide array of communities and individual perspectives. This suggests a concern that the current planning process may be too narrow or may not sufficiently account for the geographical breadth of the project’s impact beyond the immediate repository site.

From a socio-economic and ethical perspective, the submission highlights the need for broad public participation and community engagement. By advocating for the inclusion of "so many communities and people's voices," the commenter points to the necessity of establishing a social license that extends along the entire transit corridor. The concern implies that the risks or logistical impacts associated with transporting nuclear waste are a significant matter of public interest that requires a transparent and democratic consultative framework.

The commenter, Joy Galloway-White, is explicitly opposed to the proposed project. Her stance is rooted in the belief that the current plan to store nuclear waste near Revell, Ontario, is unacceptable due to the perceived risks to the environment and the long-term safety of future generations. She characterizes the project as dumping waste into a hole to be sealed and left, suggesting a lack of confidence in the containment strategy and the site selection process.

The primary environmental concern raised in the submission is the potential for radioactive waste to infiltrate watersheds that eventually drain into Lake Winnipeg. The commenter emphasizes that water is a precious resource essential for sustaining life and questions why hazardous projects are frequently situated on or near vital water bodies. This highlights a significant concern regarding the protection of large-scale aquatic ecosystems and the potential for widespread contamination if the repository's integrity is compromised.

Furthermore, the commenter raises critical ethical and temporal issues regarding the longevity of nuclear waste. She points out that the waste will remain reactive far beyond her own lifetime and the lifetimes of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, extending "into almost infinity." This focus on intergenerational equity suggests that the long-term risks are being unfairly shifted onto future generations who will have to live with the consequences of current waste management decisions. The submission concludes by calling for more rigorous thought and planning, implying that the current proposal does not adequately address the permanent nature of the hazard.

Insufficient information. The provided text is too brief to conduct a detailed regulatory assessment. It consists of a single request for the inclusion of a transportation assessment but lacks the necessary context to determine a stance of support, opposition, or neutrality. Furthermore, the submission does not provide enough detail to identify specific socio-economic, environmental, or ethical concerns, or to elaborate on key issues as required for a comprehensive analysis of the proposed Deep Geological Repository.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, primarily due to significant safety concerns regarding the transportation of nuclear waste. They argue that a federal review is mandatory to determine the viability and safety of the transportation program before proceeding, expressing a belief that the current plan carries an unacceptably high risk of environmental disaster.

A central issue raised is the logistical scale and duration of the transportation plan, which involves moving approximately 132,000 tonnes of nuclear waste over a 1,400 km distance from Southern Ontario to Wabigoon Lake. The commenter highlights the intensity of this operation, noting the planned frequency of two to three trips per day over a 50-year span. They identify the infrastructure of Highway 17 as a major concern, specifically citing its status as a two-lane road that they believe is ill-equipped for such high-stakes transport.

The commenter points to the harsh weather conditions of Northwestern Ontario as a critical factor that creates very risky driving conditions. They express a specific concern that these environmental factors, combined with the infrastructure limitations, lead to a very high likelihood of accidents and subsequent nuclear waste spillage. This represents a significant environmental and public safety red flag, as the commenter views a spill not as a remote possibility but as a highly likely outcome of the project's current design.

To support their position, the commenter references the historical frequency of collisions involving transportation vehicles on Highway 17. They advocate for a federal review that incorporates these collision statistics as a primary metric for assessing the program's safety. The commenter concludes that a clear federal review of the safety of transporting such large amounts of waste over long distances is imperative, as they believe the current proposal poses a direct threat of nuclear spillage.

The commenter is explicitly opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project, specifically regarding the storage of nuclear waste in Ignace or any other Northern Ontario town. The primary basis for this opposition is the perceived extreme risk associated with transporting radioactive materials over long distances, approximately 1800 kilometers, via rail or truck. The commenter views the project as fundamentally flawed, questioning why such a plan was considered given the logistical and safety challenges inherent in the geography of Northern Ontario.

The submission identifies several critical environmental and safety concerns related to transportation infrastructure. The commenter highlights that most highways west and north of Sudbury are limited to two lanes, which increases the danger of accidents. Specific environmental hazards mentioned include frequent winter snowstorms and highway closures along Lake Superior, as well as the presence of moose and other wildlife. Furthermore, the commenter points to seasonal risks such as slow-moving recreational vehicles and frustrated drivers during the summer months. There is also a specific concern regarding the prevalence of inexperienced truck drivers on northern highways, which the commenter suggests has already led to an increase in accidents. The potential for a transportation mishap to contaminate fragile ecosystems and small towns is presented as a significant red flag.

From a socio-economic and ethical perspective, the commenter raises issues of regional inequity and environmental justice. They argue that because Southern Ontario is the primary consumer of nuclear power, the resulting waste should be managed on-site rather than being transported to the North. The commenter characterizes the project as an "out of sight, out of mind" solution for large southern cities, contrasting the perceived wasteful energy practices of urban centers—such as leaving office lights on overnight—with the fewer amenities and luxuries available to northern residents. This highlights a perceived ethical imbalance where Northern Ontario is expected to bear the long-term risks of a problem generated by the energy demands and lifestyle of the South.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository is Neutral/Unclear. The submission does not explicitly state support for or opposition to the project itself. Instead, the author focuses on the necessity of the regulatory process, specifically the requirement for a federal impact assessment to be completed before any conclusions can be drawn.

The primary issue raised in this comment is the need for informed decision-making and procedural transparency. The commenter emphasizes that the community requires the results of a formal federal impact assessment to understand and consider the potential consequences of the project. This suggests that the author views the current information available to the public as insufficient for making a determination on the project's safety or viability.

There are no specific environmental, socio-economic, or ethical concerns detailed in the text, nor are there any explicit red flags mentioned beyond the procedural requirement for data. The submission functions as a call for the completion of due process, highlighting that the community's ability to evaluate the project is contingent upon the scientific and regulatory findings of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a strong rejection of the geographical transfer of nuclear waste from Southern Ontario to Northwestern Ontario, a concept they describe as "abhorrent." The primary argument presented is a matter of regional equity and ethical responsibility, with the commenter insisting that the waste should remain in the region where it was originally generated rather than being shipped to a different part of the province.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on transportation safety and logistical uncertainty, which serve as major red flags for the commenter. They express serious concerns that the existing highway infrastructure in Northwestern Ontario is inadequate and too dangerous to support the movement of nuclear waste. The commenter highlights a perceived lack of transparency or detail in the current proposal regarding the intended transportation routes and the specific methods of delivery. They specifically question whether the waste will be moved by truck for the entire duration, by rail, or shipped across the Great Lakes to Thunder Bay, noting that no clear plan has been proposed for these scenarios.

From a socio-economic and environmental perspective, the commenter raises issues regarding the physical capacity of the region to handle the project's requirements. By stating that the "area and Highways are not going to support the movement," they suggest that the project poses an undue burden on local infrastructure. The demand to "keep your nuclear waste where it was made" underscores a concern regarding the fairness of waste management practices, suggesting that Northwestern Ontario should not be forced to accept the environmental risks associated with Southern Ontario's energy production.

The commenter, Jaro Franta, appears to be in Support of the project’s progression into the regulatory phases, specifically defending the legitimacy of the site selection process and the demonstration of community willingness. The submission focuses on contrasting the methods used by different Indigenous communities to determine their stance on the Deep Geological Repository. The author emphasizes that the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON) followed a rigorous process involving a decade of learning and ceremony, culminating in a community referendum where 87.4% of participating members voted in favor of proceeding. This is presented as a valid and transparent model for establishing social license and community consent.

A primary issue raised in the submission is the perceived lack of democratic mandate and transparency within the Eagle Lake First Nation (ELFN) leadership. The commenter identifies a significant ethical and socio-economic concern regarding the ELFN leadership’s decision to launch a lawsuit against the site selection process without holding a community vote or referendum. The author argues that the leadership is acting without knowing the actual position of its membership and claims that ELFN band members have expressed strong disagreement with their leaders on social media. This suggests a potential disconnect between the community's governing body and its members, raising questions about the representativeness of the opposition campaign currently being presented to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

Furthermore, the commenter raises concerns regarding the accuracy of the information being disseminated by project opponents. A specific red flag is identified regarding the geographical location of the proposed site; the commenter asserts that ELFN leadership and their counsel have incorrectly claimed the site is at Revell Lake. According to the submission, the actual site is approximately 16 kilometers west of Revell Lake on the opposite side of Highway 622. By highlighting this factual discrepancy, the commenter suggests that the opposition's claims may be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the project's physical footprint, further questioning the validity of the legal and public campaigns against the repository.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) and the broader expansion of nuclear facilities, citing significant concerns regarding Indigenous rights, environmental safety, and fiscal responsibility. The submission argues that the project, particularly as it intersects with Treaty 3 lands in northwestern Ontario, fails to meet the necessary legal and moral obligations established under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). A central theme of the opposition is the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), which the commenter asserts must be a substantive decision-making requirement rather than a procedural formality.

A primary environmental concern raised is the extreme longevity of nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The commenter expresses skepticism regarding the long-term efficacy of the DGR’s engineered and natural barriers, noting that their performance cannot be guaranteed over geological timescales due to uncertainties like seismic activity, climate change, and potential human intrusion. The submission emphasizes that any failure in containment would result in irreversible consequences for public health and the environment. Furthermore, the commenter highlights the specific concerns of Treaty 3 First Nations regarding the protection of water and the fulfillment of stewardship responsibilities that span generations.

The submission identifies a significant ethical issue regarding intergenerational equity. Because the NWMO’s project timeline spans approximately 150 to 160 years, the commenter argues that the risks, costs, and management responsibilities are being unfairly transferred to future generations who derive no benefit from the electricity produced by the current reactor fleet. This transfer of liability is framed as a failure of intergenerational justice. Additionally, the commenter raises red flags concerning the economic viability of the project, describing nuclear waste management as a long-term public liability that requires sustained funding and institutional stability for over a century, which poses a risk to fiscal prudence.

The commenter also challenges the role of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the nuclear waste landscape. Contrary to claims that SMRs might mitigate waste issues, the submission cites evidence suggesting that these reactors could produce significantly higher volumes of high-level and long-lived intermediate-level waste per unit of electricity than conventional reactors. The commenter concludes that SMRs increase the complexity and volume of materials requiring isolation while failing to demonstrate advantages in cost or safety. Consequently, the submission demands rigorous federal scrutiny and full transparency, asserting that any further nuclear expansion lacks social and scientific legitimacy without a proven plan for waste and demonstrable Indigenous consent.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in the belief that the project is a risky and controversial experiment that has not been proven safe or permanent. The commenter argues that the burden of proof lies with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) and that the current assertions of safety are insufficient to guarantee that radioactive waste will be contained indefinitely.

A primary concern raised is the exclusion of the transportation of spent nuclear waste from the Initial Project Description (IPD). The commenter demands that transportation be included in a full impact assessment and subject to public hearings. They argue that the processes of packaging spent fuel into transportation containers and transferring it at the repository site significantly increase the risk of accidents and the release of radioactive materials into the environment.

The submission highlights significant ethical and intergenerational concerns, specifically regarding the long-term monitoring of the site. The commenter asserts that the project unfairly places the responsibility for oversight and the risk of devastating pollution on future generations. They point to a perceived lack of a cleanup plan or solution should the five-barrier containment system fail. Furthermore, the commenter raises a security and proliferation red flag, suggesting that centralizing spent fuel makes it vulnerable to being reprocessed for nuclear weapons, a possibility they claim was discussed by the NWMO in South Bruce.

From a regulatory and procedural standpoint, the commenter identifies gaps and shortcomings in the IPD, calling for a more detailed project description. They also express dissatisfaction with the consultation process, stating that the public comment period is too short and requesting extended time for future feedback opportunities to ensure a thorough review of the project's implications.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, specifically stating their opposition to the selection of the Ignace site for the Deep Geological Repository.

The primary issue raised in this submission is the violation of Indigenous law and traditional instructions. The commenter asserts that the project directly contradicts the Original Law and Instructions of the Ojibwe People of Treaty #3. This highlights a significant ethical and legal concern regarding Indigenous sovereignty and the project's lack of alignment with the established governance and spiritual mandates of the Treaty #3 inhabitants.

Furthermore, the commenter emphasizes that this position has been communicated repeatedly, noting that they have been told "over and over again" that nuclear waste cannot be moved to or stored in this location. This suggests a long-standing and consistent refusal based on territorial laws, indicating that the proposed site selection at Ignace is viewed as a fundamental breach of the instructions passed down within the Ojibwe community.

The commenter, identifying as a First Nations youth from Thunder Bay, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Nuclear Waste Management Organization project. Their opposition is rooted in a cultural and spiritual framework that views the relationship between Indigenous people and the land as reciprocal, entailing a fundamental responsibility to protect the environment. The commenter views the project as a direct act of disrespect toward Indigenous youth, who are identified as the primary group that will bear the long-term consequences of the facility.

A primary concern raised in the submission is the potential degradation of Northwestern Ontario’s ecological integrity. The commenter highlights the region's status as home to some of the most untouched forests and thriving moose populations in Canada. They argue that the preservation of these natural elements—specifically the lands, animals, waters, and trees—is of paramount importance. The submission suggests that the introduction of a waste site threatens these specific environmental assets which are central to their identity and regional heritage.

The submission also presents a significant socio-economic and ethical critique regarding the trade-off between short-term economic gains and long-term environmental impacts. The commenter explicitly prioritizes environmental and cultural preservation over economic incentives, stating that the value of the land far outweighs the benefit of job creation. They raise a red flag regarding the temporary nature of employment, noting that jobs come and go while the environmental impacts of the project will persist indefinitely. This highlights a concern for intergenerational equity, as the youth will be forced to live with the project's legacy long after any initial economic benefits have concluded.

The commenter, a resident of northeastern Ontario who frequently travels on Highways 69 and 11 for essential services such as medical appointments and shopping, is categorized as Opposed to the project as it is currently being handled. Their opposition is centered on the perceived inadequacy of the current regulatory scope and a lack of transparency regarding the project's full impact on the region. The commenter expresses a clear demand for a comprehensive impact assessment and a formal public hearing to ensure that the project is subject to rigorous public and regulatory scrutiny.

The primary issue raised is the critical necessity of including transportation within the formal impact assessment. The commenter highlights a significant procedural concern, noting that while the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has included transportation in its project descriptions for twenty years, it is now allegedly attempting to exclude these activities from the official assessment process. This shift is presented as a major red flag regarding the integrity of the proponent’s approach. By excluding transportation, the commenter suggests that the assessment would fail to account for the risks posed to residents who share the infrastructure that would be used to move nuclear waste.

From a socio-economic and safety perspective, the commenter’s reliance on the regional highway system for basic needs underscores the potential for direct impact on local populations. The demand for a public hearing reflects a concern for democratic oversight and the right of affected communities to voice their apprehensions. The submission suggests that any attempt to narrow the scope of the assessment at this stage is an ethical and regulatory failure that undermines public trust and ignores the long-term safety implications of transporting hazardous materials through populated corridors.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their primary stance is that the nuclear waste should remain in its current location rather than being relocated to a new site. The commenter expresses a fundamental lack of confidence in the safety of the project, questioning the rationale behind moving the material and suggesting that the process is inherently unsafe.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the risks associated with the transportation of nuclear waste across the province. The commenter highlights specific concerns regarding highway safety and the potential for environmental contamination in previously unaffected areas. They point to the vast geographic scale of the transport route, noting a 1,500-mile stretch of Ontario that would be exposed to the waste during transit. This indicates a major concern for the broad environmental and public safety risks posed by the logistics of the repository plan.

The commenter also raises a fundamental question regarding the necessity of the project, asking why the waste is being moved at all. By advocating for leaving the waste where it is, the commenter suggests that the risks of relocation—specifically the potential to spread contamination to new regions—outweigh any perceived benefits of the deep geological repository. This reflects a concern over the expansion of the nuclear waste footprint and a perceived lack of justification for the proposed action.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. Their opposition is rooted in significant safety concerns regarding the transportation of nuclear waste, specifically along the Trans Canada Highway in Northwestern Ontario. The individual highlights a high frequency of existing vehicular accidents in their local community, suggesting that the infrastructure is already dangerous. They argue that the exclusion of transportation risks from the project's formal discussions is a major oversight that undermines the legitimacy of the assessment process.

The submission raises several ethical and socio-economic red flags, most notably the perceived lack of consultation with communities situated along the transport route. The commenter characterizes the project's current trajectory as a flagrant disregard for both human and animal life, driven by interests of profit and power. They express a deep concern over the lack of accountability for potential disasters, such as conflagrations or radioactive contamination resulting from leaks or accidents during transit.

Furthermore, the commenter challenges the transparency and integrity of the regulatory process. They assert that the initial project description is inadequate and that the exclusion of vital safety data prevents citizens from making an informed decision. By claiming that the public is being "duped," the commenter signals a profound distrust in the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's examination of the project, viewing the current approach as non-transparent and exclusionary toward the very people who would bear the risks of a transportation-related incident.

The commenter is Opposed to the current progression of the project's planning phase, specifically citing a lack of procedural fairness and transparency. While the submission focuses heavily on the inadequacies of the consultation process, the author’s use of terms such as "shameful" and "inexcusable," combined with their concerns regarding "problem areas or omissions" in the proposal, indicates a stance of opposition to the project as it is currently being managed and presented to the public.

The primary issue raised is the perceived failure of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to provide adequate notice and time for public review. The commenter argues that the 30-day window to review the Initial Project Description (IPD) is insufficient for a project of this magnitude. They highlight that information sessions in Dryden were poorly advertised, with some residents only learning of them the night before they occurred. This lack of "good faith" notification is blamed for low attendance and a general inability of the community to prepare informed responses.

A significant portion of the submission addresses barriers to information accessibility. The commenter notes that physical copies of the IPD were scarce, with only one copy available at three specific locations in Dryden, and these were restricted to on-site viewing only. Furthermore, the commenter points out that the document provided to the public was a generalized 48-page version rather than the full 1,233-page description or the 92-page summary. This is viewed as a major obstacle for residents who wish to conduct a "lengthier study" of the technical details regarding the burial and abandonment of high-level nuclear fuel waste.

The commenter also raises socio-economic and demographic concerns, noting that over 40 percent of the local population are seniors who may have health problems or lack the resources and digital literacy required to participate in an online-heavy consultation process. The submission argues that the communication strategy failed to account for the rural nature of the community, which lacks a local newspaper and reliable radio information. The reliance on mail-out postcards that arrived only days before the deadline is described as an "inadequate" method for reaching a population that may not have consistent internet access.

Finally, the submission touches on environmental and safety concerns related to the geographic scope of the project. The commenter expresses worry for those living near the proposed Revell Lake site, as well as communities along transportation routes and near existing nuclear facilities. They emphasize that because the project involves the long-term management of high-level nuclear fuel waste, it is "vastly important" that the public be given more time to digest the material. The commenter concludes by requesting an extension of the comment period from 30 days to at least 60 days to ensure a proper and inclusive review.

The commenter’s stance is categorized as Neutral/Unclear regarding the overall approval of the Deep Geological Repository project, as the submission focuses on procedural requirements and the scope of the federal impact assessment rather than expressing a definitive endorsement or rejection. The primary demand is for the inclusion of transportation routes and associated risks within the project’s formal assessment scope. This indicates a concern that the current assessment may be too narrow and needs to account for the movement of nuclear waste across various jurisdictions and the potential hazards involved in transit.

A significant portion of the submission is dedicated to the protection of Indigenous rights. The commenter emphasizes that the project must adhere to Canadian law regarding free, prior, and informed consent obligations. This highlights an ethical and legal concern regarding the sovereignty and decision-making authority of Indigenous peoples who may be affected by the repository or the transportation of waste through their territories. The mention of these obligations suggests that the commenter views the current process as potentially lacking in its fulfillment of legal requirements toward Indigenous nations.

The commenter also raises issues related to environmental justice, specifically advocating for the rights of communities located along the proposed transportation routes. The submission asserts that these impacted communities have a right to be informed and to participate in the decision-making process. This points to a socio-economic and ethical concern regarding transparency and the democratic inclusion of all stakeholders who face potential risks from the project’s logistics, ensuring that those living near transit paths are not excluded from the regulatory dialogue.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically challenging the absence of a full federal impact assessment for the disposal of Canada’s high-level radioactive waste. The submission characterizes the project as involving hazardous materials with long-lived and irreversible risks, arguing that the scale and duration of the proposal necessitate the highest level of federal oversight, transparency, and accountability.

A primary concern raised is the exclusion of nuclear waste transportation from the project’s assessment scope. The commenter argues that transportation is an integral component of the project and that omitting it removes critical factors such as accident risks, routing decisions, and emergency preparedness from public scrutiny. They contend that this exclusion denies hundreds of communities along potential transportation corridors the opportunity to understand or influence decisions regarding the risks they may face.

The submission also highlights significant concerns regarding Indigenous rights and environmental justice. The commenter asserts that the current plan ignores the rights, laws, and responsibilities of Indigenous Nations, particularly those located downstream from the proposed site. They emphasize that the project must adhere to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent. Furthermore, the commenter points out that communities along transportation routes and downstream would bear disproportionate environmental and safety risks without receiving corresponding benefits, necessitating a process where these impacted parties are informed and granted a meaningful role in decision-making.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in the belief that the transport and burial of nuclear waste pose an unacceptable risk to human life, wildlife, and the physical environment of Northwestern Ontario. The author characterizes the project as an inevitable disaster and expresses fundamental skepticism toward expert testimony, suggesting that the current plan is a dangerous alternative to finding a way to neutralize the waste entirely.

A primary concern raised in the submission involves the safety of transporting nuclear materials over a period of more than 50 years. The commenter highlights the treacherous nature of the regional infrastructure, referring to the transit route as the "Highway of Death." They specifically point to the scenic drive along Lake Superior as a high-risk area where a vehicle accident could result in toxic contents being deposited into the lake. The commenter emphasizes that because Lake Superior is connected to the entire Great Lakes system, any such accident would threaten the largest freshwater system in the world, creating a catastrophic environmental impact that extends far beyond the immediate site.

The submission also addresses significant ethical and socio-economic issues, particularly regarding intergenerational equity and local consent. The commenter argues that the threat from the repository is not only immediate but will negatively affect many future generations. Furthermore, they raise questions about the social license of the project, expressing doubt about whether the residents of Ignace and Dryden are truly supportive of the proposal. There is also an ethical challenge directed at decision-makers, with the commenter questioning if those authorizing the site would be willing to host the waste in their own backyards. The author concludes by demanding that the project be stopped in favor of seeking a more viable solution.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently defined in the Initial Project Description. The submission argues that the assessment framework is fundamentally flawed due to a narrowly defined scope that fragments the consideration of environmental and social effects. The commenter contends that the proponent has repeatedly deferred the evaluation of foreseeable impacts to future regulatory stages, which they believe limits the ability of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to make informed, precautionary decisions during the planning phase.

A primary concern raised is the explicit exclusion of used nuclear fuel transportation from the project’s definition. The commenter asserts that the repository cannot function without a national transportation system and that treating it as an external or ancillary activity is inconsistent with federal impact assessment requirements. By excluding transportation, the submission argues that the proponent fails to evaluate corridor-level effects, accident scenarios, and the implications for community safety and Indigenous rights across extensive geographic areas beyond the immediate repository site.

The submission highlights significant red flags regarding infrastructure capacity and environmental stressors. It argues that the project relies on existing highways and bridges without assessing their ability to support decades of hazardous material transport, particularly in northern regions prone to seasonal degradation, freeze-thaw cycles, flooding, and wildfires. The commenter notes that any necessary infrastructure upgrades or reinforcements should be assessed as project-caused environmental changes rather than assumed to occur independently.

Ethical and safety concerns are raised regarding emergency response capabilities. The commenter points out that in rural and northern contexts, even a minor transportation incident could isolate communities and disrupt essential services like emergency medical access. They argue that the current project description relies on conceptual emergency planning rather than evidence-based analysis of actual response capacity, which often depends on volunteer services and limited logistical resources in remote areas.

The commenter challenges the proponent’s characterization of risks as low, citing incomplete baseline data and the inherent uncertainty of a 160-year project lifespan. They identify the lack of climate change integration as a major oversight, noting that evolving climate conditions will directly impact infrastructure reliability and wildfire risks over the project's duration. Furthermore, the submission criticizes the site-centric approach to cumulative effects, arguing for a broader regional and system-based assessment that accounts for interacting stressors.

Finally, the submission identifies a critical gap in Indigenous engagement, noting that consultation has focused on host and proximate communities while ignoring Indigenous Nations located along potential transportation corridors. This narrow focus is seen as a failure to consider the full range of impacts on Indigenous harvesting, land use, and the intergenerational transfer of risk. The commenter also questions the assumption of long-term institutional and governance stability over the next century, suggesting that potential shifts in regulatory standards and funding represent significant risk pathways that must be evaluated.

Insufficient information. The provided text consists of a single sentence stating that Eagle Lake First Nation is submitting comments on the Initial Project Description. Because the submission does not contain any substantive arguments, specific concerns, or expressions of approval or disapproval, the commenter's stance is Neutral/Unclear. There is no mention of environmental, socio-economic, or ethical issues within the provided text to allow for a detailed assessment.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project, describing it as "horrendous" and expressing deep distrust in both the technical premises of the project and the regulatory process governing it. A primary concern raised is the lack of procedural fairness and accessibility, specifically regarding the unavailability of hard-copy project descriptions. The commenter notes that while digital versions were provided on "sticks," the technical difficulty of downloading reams of literature and the lack of physical documents at city halls create barriers for public review. Furthermore, the commenter argues that the six-day window remaining for comments is insufficient for a project of this magnitude and criticizes the exclusion of communities along transportation routes from public information sessions.

Technical and environmental concerns are centered on the perceived fallacy that rock formations are "solid" and stable over long periods. The commenter draws a parallel to the American military’s Camp Century in Greenland, where nuclear waste abandoned under a glacier is now contaminating meltwater, suggesting that the nuclear industry is repeating the mistake of assuming geological containment is infallible. Drawing on personal observations of mining environments and core samples, the commenter asserts that rock is dynamic, prone to movement, and contains "joints" or cracks. They argue that these natural fractures will inevitably allow water to penetrate the repository and permit the escape of irradiated bacteria, water, and gas into the surrounding environment.

The submission places significant emphasis on spiritual and Indigenous concerns, arguing that the DGR represents a "spiritual disconnection" and breaks the sacred bond between heaven and earth. The commenter details the cultural significance of the land in Northern Ontario, citing the use of rock formations for astronomical calendars, vision pits, and spiritual congregation. There is a specific call for archaeological walkovers and consultations with elders before any land is disturbed, as the commenter fears that bulldozing drill sites may destroy significant features such as medicine wheels, burial sites, or ancient dwellings that are not easily identified by non-Indigenous observers. The protection of headwaters and river systems is also highlighted as a vital necessity for the foundation of life.

Finally, the commenter raises serious ethical and governance red flags, accusing the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) of colluding to "divide and conquer" the public. This is allegedly achieved by splitting the transportation assessment from the DGR project itself and overwhelming the public with simultaneous impacts to prevent proper assessment. The commenter also points to "hosting agreements" with municipalities like Ignace as "virtual gag orders" that suppress criticism. They conclude that the process is unfair, lacks transparency, and is causing social fragmentation by pitting citizens and communities against one another.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. Their primary concerns center on the safety risks associated with the transportation and long-term storage of nuclear waste, which they characterize as the most dangerous pollutant ever created. Living in Northwestern Ontario near the Trans Canada Highway, the individual expresses deep apprehension regarding the potential exposure of their children, grandchildren, and future generations to these hazards. This highlights a significant concern for intergenerational equity and the long-term environmental safety of the region.

The submission raises several ethical and socio-economic red flags, particularly concerning the transparency and integrity of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's processes. The commenter alleges a historical pattern where vested interests provide tightly controlled information and use strategic financial offerings to influence communities that are most exposed to high risks. They specifically cite the development of the Ignace Nuclear Waste Project as an example of this behavior. Furthermore, the commenter identifies a lack of procedural fairness, noting that communities located along the transportation route have been excluded from decision-making opportunities, which they interpret as a tactic to control the project's outcome.

From a policy and economic perspective, the commenter argues that the project is driven by elitist and economic interests rather than the public good. They advocate for a redirection of the project's vast funding toward finding a permanent safe method of storage and phasing out nuclear power in favor of cleaner, more sustainable energy alternatives. The submission concludes with a fatalistic view of the regulatory and corporate landscape, suggesting that the proponents hold an unfair advantage and that meaningful change is unlikely to occur until a significant accident results in the loss of innocent lives.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project in its current state, based on significant technical deficiencies identified in the proponent’s documentation. The primary concern is the lack of sufficient hydrogeochemical data from deep borehole sampling to validate the claim that groundwater below 600 metres is stagnant. The commenter emphasizes that the geosphere is the most critical long-term barrier for preventing the migration of contaminants into the biosphere. By failing to provide evidence that advective groundwater flow is insignificant in this zone, the proponent has left a major gap in the safety case for the repository.

A significant issue raised is the proponent's failure to utilize or compare their findings with existing scientific data. The commenter points out that extensive hydrogeochemical databases for the Canadian Precambrian Shield have been developed over decades through AECL research and deep minewater sampling programs. The submission suggests that the proponent’s failure to compare the Revell Lake results to this established body of peer-reviewed research undermines the credibility of the current assessment. This lack of comparative analysis prevents a thorough understanding of how the proposed site aligns with known geological characteristics of the region.

Furthermore, the commenter identifies a specific technical red flag regarding chloride concentrations presented in the document. Data in the provided figures show chloride levels at depth that are much lower than expected when compared to similar sites. The commenter notes that these low concentrations suggest either that the deep groundwater is mixing with shallow meteoric waters—which would contradict the claim of a stagnant deep zone—or that the samples were contaminated with drill water during the collection process. Because the document lacks the data necessary to resolve this discrepancy, the commenter concludes that the proponent has not demonstrated the integrity of the deep zone as a reliable containment barrier.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, raising significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the review process, the scope of the assessment, and the underlying justifications for the facility. A primary procedural issue identified is that the timelines for public review and comment are inconsistent with the complexity and length of the proposal. The commenter argues that the current period is inadequate for meaningful citizen participation and suggests a minimum six-month extension to allow for thorough discussion, noting that early decisions could set in motion significant later actions.

A major red flag raised in the submission is the omission of a transportation plan from the proposal. The commenter asserts that transportation is a critical component of the project that will impact a large number of Canadians and is essential to a proper safety analysis. By failing to include this, the commenter argues the proposal does not adequately address potential climate impacts, health risks, or the general need to protect the public.

Regarding health impacts, the commenter highlights a lack of discussion concerning mental health, specifically the potential for stress, trauma, and PTSD among populations near the site, in Ignace, and throughout the affected watershed. These concerns are linked to the management of dangerous nuclear waste and the possibility of radiation contamination through accidents or repository failure. Additionally, the commenter points out that the health section fails to analyze how the socio-economic "boom and bust" cycle associated with the project might affect the mental health of the regional population.

Finally, the commenter challenges the fundamental necessity of the repository and its role in climate change policy. They argue that the document makes unsubstantiated claims about the project's positive impact on climate goals and questions the assumption that continued nuclear power generation is necessary. The submission suggests that the growth of renewable energy makes the project's reliance on nuclear power inconsistent with a safe, low-emissions policy, thereby calling the overall relevancy of the project into question.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project in its current state, expressing significant frustration and describing the current situation as shameful. Their stance is rooted in a perceived lack of transparency and a failure by the government to provide adequate information to the public regarding the long-term management of nuclear waste.

The primary issues raised center on procedural fairness and the lack of comprehensive communication. The commenter highlights a significant gap in public engagement, noting that as a resident living along the proposed transportation route, they were only made aware of the project through a local climate group rather than through official government or media channels. They demand that proper impact studies be conducted, with a specific emphasis on transportation safety and risks. Furthermore, they insist on the necessity of holding formal information meetings for all communities situated near the storage areas and along the transit corridors to ensure those directly affected are fully informed.

From an environmental and ethical perspective, the commenter expresses concern over the long-term nature of nuclear waste, noting that it remains hazardous for hundreds of years. They criticize the provincial government for increasing nuclear production without having what they deem a "good plan" for the resulting waste. This highlights a broader socio-economic and ethical concern regarding the responsibility of the current generation to manage hazardous materials that will persist for centuries, as well as a critique of the current regulatory and planning framework which the commenter views as insufficient.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently described in the Initial Project Description (IPD). They argue that the proposal is fundamentally flawed due to its narrow scope, misleading ethical framing, and the omission of critical operational components. The commenter repeatedly requests that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada designate a full Impact Assessment to address these deficiencies, suggesting that the project should not proceed under its current parameters and framing.

A primary concern raised is the explicit exclusion of transportation impacts from the IPD. The commenter asserts that moving radioactive waste over average distances of 1,800 km across multiple regions introduces significant risks to public and occupational health, security, and emergency response. They argue that the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) and the transportation of waste are functionally interdependent; therefore, treating them as separate entities misrepresents the project's true scale as a national infrastructure system. Drawing on a professional background in systems engineering, the commenter emphasizes that safety must be evaluated at the system level rather than through isolated components, as cross-subsystem interactions could lead to unforeseen failures during the 50 to 60 years of planned operations.

The submission identifies a significant deficiency regarding the treatment of nuclear waste volumes. The commenter claims the IPD artificially constrains the waste inventory to 5.9 million bundles, ignoring waste from planned new-build facilities and reactor life extensions that are already part of Canada’s energy strategy. This omission is viewed as a failure to describe the project in sufficient detail to assess all reasonably foreseeable effects. By limiting the scope to volumes reflected in current hosting agreements, the commenter argues the proponent is underestimating repository capacity requirements, thermal loading, and long-term stewardship obligations, thereby presenting a partial and misleading characterization of the project's total impact.

Ethical and intergenerational concerns are also central to the submission. The commenter challenges the NWMO’s framing of intergenerational responsibility, arguing that the DGR does not relieve future generations of their burden but instead adds a permanent management responsibility on top of the existing obligation to decommission the current reactor fleet around 2060. Furthermore, the commenter suggests that the DGR prevents meaningful monitoring and makes waste retrieval prohibitively expensive and risky, which they characterize as a failure of responsible stewardship. They dispute the claimed urgency of the project, noting that existing interim storage is safe for several decades, providing temporal flexibility that the IPD ignores.

Socio-economic and institutional red flags are also raised. The commenter points to the estimated $25 billion cost of the DGR as a major capital obligation that, when combined with rising costs for reactor refurbishments, could negatively impact electricity rates and public finances. They also flag a perceived lack of neutrality in the IPD, criticizing the inclusion of policy-based opinions that characterize nuclear energy as clean or essential to net-zero goals. The commenter recommends that the IPD be rewritten to remove such advocacy and that a full Impact Assessment include a deliberative public debate and an independent panel of experts to ensure transparency and procedural legitimacy.

The commenter is Opposed to the project in its current form, expressing significant dissatisfaction with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) engagement and compensation strategies. The primary stance is rooted in a sense of procedural and distributive unfairness, as the resident feels that Melgund Township has been overlooked compared to neighboring communities. The commenter highlights a lack of direct consultation, noting that residents were never given the opportunity to vote for or against the project and have not received individual financial benefits similar to those provided to other groups.

A major socio-economic concern raised is the perceived inequity in financial distribution. The commenter points out that while substantial payments were made to the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON), residents of Melgund Township, located only 10 km from the proposed site, have received no such direct support. They criticize the Property Value Protection program as being of no benefit to long-term residents who wish to stay in their homes rather than move. The commenter also expresses concern for the township’s aging population and argues that the NWMO’s donations to the Local Services Board for infrastructure do not sufficiently address the needs or the "scene of the crash" impact on individual residents.

Environmental and physical risks are also a significant focus of the submission. The commenter identifies potential damage to private water wells caused by the shock of blasting during construction, questioning whether the NWMO would cover the high cost of drilling new wells. Additionally, there are concerns regarding infrastructure and safety, specifically the deterioration of Highway 17 due to increased traffic and the social impact of a proposed 800-man camp located just a few miles away. The resident fears these factors will have a definitive negative impact on the community’s quality of life.

Finally, the submission raises ethical red flags regarding the NWMO’s recognition of small communities. The commenter suggests that the NWMO may be intentionally ignoring the population count of Melgund Township, Dyment, and Borup’s Corners to avoid addressing their concerns. There is a strong demand for the NWMO to conduct individual consultations and provide fair treatment, summarized by the sentiment that "what is good for one should be good for all." The commenter views the current approach as exclusionary, leaving those on one side of the highway supported while others are dismissed.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project in Northwestern Ontario. Their opposition is rooted in several key areas, primarily focusing on the risks associated with transportation, the broader implications for provincial energy policy, and a fundamental distrust of government institutions. The commenter expresses a high level of personal anxiety regarding the project, describing it as a source of foreboding for themselves and their children.

A primary concern raised is the transportation of nuclear waste over the long distance from Southern Ontario to the Ignace area. The commenter highlights a perceived lack of timely public information regarding these logistics and characterizes the transport plan as risky. They specifically note that the waste would be transported through their home community of Thunder Bay, leading to significant personal worry. The submission argues that the assessment of transportation risks is of equal importance to the assessment of the repository's physical location, suggesting that the current evaluation may be insufficient in addressing the safety of transit corridors.

The commenter also raises significant socio-political and ethical concerns regarding the project's impact on future energy decisions. They argue that approving the repository would grant the Ontario Provincial Government a "carte blanche" to increase nuclear energy production, which they believe is unnecessary given the existence of safer and cheaper alternatives. This is coupled with a deep-seated distrust of elected representatives, whom the commenter accuses of corruption and a lack of wisdom. They express doubt that the safety of the public is being prioritized in provincial decision-making, particularly concerning the long-term effects on future generations. This lack of trust represents a significant social red flag regarding the perceived legitimacy of the regulatory and political process.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. They characterize the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s safety claims as reckless and unconvincing, expressing deep skepticism that current science and technology can eliminate the risk of radioactive contamination over the project's 160-year lifespan. The submission argues that nuclear power is neither reliable nor clean, citing historical nuclear accidents and the unresolved problem of high-level radioactive waste.

A significant ethical concern raised is the placement of the repository within the homelands of Treaty 3 people, which the commenter describes as an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to waste management. There are also technical concerns regarding the containment of contaminants from both above-ground repackaging activities and deep long-term storage. The commenter highlights the potential inability to retrieve buried waste in the event of leaching or if future technology is developed to neutralize radioactivity, suggesting that the only responsible path is to cease nuclear power use until such neutralization is possible.

The submission identifies transportation as a critical risk factor, noting that northern routes are frequently closed due to animal encounters, icy conditions, and driver error. By referencing past rail disasters, the commenter underscores the potential for nuclear spills to impact human life as well as the health of waterways, airways, and the land. They argue that the project is not socially responsible and demand a full impact assessment and public hearing that includes transportation as a fundamental risk. In the interim, the commenter suggests that the existing 150 tonnes of spent fuel should be monitored and contained at their current locations rather than being moved.

The commenter explicitly states that they are Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for used nuclear fuel in the Wabigoon Lake First Nation-Ignace area. As a resident of Biigtigong Nishnaabeg near Marathon, Ontario, the commenter expresses significant concern regarding the project's location and the associated risks to their community and the broader region. Their opposition is rooted in both the technical execution of the project and the regulatory process currently being followed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).

A primary issue raised is the safety and scope of transportation. The commenter argues that transporting used nuclear fuel over 1,000 kilometers by road and rail exposes millions of Ontarians to the risk of radioactive spills and accidents. They highlight that truck accidents are frequent along Highway 17 and deem the risk of transporting hazardous waste along this route as unacceptable. Furthermore, the commenter raises a significant regulatory red flag by accusing the proponent of "project splitting." They contend that excluding transportation from the project description is a violation of the Impact Assessment Act, as transportation is an activity incidental to the project and essential for the DGR to fulfill its purpose.

The commenter also raises ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding the site selection process. They suggest that the Ignace-area location was chosen over the Bruce location not based on technical merit, but because the smaller population in Northwestern Ontario offers less resistance. They argue that using a smaller population as a basis for site selection is an invalid and poor decision-making criterion. Additionally, the commenter notes that the Initial Project Description fails to adequately justify the need for the repository or provide a detailed explanation of alternatives to deep geological storage.

Technical and environmental concerns are also detailed, specifically regarding the repackaging of nuclear fuel. The commenter questions why fuel must be repackaged at the DGR site, suggesting that packaging it once at the source would reduce the risk of spills during transit and eliminate the potential for leaks during the repackaging process at the repository. They advocate for alternatives such as "rolling stewardship," where waste is stored closer to the nuclear plants that produced it. This would allow for continuous monitoring rather than burying the waste underground and leaving the management responsibility to future societies. Finally, the commenter emphasizes the importance of Indigenous rights, noting widespread opposition from First Nations and calling for a more thorough Integrated Environmental Assessment that respects these concerns.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository is Neutral/Unclear. The submission provides a technical and descriptive overview of the rail logistics and infrastructure requirements for the Ignace area site without explicitly advocating for or against the project's implementation. While the text highlights potential safety improvements associated with rail transport, it functions primarily as an informative summary of site screening criteria and planned transportation methods rather than a statement of support or opposition.

A primary issue raised in the submission is the logistical feasibility and infrastructure requirements of the Revell area site. The commenter notes that the site's proximity to existing CN rail corridors was a key factor in the initial screening process, as it met the criteria for viable access to both road and rail routes. The text outlines the necessity of constructing a short spur line or siding extension to connect the main rail line directly to the repository. This infrastructure development is described as a minor component of the overall site development, as the majority of the transport would utilize existing public rail networks.

Safety and regulatory compliance are also central themes in the submission. The commenter emphasizes that rail shipments would utilize robust Type B casks, which are subject to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission certification involving specific crash and fire testing. A significant observation made is that prioritizing rail over road transport could significantly reduce perceived dangers associated with moving nuclear waste over long distances. By shifting the burden of transport from public highways to rail, the commenter suggests a potential mitigation of road-related risks for the majority of the journey.

The submission also touches upon site-specific geographic details, noting the repository's location relative to the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the township of Ignace. While the text does not elaborate on Indigenous rights or socio-economic impacts in detail, it establishes the physical context of the project along Highway 17. The focus remains on the technical integration of the repository into existing regional transportation corridors and the incremental infrastructure changes required to facilitate the movement of materials to the site.

The commenter appears to be in Support of the project, specifically referencing the community's "solid yes" during the willingness process. However, this support is framed within a context of significant frustration with local governance. The commenter views the project not as a gift from the current administration, but as the result of a fifteen-year effort involving multiple past councils and dedicated community members who took the initiative to educate themselves and engage in public debate.

The primary issues raised are socio-political, focusing on governance, transparency, and the erosion of community trust. The commenter identifies a major shift in the process over the last three and a half years, alleging that council intervention has severely limited the flow of information. The dissolution of the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) and other terminated committees are cited as significant losses that have hindered the community's ability to engage in constructive dialogue and collective learning.

Several red flags regarding the local social and ethical environment are highlighted. The commenter describes a "toxic environment" within the town characterized by internal arguments, staff firings, and legal disputes, all of which have reportedly destroyed public confidence. There is a clear indication of a breakdown in the relationship between the community, the NWMO, and the local council. The commenter concludes that rebuilding this trust is essential but unlikely to occur until after the 2026 election, citing a profound lack of faith in current leadership.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear, as the submission provides a balanced analysis of both the potential benefits and significant risks associated with the project. Rather than taking a definitive side, the commenter focuses on the necessity of rigorous social, environmental, and economic planning. They emphasize that the project's success or failure depends on whether the community of Ignace is treated as a collaborative partner rather than just a host for a corporate project. The submission functions more as a set of requirements for "meaningful" participation and planning rather than a simple endorsement or rejection.

A primary concern raised is the potential shift in Ignace’s social identity from a resource-based town to a nuclear waste host community. This transition could impact community cohesion and how the town is perceived by outsiders. The commenter highlights the complexities of social planning, specifically regarding population fluctuations. The distinction between temporary construction workers and long-term employees creates challenges for housing, health care, and social services. There is a specific call for collaborative planning to ensure that recreational and health infrastructure meets the needs of both current and future residents, emphasizing sustainability over transient growth.

From an environmental standpoint, the submission focuses on the long-term protection of northern ecosystems and water systems. While acknowledging the DGR's design for isolation, the commenter points to uncertainties regarding cumulative impacts, climate change, and unforeseen geological shifts. These environmental risks are linked to land-use restrictions that could limit future development or interfere with the traditional land uses of nearby Indigenous communities. The commenter stresses that risk perception and monitoring infrastructure must be managed to avoid long-term negative consequences for the region.

Economically, the project is viewed as a major driver for job creation and business growth in sectors like engineering, retail, and hospitality. However, the commenter warns against economic dependence on a single project and advocates for diversification. Infrastructure is a major focal point, with the commenter noting that existing transportation, utilities, and emergency response systems are currently insufficient for a project of this scale. While proactive investment could modernize the town and improve quality of life, a lack of incremental planning could lead to housing shortages and increased costs for residents.

Finally, the commenter identifies a critical need for official community representation throughout the licensing and regulatory process. They argue that the current impact assessment policies must be modified to distinguish between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear repository, as the latter requires different oversight and administrative approaches. The submission concludes that appropriate mitigative measures must be established to address the changing social and economic systems of Ignace and its surrounding region, ensuring the community has a voice in decision-making long after the initial licensing phase.

The City of Thunder Bay maintains a Neutral/Unclear stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository. The submission does not explicitly state whether the municipality supports or opposes the project's implementation; instead, it focuses on the necessity of stringent regulatory oversight and the safety of the surrounding region. The City emphasizes that the project must be highly regulated and managed with appropriate government controls to ensure the safety of residents and those traveling through the area where nuclear materials will be transported.

The primary issue raised in the submission is the safety and regulation of transportation routes. The City of Thunder Bay identifies the movement of hazardous materials through its municipal boundaries as a significant priority for its Council and Administration. To address this, the city is currently reviewing its Dangerous Goods Route to determine if changes are required to accommodate the travel of materials destined for the repository. This highlights a major socio-economic and safety concern regarding the potential risks to local infrastructure and public health during the transit phase of the project.

A notable procedural concern or red flag identified by the City is that transportation routes are not currently included in the Impact Assessment Registry for public comment. The City of Thunder Bay is actively advocating for the inclusion of these routes in the assessment process and expresses a strong willingness to consult and work in partnership with the federal government and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The submission underscores the importance of regional consultation, noting that the safety of roadways in Northwestern Ontario is a critical factor that requires dedicated feedback and intergovernmental cooperation.

The commenter, Rev. Ruth MacLean, is explicitly opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) near Revell on Treaty 3 territory. The opposition extends beyond the specific project to the broader expansion of the nuclear industry, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and existing facilities at Bruce, Darlington, and Wesleyville. The commenter argues that the project is driven by political motives and industrial expansion rather than genuine necessity, suggesting that waste should instead be stored safely at the sites where it is generated.

A primary concern raised is the potential for irreversible contamination of water, air, and soil. The commenter expresses skepticism regarding the technical feasibility of "forever containment," characterizing the reliance on computer models over natural forces as hubris. Specific environmental issues include the ongoing contamination of the Great Lakes with tritium and radionuclides, the destruction of habitats, and the creation of a "forever contaminated zone" in the pristine landscape of northern Ontario. Technical gaps are identified in the project description regarding shaft design, repackaging risks at the burial site, and the lack of satisfactory plans for post-closure monitoring or radioactive release scenarios.

The commenter identifies the exclusion of transportation from the initial project description as a significant flaw and a major safety concern. They highlight the risks associated with moving radioactive waste over thousands of miles for fifty years, citing potential radiation exposure for truck drivers and communities along the routes, as well as the danger of accidents and the need for evacuation plans. The submission draws a parallel to health issues faced by military pilots who transported nuclear materials to emphasize the potential for long-term health impacts like cancer.

The submission raises significant ethical and socio-economic red flags, arguing that the "willingness" of host communities has been bought with financial incentives that divide local populations. There is a strong emphasis on the perceived disregard for Indigenous rights and community voices by regulatory bodies and the NWMO. The commenter specifically references the unresolved mercury poisoning at Grassy Narrows First Nation as a moral reason to reject further potential contamination in the region. Furthermore, the commenter links the nuclear industry to global weapons proliferation and questions the legacy being left for future generations, advocating for a shift toward a "new vision" centered on renewables and simpler living rather than economic growth at the expense of nature.

The commenter, Sherrill Musclow, a former member of the Ignace Council, presents a position that is ultimately Opposed to the project under its current terms, despite acknowledging the scientific safety and necessity of the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for nuclear waste. While the commenter explicitly states that the science proves the project is safe and essential for nuclear fuel waste storage, the vast majority of the submission is a sharp critique of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) failure to deliver on economic promises and its perceived lack of genuine partnership with the township of Ignace.

The primary socio-economic concerns revolve around infrastructure, housing, and the long-term viability of the community. The commenter argues that the NWMO has failed to provide the necessary support for infrastructure growth, treating Ignace as if it were a well-resourced southern Ontario city rather than a small, struggling northern township. A significant red flag is raised regarding employee residency; the commenter claims that 83% of current NWMO employees do not wish to live in Ignace long-term due to a lack of housing and amenities. This is contrasted with historical mining and rail companies that built local housing to ensure community prosperity. The commenter fears that without such investment, the project will not result in the promised population growth or economic revitalization.

Ethical and financial concerns are also prominent, specifically regarding the Host Community Agreement. The commenter describes the $170 million agreement as "disgusting" and "unfair," particularly when compared to a $4 billion agreement mentioned in the text, and questions if the disparity is linked to Ignace being a non-Indigenous community. There is a strong sense of grievance regarding the negotiation process, with the commenter accusing the NWMO of taking advantage of the community and criticizing the local Council for hiring a negotiating team that failed to secure a fair deal. The submission highlights that the community is currently facing unaffordable tax and utility increases just to maintain existing services, leaving them with no means to fund the growth required by the DGR. Consequently, the commenter demands a renegotiation of the host agreement to ensure the community’s best interests are protected.

The commenter is Opposed to the project in its current state, specifically criticizing the methodology and scope of the risk management framework employed by the proponent. Their opposition is rooted in the belief that the assessment process has intentionally excluded or deferred the most significant hazards associated with the repository, rendering the current evaluation incomplete and potentially misleading.

A primary issue raised is the fundamental approach to risk calculation. Drawing on professional experience in risk management, the commenter argues that risk must be determined by multiplying the impact of an event by its likelihood. They contend that because the handling of nuclear products carries the potential for catastrophic impacts, the overall risk rating must remain high even if the probability of an accident is deemed low. This suggests a concern that the proponent may be using low probability ratings to justify a lower overall risk profile than is appropriate for nuclear materials.

The commenter identifies transportation, handling, and the repackaging of nuclear waste as the highest risk factors associated with the proposed repository. They express significant alarm that these specific elements appear to have been eliminated from the current consideration or deferred to a later date. The commenter challenges the legitimacy of the assessment process by questioning how such high-risk exposures can be ignored during the initial stages of the project, characterizing this exclusion as a major procedural red flag.

Finally, the submission highlights a socio-economic concern regarding the financial management and sequencing of the project. The commenter points out that millions of dollars may be spent on the repository before these critical high-risk factors are even taken into consideration. This implies a risk of significant wasted public or corporate resources if the project proceeds through initial phases only to encounter insurmountable safety or logistical hurdles related to transportation and handling later in the process.

The commenter explicitly states their opposition to the proposed project, specifically focusing on the transportation of nuclear waste to Northern Ontario. Their stance is clearly categorized as Opposed. The primary concern raised is the potential for significant danger associated with the movement of hazardous materials through the region.

The submission highlights environmental and human health concerns as the central issues. The commenter asserts that there is ample evidence suggesting that the project would be potentially very dangerous for the natural environment and for the people living within Northern Ontario. This indicates a high level of concern regarding the safety protocols and the long-term risks associated with the logistics of the repository.

The focus of the comment is regional, specifically addressing the perceived threats to Northern Ontario. While the commenter mentions the existence of evidence to support their claims of danger, they do not provide specific details or citations within the text. The submission serves as a clear expression of concern regarding the socio-economic and environmental well-being of the local population in relation to the transportation phase of the nuclear waste management process.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, specifically regarding its location in Northwestern Ontario. The primary concern raised is the high risk associated with the transportation of nuclear waste over long distances. The commenter argues that regardless of the quality of packaging or vehicles, the inherent dangers of the regional geography—characterized by hills, curves, and wildlife—combined with severe winter weather conditions like ice, snow, and white-outs, create an unacceptable risk profile. They specifically mention Highways 17 and 11 as dangerous routes where accidents are frequent.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the perceived decline in the safety and professionalism of the trucking industry. The commenter highlights a lack of confidence in modern truck drivers, citing behaviors such as speeding, tailgating, distracted driving, and a general disregard for road signs and weather conditions. They also raise concerns regarding the roadworthiness of modern rigs and suggest that experienced drivers are leaving the industry due to these deteriorating safety standards. This is presented as a systemic failure, with the commenter claiming that federal and provincial governments, as well as the courts, are failing to address these road safety issues.

The commenter also raises ethical and environmental concerns regarding the siting of the repository. They emphasize the current purity of the land and water in Northwestern Ontario and argue against risking these pristine resources. There is a clear suggestion that the waste should be stored closer to the locations where the waste was originally manufactured or where the owners reside, rather than being transported to a different region. Finally, the submission addresses the issue of intergenerational equity, questioning the long-term safety of water sources for future descendants and expressing fear that the project will eventually poison the local environment.

The commenter expresses a clear stance of being Opposed to the proposed project. Their opposition is rooted in the perceived inevitability of a high-level nuclear accident resulting from the transportation logistics required for the repository. The commenter views the movement of hazardous materials as a significant risk factor that cannot be mitigated over the long term, characterizing the entire endeavor as reckless.

The primary issues raised center on transportation safety and the operational scale of the waste movement. Specifically, the commenter identifies the frequency of transport—noted as twice daily—and the extended duration of these operations, which are expected to span decades. Furthermore, the geographical challenge of transporting waste over distances exceeding 1000 miles by highway or rail is cited as a critical vulnerability. The commenter concludes that these factors combined guarantee a high-level nuclear accident, suggesting that the inherent risks of a transportation-related disaster make the project unnecessary.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the approval of the Deep Geological Repository as it is currently described. The primary basis for this opposition is the omission of transportation-related impacts from the project's scope. The commenter argues that the assessment is incomplete because it fails to account for the decades-long movement of high-level radioactive waste across public infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and rail corridors.

The submission identifies several critical areas that require detailed analysis within a revised impact assessment. These include the specific transportation routes to be utilized, comprehensive accident and emergency-response planning, and the mitigation of security risks associated with moving hazardous materials. Furthermore, the commenter highlights the socio-economic and environmental concern regarding the cumulative impacts on communities located along these transportation corridors, as well as the long-term liabilities generated by these activities over many years.

Additional concerns are raised regarding the temporal scope and financial transparency of the project. The commenter points out a significant discrepancy between the project’s 160-year safety claim window and the actual duration of the radioactive hazard, which persists for a much longer period. There is also a noted lack of a clear budget and a long-term plan to address the needs and safety of future generations. The commenter concludes by requesting a comprehensive, cradle-to-grave impact assessment that integrates all transportation elements before any regulatory approval is considered.

The commenter is Opposed to the project in its current form, as evidenced by the identification of several serious concerns regarding the project's scope, the adequacy of the selection process, and the transparency of the technical justifications provided by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).

A primary issue raised is the exclusion of transportation from the project description, which suggests a significant gap in the environmental and safety assessment of the proposal. The commenter also critiques the NWMO’s evaluation of alternatives, asserting that the options presented are either non-existent or inferior to the proposed plan. This indicates a lack of confidence in the project's justification and the rigor of the alternatives assessment. Furthermore, the commenter questions the technological basis of the repository, seeking clarification on what other technologies were considered and requesting assurance that the chosen method represents the best available option.

The submission highlights significant ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding Indigenous rights and procedural fairness. By citing Chief Michele Solomon of the Fort William First Nation, the commenter points to a failure in the site selection process to account for dissenting voices and opposition within Indigenous communities. This suggests that the consultation process may be viewed as exclusionary or incomplete. Additionally, the commenter identifies a procedural red flag regarding the public participation timeline, arguing that the one-month comment period is insufficient for a project of this complexity. They explicitly call for an expansion of the assessment timeline to allow for more thorough public study and future engagement.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in the belief that the containment of nuclear waste is fundamentally impossible over the long term and that any attempt to bury such materials will inevitably result in environmental failure. The submission reflects a total lack of confidence in current containment technologies and the regulatory framework's ability to prevent catastrophic leaks.

The primary environmental concern raised is the eventual leakage of radioactive waste into the biosphere. The commenter asserts that such leakage is a certainty and will result in widespread damage to all life forms. This concern extends across the entire lifecycle of the project, specifically identifying risks during the operational phase, the transportation of hazardous materials, and the final long-term storage. The commenter emphasizes that there is no known safe method for managing this waste, suggesting that the risks are inherent and cannot be sufficiently minimized by the proposed deep geological burial method.

Furthermore, the submission raises broader energy policy and socio-economic concerns by advocating for the abandonment of nuclear power in Canada. The commenter argues that the perceived dangers of waste storage necessitate a transition to alternative energy sources that are safer, cheaper, and more sustainable. This indicates a rejection of the project not just on technical grounds, but as part of a larger critique of the nuclear energy industry's long-term viability and safety profile.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear. While they explicitly state they have few concerns regarding the technical safety of the project itself, they express significant dissatisfaction and apprehension regarding the socio-economic mitigation plans and the perceived inadequacy of the financial negotiations conducted by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). The commenter does not voice direct opposition to the repository's construction but rather focuses on the lack of support for regional infrastructure and the procedural timing of mitigation agreements.

A primary concern raised is the socio-economic impact on the City of Dryden, which serves as the regional service hub for the area spanning from Ignace to Vermillion Bay. The commenter highlights that Dryden is already experiencing negative externalities linked to the project, specifically citing an increase in police calls, emergency room visits related to drug and alcohol issues, and a higher demand for social services. They attribute these pressures to the financial payments made to members of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON). The commenter points out that these services are currently funded by Dryden taxpayers and are already stretched to their limit, creating an ethical and financial burden on a municipality that is not the official host of the project.

The submission also identifies significant red flags regarding the negotiation process and the projected population growth. The commenter suggests that the Township of Ignace negotiated a poor benefits agreement compared to what was offered to South Bruce or provided to WLON. Furthermore, they argue that the rapid population growth expected during the project's implementation will be unmanageable without a formal impact mitigation agreement for Dryden. The commenter raises a procedural concern, questioning why the NWMO submitted for approval before establishing a financial support framework for the service hub that will inevitably bear the brunt of the project's regional social and infrastructural demands.

Stance: Support. The commenter supports the project (referencing coal mining) due to the anticipated long-term employment and economic benefits for local communities. They express confidence in the proponent's commitment to responsible mining practices and environmental stewardship.

The commenters, representing academic and regulatory expertise in impact assessment, express a stance that is Neutral/Unclear regarding the final approval of the project but are explicitly Supportive of referring the proposal to an integrated panel review with public hearings. They argue that the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) is the epitome of a project requiring the highest level of federal scrutiny under the Impact Assessment Act. Their position is rooted in the belief that the current Initial Project Description (IPD) is insufficient and that the project represents a primary candidate for a rigorous, transparent review because there is currently no proven safe approach or operational global precedent for high-level radioactive waste disposal.

A primary technical concern raised is the lack of tested technology, noting that while some European countries are reviewing applications, no operational facilities exist and key components of the NWMO’s design are still in development. The submission identifies the potential for grave environmental impacts within federal jurisdiction, specifically mentioning risks to fish, fish habitat, species at risk, and migratory birds. The authors highlight concerns regarding radioactive releases into the air from the underground facility and the Used Fuel Package Plant (UFPP), asserting that the IPD fails to sufficiently describe these releases or establish an adequate response plan for highly consequential release events.

The submission emphasizes the potential for serious social and economic impacts on Indigenous peoples and their treaty lands, as well as the broader Canadian public. A specific red flag identified is the absence of a business plan for the development and ongoing operations of the facility within the IPD. Furthermore, the commenters point to a significant public interest from communities downstream and along transportation routes, arguing that local knowledge must be carefully collected and considered before any decisions are made. They also raise the issue of induced development, suggesting the facility might encourage the expansion of new nuclear reactors in other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, a concept they claim the proponent has ignored.

The commenters identify what they describe as a gaping lacuna in the IPD regarding the exclusion of nuclear waste transportation over thousands of kilometers from the point of generation to the disposal facility. They argue that the proponent’s justification for excluding transportation from the assessment is inadequate and fails to address the concerns of communities along the route. Additionally, they criticize the almost complete lack of consideration for reasonable alternatives to the project, supporting calls from the Assembly of First Nations for a transparent document outlining alternative storage methods. Finally, they stress the necessity of an unbiased review panel free from conflicts of interest to ensure a transparent, evidence-based decision-making process and to restore public confidence.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed and assessed. Their primary procedural concern is that the timeframe allotted for the public comment period is insufficient for a project of this magnitude, describing the duration as ludicrously short. This suggests a perceived lack of transparency and a failure to provide the public with adequate time to review and respond to the complexities of the assessment.

A significant safety concern raised is the exclusion of waste transportation from the current assessment. The commenter views this omission as a blatant disregard for the safety of populations living along the transportation routes. By identifying the nuclear waste as dangerous, the commenter highlights a major perceived risk to public health and safety that they believe has not been addressed in the project's scope.

Furthermore, the commenter challenges the long-term safety and technical viability of the proposed site in Northwestern Ontario. They assert that the safety of storing waste at this location has not been demonstrated and urgently call for a full inquiry into the matter. This indicates a lack of confidence in the proponent's current safety claims and suggests that the environmental and safety risks associated with the specific geography of the site require much more rigorous investigation.

The commenter, Charles Faust, is explicitly Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically objecting to the exclusion of transportation impacts from the scope of the Impact Assessment. He argues that the transportation of high-level nuclear fuel waste is an integral and inseparable component of the project, as the repository cannot function without the movement of waste from its points of generation to the site in Northwestern Ontario. The submission emphasizes that the scale of this undertaking—involving at least 5.9 million fuel bundles transported over thousands of kilometers—is unprecedented and exceeds the capacity of current regulations and historical radioactive shipment practices.

The primary safety and environmental concerns raised involve the use of accident-prone routes, specifically Ontario Highways 11 and 17, for continuous, 24/7 waste transport over a period of at least 50 years. Faust identifies several technical red flags, including a lack of detailed information in the Initial Project Description regarding the testing and approval of Used Fuel Transportation Packages and the potential for radioactive emissions during transit. He also raises significant socio-economic and safety concerns regarding the burden placed on local communities along the route, noting that many first responders are volunteers who may be ill-equipped to handle incidents involving highly radioactive substances.

Ethical and procedural concerns are a central theme of the submission. Faust characterizes the site selection process as lacking transparency and accountability, arguing that it was ethically questionable to limit the definition of "willing hosts" to the immediate vicinity of the repository while ignoring the millions of people living along the transportation corridors. He asserts that his home community of Thunder Bay and others in the path of the waste have been silenced and denied the opportunity to have their concerns addressed before the site was declared. The commenter concludes that the failure to include alternative routes and a comprehensive risk assessment of transportation in the Impact Assessment would mislead the public and diminish the overall legitimacy of the regulatory process.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear. While they do not explicitly state they are in favor of or opposed to the project, they present a highly skeptical critique of the current proposal. Their feedback is framed as a series of rigorous requirements and conditions that must be met to ensure community safety and accountability. The commenter emphasizes that the current plan lacks the necessary transparency and legal guarantees to provide the community with comfort or trust, focusing heavily on the potential for failure and the need for robust protection mechanisms.

A primary issue raised is the lack of clear accountability and liability frameworks. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding who will be held responsible if accidents, radiation leaks, or construction errors occur. They demand explicit, legally binding legislation that identifies responsible parties and ensures that affected individuals are not forced into protracted legal battles with insurance companies or the government. This concern extends to the eventual transition of the project to private companies; the commenter questions whether these private entities will be held to the same safety and health standards as the government or if they will be allowed to shift the burden of liability elsewhere once they take control of operations.

Health impacts and compensation are also central to the submission. The commenter points out that the Ignace area already faces a higher burden of lung cancer and long-term diseases compared to the rest of Ontario, and they worry that the project could exacerbate these existing health issues. They argue for a pre-defined compensation structure that covers medical expenses, lost wages, and long-term care for radiation-linked illnesses like cancer. They also seek clarity on who is verifying the research studies related to these health risks and how the project will mitigate new risks to an already vulnerable population.

The commenter further elaborates on socio-economic concerns, specifically the protection of livelihoods, homes, and businesses. They insist that the plan must include guarantees for fair compensation and relocation assistance if contamination forces residents to evacuate or shut down businesses. The submission stresses that compensation should be based on specific formulas defined from the start, ensuring that people are returned to the same financial and social position they were in before any adverse event. They argue that these resolutions must go above and beyond standard social services or workers' compensation due to the high stakes of the project.

Finally, the submission emphasizes the need for transparency and enforceable legal frameworks. The commenter argues that public confidence can only be achieved if there are clear, non-ambiguous agreements that outline remediation processes and oversight. They state that the safety and environment of the community should not be left to vague promises or social services. Instead, they call for a solid legal framework with specific, enforceable commitments that protect both current and future generations, ensuring that the community is not left to bear the burden of the project alone if things go wrong.

The commenter’s stance is categorized as Neutral/Unclear. While the individual does not explicitly state opposition to the project’s existence, they express significant skepticism regarding the current level of transparency and the adequacy of risk management strategies. Their position is highly conditional, suggesting that the project's acceptability depends entirely on the establishment of legally binding guarantees, clear accountability frameworks, and specific compensation protocols that they currently perceive as vague or insufficient.

A primary concern raised in the submission is the lack of explicit details regarding liability and accountability in the event of unforeseen accidents, contamination, or radiation leaks. The commenter demands a clear identification of which entities—whether government or private—will be held responsible if something goes wrong. They emphasize that the community should not be forced into lengthy and costly legal battles or insurance disputes to receive support. Instead, they advocate for legally binding legislation and agreements that provide immediate, guaranteed protection and compensation for affected individuals.

The submission highlights significant health and socio-economic concerns, specifically noting that the Ignace area already experiences higher rates of lung cancer and long-term diseases compared to other parts of Ontario. The commenter argues that this existing health burden must be a central factor in the project's planning, questioning how the project will avoid exacerbating these vulnerabilities. Furthermore, they raise concerns about the protection of livelihoods, homes, and businesses. They insist on a framework that guarantees fair compensation and relocation assistance, ensuring that if contamination occurs, residents are returned to the same financial and physical position they were in prior to the event.

Another key issue involves the transition of the project to private companies following the assessment phase. The commenter expresses apprehension about whether these private entities will adhere to the same safety, environmental, and health standards as the initial government-led phases. They call for enforceable contracts to prevent private companies from shifting the burden of liability onto the public. The commenter concludes that for the community to feel any level of comfort, there must be a transparent, legally enforceable framework that outlines specific compensation values and oversight mechanisms to ensure remediation is not delayed for years.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their submission reflects a total rejection of the current plan, stating that "nothing about this is good" and suggesting that alternative disposal methods must be explored. The tone of the comment is highly critical, focusing on perceived flaws in the logistical and political framework surrounding the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposal.

The primary technical concern raised involves the transportation of high-level nuclear waste. The commenter identifies the use of transport trucks as a significant risk factor, particularly when routes pass through sensitive wilderness areas. They point to a documented history of truck accidents in these specific regions as evidence that the transportation plan is unsafe. This highlights a major environmental concern regarding the potential for radioactive contamination resulting from transit accidents in ecologically vulnerable zones.

Furthermore, the commenter raises significant socio-political and ethical red flags concerning governance and oversight. They express a profound lack of trust in the provincial government, specifically citing the current administration at Queen's Park as corrupt. This indicates a concern that political instability or unethical leadership could compromise the safety and integrity of the project. The commenter suggests that the existing political climate increases the overall risk of the project, implying that regulatory oversight may be insufficient or compromised.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a profound distrust of the nuclear industry and the regulatory process, driven by personal experience as a former nuclear energy worker who identifies as a victim of nuclear exposure. The commenter expresses extreme disappointment regarding the plan to bury nuclear waste in what they describe as the "Northern clean country," suggesting a significant concern for the environmental integrity of relatively untouched regions.

A primary technical and safety concern raised is the perceived negligence regarding the transportation plan. The commenter asserts that the risks associated with transporting nuclear waste have not been adequately addressed and describes this omission as a major danger. This highlights a significant red flag concerning the logistics and safety protocols required to move hazardous materials across the country.

The submission also raises serious ethical and socio-economic issues related to worker safety and industry accountability. The commenter details a history of severe health complications, including a double lung transplant and exposure to U236, spent reactor fuel, and plutonium, for which they claim they were never compensated despite providing evidence. This personal narrative serves as a warning about the potential long-term health risks of the nuclear lifecycle and the perceived failure of the "powers to be" to protect or support workers.

Finally, the commenter challenges the transparency and democratic legitimacy of the project. They argue that the current information provided to the public is "propaganda" and that the project is a national issue that lacks proper public awareness. The commenter believes that if Canadians were provided with "proper information" rather than industry assurances, there would be widespread protest. This suggests a perceived gap in public consultation and a demand for a more rigorous, nationwide dialogue on the management of nuclear waste.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their position is rooted in a fundamental disagreement with the centralized storage model, advocating instead for a decentralized approach where nuclear waste remains at its point of origin, such as power plants, uranium mines, or scientific laboratories. The commenter suggests that moving nuclear waste should only be considered in rare, exceptional circumstances where human populations or specific biological species are directly threatened and cannot be protected by other means.

A primary concern raised is the safety and necessity of transporting nuclear waste to rural or remote sites. The commenter explicitly states that such transportation should almost never be allowed, implying significant risks associated with the movement of radioactive materials across distances. This reflects a preference for localized containment over the risks inherent in a national transportation and centralized disposal strategy.

Furthermore, the commenter expresses technical skepticism regarding the efficacy of Deep Geological Repositories. They argue that DGRs are incapable of managing the proposed volume of radioactive material or the long-term intensity of radiation over the required lifespan of the waste. To support this concern, the commenter points to the Hanford Site in Washington State as a cautionary example of unsatisfactory and unsustainable nuclear waste storage. This reference serves as a red flag regarding the perceived long-term viability and safety of current and planned waste management infrastructures, leading the commenter to conclude that the proposed arrangements are insufficient.

The commenter is explicitly and vehemently opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. The language used in the submission indicates a total rejection of the proposal to store nuclear waste within Treaty Three territory, characterized by a high degree of personal and collective commitment to stopping the project.

The primary issues raised in this submission center on Indigenous sovereignty, territorial rights, and the lack of community consent. By specifically referencing Treaty Three and the Wabauskang First Nation, the commenter highlights a significant socio-political conflict regarding land use and the burial of nuclear waste on Indigenous lands. The commenter asserts that their opposition is not an isolated sentiment but is shared by other members of the Wabauskang band, suggesting a collective resistance based on the protection of their traditional territory.

A major red flag identified in this submission is the potential for physical resistance or civil unrest. The use of confrontational language, such as being "prepared for a fight" and stating they would die before allowing the project to proceed, indicates a high level of emotional and political intensity. This poses a significant risk to the project's social license and suggests that any attempt to move forward could face intense direct action or legal challenges from the affected Indigenous community. The submission underscores a fundamental ethical concern regarding the imposition of high-risk infrastructure on Treaty lands against the expressed will of the local population.

The commenter is explicitly in Support of the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. They frame the development of the DGR as an essential requirement for Canada to meet its climate goals and transition to carbon-free energy at a scale sufficient for modern demands. The commenter argues that the project is a vital step in securing control over the full nuclear fuel cycle, which they believe is necessary to instill the confidence required for the broader expansion of nuclear power infrastructure across the country.

A primary focus of the submission is the mitigation of public concern regarding the transportation of radioactive waste. The commenter identifies transportation safety as a key issue raised by others but argues that these fears are largely the result of misinformation and historical fear-mongering. To support this, they point to the existing safety record of radioactive shipments under Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission standards, noting that there have been no spill issues in Canada and that transport packages are engineered to withstand worst-case accident scenarios.

The commenter also addresses the socio-political aspect of the project by advocating for increased transparency. They suggest that even if the transportation of waste is technically outside the scope of the current impact assessment, the proponent should provide more detailed information regarding logistics. This is presented as a strategic necessity to combat public misunderstanding and provide the accurate information needed to move the project and the broader nuclear industry forward.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project proceeding under the current Impact Assessment framework. Their opposition is rooted in the belief that the current process is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable because it excludes critical safety considerations. The commenter uses strong language, stating the project must not proceed until their concerns regarding the scope of the assessment are addressed.

The primary issue raised is the exclusion of transportation risks from the Impact Assessment. The commenter specifically identifies the Trans Canada Highway as a point of concern for moving what they characterize as deadly cargo. This highlights a significant environmental and public safety concern regarding the potential for accidents or leaks during the transit of nuclear waste. The commenter views the omission of these risks as a failure of the regulatory process, suggesting that the current assessment lacks the necessary breadth to be considered valid.

Furthermore, the commenter demands a higher standard of scientific rigor and transparency. They argue that for the project to be credible, there must be a scientifically sound and thorough assessment of transportation risks, alongside the development of effective mitigation strategies. By insisting that these elements be included at this specific stage of the project, the commenter is raising a procedural red flag, suggesting that the current evaluation is neither comprehensive nor protective of the public interest.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed project, specifically regarding the selection of a site that requires the long-distance transport of nuclear waste through Northwestern Ontario. They characterize the transportation aspect as a serious threat that must be resolved before the project can proceed. The commenter’s position is that even if the scientific merit of a deep geological repository is proven, the waste should be managed as close as possible to the sites where it was originally generated to mitigate the risks inherent in moving hazardous materials across the province.

A primary concern raised is the safety and reliability of road transport. The commenter highlights a perceived systemic failure in highway safety and regulatory enforcement, citing a decline in vehicle safety compliance since deregulation in the 1980s. They point to specific data from the Ministry of Transportation showing a failure rate of over 70 percent in vehicle safety requirements and a lack of proper documentation or qualifications for more than two-thirds of drivers checked during enforcement blitzes. This leads to the conclusion that while the risk of a single accident may be low, the high volume of shipments over a long duration makes an environmental catastrophe likely or even inevitable.

The submission also identifies significant red flags regarding rail transport and corporate accountability. The commenter expresses distrust in national railways, noting that they are controlled by foreign investors who prioritize profit over safety. They argue that rail transport lacks transparency because accidents often occur in remote areas away from public view or media access. This socio-economic concern suggests that the private ownership of critical infrastructure undermines its suitability as a safe alternative for transporting nuclear waste. Ultimately, the commenter emphasizes that the risks associated with the current transportation plan are unacceptable given the current state of infrastructure and oversight.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository is Neutral/Unclear. While the individual explicitly states they are not opposed to nuclear power in general, they express significant reservations regarding the specific logistical implementation of the project, particularly concerning the transportation of radioactive waste. The commenter does not outright reject the project but proposes significant structural changes to the plan to mitigate perceived risks.

The primary issue raised is transportation safety and the inherent risk of accidents when moving nuclear waste across the province on a regular basis. The commenter acknowledges the precautions being taken by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization but argues that the only absolute way to ensure safety is to eliminate transportation entirely. They suggest that waste should be stored on-site at the point of generation. If on-site storage is not feasible, the commenter proposes shortening the transportation distance as a secondary risk-reduction measure.

A notable socio-economic and logistical concern is raised regarding the project's impact on and benefit to Northern Ontario. The commenter suggests that if the project is intended to benefit northern communities like Ignace, the entire nuclear infrastructure should be relocated. They propose moving the facilities that create the waste to the same location as the repository. This would consolidate the nuclear lifecycle in the north, reducing the transportation of hazardous materials from hundreds of kilometers to a few hundred feet, thereby addressing both safety concerns and regional development goals.

The commenter, representing a municipal Council, maintains a stance that is Neutral/Unclear regarding the overall approval of the Deep Geological Repository project but is explicitly critical of the proposed scope of the impact assessment. The submission focuses on a specific procedural and safety concern regarding the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s attempt to exclude the transportation of high-level radioactive waste to the Revell site from the federal review process. The Council’s communication is prompted by correspondence from Northwatch and serves as a formal demand for broader regulatory scrutiny, indicating that the current proposed assessment boundaries are insufficient.

The primary issues raised center on public safety and the integrity of regional transportation infrastructure. The Council highlights significant safety concerns regarding Highways 11 and 17, citing a history of frequent accidents on these specific routes. By emphasizing the large quantity of high-level radioactive waste and the extended duration over which transportation would occur, the commenter identifies a substantial long-term risk to the community and the environment. The Council argues that the inherent dangers of the regional highway system, combined with the hazardous nature of the cargo, necessitate a comprehensive evaluation within the federal impact assessment to ensure that transportation risks are not overlooked.

From a regulatory and socio-economic perspective, the Council expresses a firm expectation that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada include transportation within its formal review. This reflects a concern that excluding the transit phase of the project would result in an incomplete understanding of the project's potential impacts. The submission suggests that the safety of local transit corridors is a critical factor in the project's overall viability and that federal oversight must address the potential for radiological incidents resulting from traffic accidents on known high-risk roadways.

The commenter appears to be in Support of the project and the broader nuclear energy sector, though their support is framed through a critique of the regulatory process. They advocate for the continued utilization of nuclear power, characterizing it as a reliable energy source that remains cost-effective provided it is not hindered by what they perceive as excessive administrative oversight.

The primary issues raised in this submission are socio-economic and administrative. The commenter focuses on the reliability of nuclear energy and the potential for economic strain on the Canadian public. They express a specific concern that "unneeded bureaucracy" and "endless regulatory hurdles" lead to increased costs, which are ultimately passed down to citizens in the form of higher power bills. The submission suggests that the efficiency of the project’s approval and implementation is directly tied to the financial well-being of consumers.

From a regulatory analysis perspective, the commenter’s stance highlights a tension between rigorous oversight and economic expediency. A potential red flag is the commenter’s characterization of the regulatory process as a "burden" rather than a necessary safety or environmental safeguard. This indicates a preference for streamlining the impact assessment process to prioritize cost-effectiveness and energy stability over the potentially lengthy deliberations associated with environmental and safety reviews. The submission does not address specific environmental or Indigenous rights concerns, focusing instead on the macro-economic implications of regulatory delays.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear regarding the ultimate approval of the Deep Geological Repository, as they acknowledge the technical necessity of a permanent solution while simultaneously raising significant objections to the current selection process. The author, who identifies as a First Nations person with a university degree in biomedical physics, presents a nuanced perspective that balances the benefits of nuclear technology—such as medical isotopes and power generation—against deep-seated concerns regarding Indigenous sovereignty, long-term environmental safety, and the ethics of the site-selection process.

A primary issue raised is the perceived failure of the current regulatory and consultative framework to respect First Nations' rights and treaty status. The commenter argues that the "expression of interest" model, which targets specific townships, is flawed because it allows a single municipality to make decisions with broad regional implications without consulting surrounding First Nations or neighboring regions. They highlight a power imbalance rooted in colonization, noting that while settlers have the option to resettle if a location becomes uninhabitable, First Nations have an ancestral and spiritual connection to the land that makes displacement an impossibility. The author stresses that Indigenous consent should not be an afterthought or a case study, but a fundamental requirement, questioning how one nation can speak for others in a treaty territory.

From a technical and environmental standpoint, the commenter points out that the half-life of ionizing radiation exceeds the traditional "seven generations" planning horizon, creating a moral obligation to ensure future generations are not negatively impacted. While they acknowledge that current on-site storage is not a permanent solution and that space is running out, they express concern over the lack of global consensus on "safe" storage and the potential for geological events to compromise the repository. The author calls for a collective agreement that satisfies all affected parties, emphasizing that the problem is a perennial Canadian issue that requires a consensus-based approach rather than an ultimatum driven by economic prosperity or localized interests.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a direct request for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to ensure the project does not proceed, specifically to protect the residents of Northern Ontario from perceived risks.

The primary issue raised in this submission is transportation safety, specifically concerning the movement of nuclear waste along Highway 17 in Northern Ontario. The commenter provides a perspective based on personal experience as a local resident who travels this route daily. They assert that there is no safe method for transporting such materials given the specific geographical and infrastructural context of the region.

The commenter identifies significant environmental and safety red flags related to the regional climate and existing road conditions. They highlight that the weather in Northern Ontario is unpredictable and dangerous for a significant portion of the year, which compounds the risks associated with heavy transport. Furthermore, the commenter notes that transport accidents are already a common occurrence on this highway. These factors lead to a socio-economic and public safety concern regarding the potential for radioactive exposure or environmental contamination resulting from a transit-related incident.

The commenter, Ken Keesmaat, expresses a stance that is Opposed to the project as it is currently framed. The author explicitly voices concern regarding the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposal for a Deep Geological Repository for high-level radioactive waste and advocates for more rigorous federal oversight and a broader assessment scope. The submission insists on a full federal impact assessment and a public hearing to address the risks associated with the project.

A primary issue raised is the requirement to include nuclear waste transportation routes and their associated risks within the project's impact assessment. The commenter argues that the transportation of radioactive material is an inseparable part of the project's definition and will inevitably have an impact. There is a specific safety and environmental concern regarding the potential for accidents occurring during the transit of high-level waste to the repository site.

The submission also highlights significant ethical and legal concerns regarding Indigenous rights. The commenter calls for the protection of Indigenous rights, specifically citing the obligation for free, prior, and informed consent as recognized by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and required under Canadian law. This is presented as a necessary condition for the project to move forward.

Furthermore, the commenter emphasizes the importance of environmental justice. This includes the socio-political concern that communities located along the proposed transportation routes must be granted the right to be informed and the opportunity to have a say in the process. The author aligns themselves with Indigenous groups and allies in demanding that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada expand the project scope to account for these impacted communities and the risks they face.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. The primary concern raised in the submission relates to transportation safety along the Trans-Canada Highway between Thunder Bay and the Manitoba border. Drawing on personal experience as a resident of the region, the commenter describes the highway conditions as horrendous and characterizes the prospect of transporting nuclear waste through this corridor as a recipe for disaster. They cite a variety of existing hazards, including frequent accidents, vehicle fires, wildlife, aggressive or impaired drivers, and severe weather conditions. The commenter also highlights the poor mechanical state of many vehicles currently on the road and the high volume of transport traffic as factors that exacerbate the risk of a catastrophic incident.

Furthermore, the submission raises significant environmental and ethical concerns regarding the cumulative impact of industrial activities on the land. The commenter argues that the region has already endured sufficient environmental abuse from the mining and forestry sectors and strongly objects to further potential contamination, which they describe as poisoning the land. There is also a clear issue of regional equity and fairness identified; the commenter points out that the local area does not utilize nuclear power, suggesting that it is unjust for a region that does not benefit from the energy source to bear the burden and risks associated with its waste. The commenter concludes by urging the proponent to find an alternative solution that does not involve their geographic area.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project as currently proposed and expresses significant skepticism regarding the regulatory process. Their stance is rooted in a lack of trust in the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s (IAAC) stated goals of transparency and meaningful participation, which the commenter characterizes as insincere. The submission reflects a fundamental disagreement with the current decision-making framework, suggesting that the public, rather than the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), should hold the authority over decisions involving radioactive waste that will impact human populations for millions of years.

A primary issue raised is the exclusion of used fuel transportation from the scope of the Impact Assessment. The commenter argues that the transportation of radioactive materials from reactor sites to the repository is an inseparable part of the project and must be evaluated within the assessment. They specifically challenge the NWMO’s position that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) should handle transportation decisions independently, asserting that this exclusion is a major flaw in the current review process.

The submission also highlights ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding long-term governance and accountability. By questioning why a private organization like the NWMO is making decisions with such long-lasting environmental and social consequences, the commenter points to a perceived democratic deficit. Furthermore, the commenter raises red flags concerning procedural fairness, noting that the timeframes for reading lengthy documents are insufficient for meaningful public engagement. The overall tone indicates a profound lack of confidence in the integrity of the open and inclusive process promised by the regulatory authorities.

The commenter’s stance is categorized as Neutral/Unclear, as they do not explicitly state whether they support or oppose the proposed Deep Geological Repository. Instead, the submission focuses on the procedural requirements and the scope of the regulatory review. The commenter’s position appears to be conditional, suggesting that their confidence in the project is dependent on the rigor and transparency of the impact assessment process.

The primary issue raised is the necessity for a thorough impact assessment and a formal public hearing. A specific concern is highlighted regarding the transportation of radioactive waste, which the commenter insists must be included in the assessment. This indicates a focus on the environmental and safety risks associated with the logistics of moving hazardous materials, suggesting that an assessment excluding these factors would be incomplete and insufficient for evaluating the project's total impact.

From a regulatory and ethical perspective, the commenter expresses a lack of trust in the current management of the project’s risks. They suggest that the failure to conduct comprehensive hearings or to include transportation risks would demonstrate that the involved parties are not treating the potential hazards with the necessary level of seriousness. This points to a significant concern regarding accountability and the adequacy of risk management strategies, implying that public confidence is contingent upon a transparent and exhaustive review process.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed project, expressing significant concerns regarding the safety and logistical risks associated with the transportation and handling of nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario. Their position is rooted in the belief that the current plan does not adequately account for the dangers inherent in moving hazardous materials over long distances and through ill-equipped communities.

A primary issue raised is the risk associated with the multiple transfers of nuclear waste between different types of containers. The commenter notes that waste must be moved from its current storage into transport containers and then transferred again into storage containers at the final destination. They argue that each stage of this handling process introduces additional opportunities for accidents or failures. Furthermore, the commenter highlights the inadequacy of the transportation infrastructure, specifically pointing to the use of two-lane highways and local railways in Northern Ontario as a major safety concern.

The submission also identifies a critical socio-economic and safety red flag regarding emergency response capabilities in rural areas like White River. The commenter points out that these communities lack nuclear energy experts and rely on volunteer fire departments, which are not equipped to handle a nuclear spill. This lack of specialized local expertise creates a significant vulnerability in the event of a transportation accident.

From an environmental perspective, the commenter emphasizes the potential for widespread contamination. They note that the region is surrounded by water and that the local geography dictates that spills on roads or rails would likely drain into southern waterways, eventually reaching the Great Lakes. The commenter concludes that the current planning lacks sufficient attention to preventing the pollution of land and water, suggesting that the environmental risks to the broader watershed have been underestimated.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project as currently proposed in the Initial Project Description and strongly advocates for a full Impact Assessment including a public hearing. The submission characterizes the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) assertions as overly optimistic and misleading, particularly regarding the maturity of Deep Geological Repository (DGR) technology. The author argues that because no successful DGR currently exists worldwide, the NWMO’s claims that its practices are "proven" and "established" are false. This lack of proven technology is presented as a primary reason why a rigorous, independent assessment is required rather than relying on the proponent's self-assurance.

A central issue raised is the exclusion of high-level waste transportation from the project’s scope. The commenter identifies this as a "glaring and frightening omission," noting that high-level waste is not currently transported in the volumes or frequencies proposed for this project. The submission highlights that the specialized containers for this transportation have not yet been designed or proven safe, and the potential impacts of accidents on the air, land, water, and human health along transportation routes have not been assessed. The author rejects the NWMO’s justification that transportation is an "unchanged" activity, asserting it is a direct and critical component of the project that must be evaluated by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC).

The submission also raises significant concerns regarding regulatory integrity and Indigenous rights. The author describes the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) as a "captured regulator" and points to recent court challenges where the CNSC was found to have failed in its duties regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The commenter notes that the NWMO’s project description fails to reference or respect UNDRIP, which they argue is a major red flag for a project situated near First Nations communities. They contend that placing a high-risk repository in an area already struggling with poverty, unemployment, and chronic health issues is contrary to the principles of reconciliation.

Environmental and socio-economic concerns are further elaborated through the lens of inadequate planning and data. The commenter criticizes the NWMO for failing to identify flora at risk and for not documenting the habitat of fish and wildlife surrounding the site. Additionally, the submission points out a lack of clarity regarding the management of low and intermediate-level waste generated on-site. The author characterizes the NWMO’s mitigation strategy as a "trust us" approach that lacks specificity and fails to account for the long-term risks post-decommissioning, ultimately arguing that the proponent has "selected out" public concerns to simplify the approval process.

The commenter is Opposed to the current progression of the impact assessment process and expresses significant apprehension regarding the proposed project, characterizing it as potentially the most harmful proposal ever tabled in their experience. The primary focus of the submission is a formal objection to the 30-day public comment period, which the commenter argues is entirely insufficient for a project of this magnitude and complexity. By labeling the project as potentially dangerous to human health and the natural environment, the commenter signals a lack of confidence in the proposal's safety and the transparency of the regulatory timeline.

The key issue identified is the perceived procedural unfairness regarding the time allocated to review the Initial Project Description. The commenter highlights that the documentation exceeds 1,200 pages, making it unreasonable for citizens with external personal and professional responsibilities to read, comprehend, and provide meaningful feedback within a month. A specific technical concern is raised regarding the difficulty of identifying gaps or omissions in the proposal; the commenter argues that one cannot effectively determine what is missing from the assessment of environmental and health risks without first mastering the extensive volume of information that is present.

Furthermore, the submission raises socio-economic and administrative concerns regarding the participant funding process. The commenter points out that the deadline for applying for funding to support future studies and input coincides with the 30-day review period, creating an overlapping burden that further hinders the public's ability to participate effectively. This is presented as a significant barrier to entry for interested parties who wish to provide quality input but are constrained by limited time and resources.

In conclusion, the commenter views the current regulatory timeline as a mockery of the impact assessment process that undermines the quality of public contribution. They urge the Committee to extend the review period to at least 90 days to allow for a thorough critique of the project’s potential impacts on human health and the environment. The submission suggests that the current pace of the assessment compromises the integrity of the review and fails to account for the significant risks associated with what they describe as the most complex project ever considered in Canada.

The commenter, Stephen, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository for nuclear waste. His submission outlines a fundamental lack of trust in the proponent and the regulatory process, citing several critical concerns ranging from environmental safety to ethical procedural conduct.

A primary issue raised is the lack of transparency and education regarding the "real dangers" of nuclear waste poisoning. The commenter argues that the local population has not been sufficiently informed of the risks, which invalidates any attempt at obtaining informed consent. This suggests a perceived failure in the proponent's communication strategy and a significant gap in the public's understanding of the project's potential health impacts.

The submission also highlights a significant ethical concern regarding regional equity and the "user-pays" principle. The commenter asserts that his region did not benefit from the electricity generated by the nuclear waste in question and, therefore, should not be burdened with its long-term storage. He argues that the responsibility for waste management should rest with the specific populations that consumed the power.

Transportation safety is another major red flag identified in the comment. The commenter describes the local roads as dangerous and prone to accidents, expressing fear that transporting what he considers the "most dangerous waste product" through the region poses an unacceptable risk. Furthermore, he raises environmental concerns regarding the repository's proximity to freshwater and drinking water supplies, indicating a fear of contamination.

Finally, the commenter raises serious socio-economic and ethical objections regarding the site selection process. He characterizes the focus on two small, "financially desperate" communities as "deceitful and sneaky," labeling financial incentives as "bribery." He advocates for a much broader scope of consultation, insisting that every community located along the proposed transportation routes should be granted the right to give or withhold permission, rather than limiting the decision-making power to the smallest and most vulnerable municipalities.

The commenter explicitly states their support for the establishment of the proposed spent nuclear fuel facility in the preferred location. As a professional geologist with over 55 years of experience, the individual bases their endorsement on a career spent following the site selection process and visiting research facilities such as the Atomic Energy Commission’s investigative mine at Whiteshell and the research facilities at Pinawa. The commenter argues that the project is a necessary response to the reality that Canada already possesses decades of spent nuclear fuel stored in temporary, inadequate facilities and will continue to generate more due to the nation's dependence on nuclear power.

A primary issue addressed in the submission is the safety and logistics of transportation. The commenter dismisses concerns regarding highway closures by noting that Highway 17 is already frequently closed due to weather and accidents, suggesting that the infrastructure requires upgrades regardless of the project. Furthermore, they emphasize the engineering integrity of transportation containers, citing their ability to withstand high-speed impacts without rupturing. From a socio-economic and technical perspective, the commenter raises the point that spent fuel should not be made irrevocably inaccessible, as technological advancements may eventually turn this waste into a valuable resource.

The submission also addresses the ethical and pragmatic concerns of delaying the project. The commenter characterizes opposition based on a perceived lack of research as "hiding our heads in the sand," asserting that decades of scientific investigation have already identified the proposed solution as the best option. They highlight a sense of urgency, noting that current storage methods are improper and that the long-term management of existing and future waste is an inescapable requirement for the country. While acknowledging that some peers in the geological field oppose the plan, the commenter maintains that the facts support moving forward with the facility immediately.

The commenter, Elaine Hughes, is explicitly opposed to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed project. The primary grievance centers on the exclusion of transportation activities from the full impact assessment. The author characterizes the plan to transport nuclear waste from southern and eastern Canada to a proposed site in the headwaters of the Wabigoon River in northwestern Ontario as irresponsible and dangerous. The submission argues that the project should not be carried out at all and insists that the transportation component must be included in a full impact assessment if the project proceeds.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the risks associated with the logistics of the project. The commenter highlights the danger of operating two to three trucks per day for fifty years over 1,800 kilometers of primarily two-lane public roads. There is a specific concern regarding the proximity of these transport routes to schools, hospitals, homes, and natural landscapes. The author argues that the potential for exposure to radioactive material during transit poses an unspeakable risk to the public and the environment, characterizing the current exclusion of these risks from the assessment as preposterous.

The submission raises grave concerns regarding the inherent toxicity of uranium and its by-products, asserting that these materials represent a deadly risk to all forms of life. The commenter emphasizes that radioactive waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Citing research, the author suggests that even minuscule quantities of radioactive material can cause fatal health outcomes, such as lung cancer, and expresses total skepticism regarding the technical feasibility of keeping such waste completely contained over geological timescales.

From an ethical and socio-economic standpoint, the commenter questions the morality of creating a "forever" radioactive legacy for hundreds of future generations to manage. The submission challenges the necessity of nuclear energy altogether, positing that it is an ongoing myth that nuclear power is a solution to the climate crisis. Instead, the author points to statistics suggesting that renewable energy sources are cleaner, safer, and less expensive. The author concludes that the only real solution to the nuclear waste problem is to stop producing it entirely, framing the project as an unacceptable risk to the biosphere.

Stance: Support. The commenter views the project as essential for the economic future of the Elk Valley and the province. They praise the proponent's existing environmental programs and water quality initiatives, expressing excitement for the project's potential benefits to the community.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed location of the Deep Geological Repository. Writing from the perspective of a professional geologist and a local property owner situated between Ignace and the proposed site, the commenter argues that the selection of this specific location is fundamentally flawed. While the commenter expresses an understanding of the need to move nuclear waste and acknowledges the long-term planning for geological risks like future ice ages, they strongly disagree with the proximity of the facility to critical national infrastructure.

The primary issue raised is the project's location immediately adjacent to the Trans-Canada Highway and major rail lines. The commenter characterizes this area as the country's "main artery of transportation" and questions the logic of placing a high-risk nuclear facility along such a vital corridor. They express significant concern regarding the safety of unsuspecting travelers who would be driving through a potential disaster zone in the event of a breach. From a socioeconomic and safety standpoint, the commenter suggests that any selected site should maintain a substantial buffer, specifically proposing a 300-kilometer distance from the nation's primary transportation routes.

A major red flag identified by the commenter is the perceived lack of due diligence by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). The commenter alleges that the NWMO, as a private organization funded by power companies, has taken the "easy way out" by selecting a site based on convenience and cost-effectiveness rather than seeking the most technically and socioeconomically appropriate location. They argue that Canada’s vast geological knowledge should have allowed for the identification of suitable host rock, such as batholiths, much further north and away from transnational transportation hubs.

The submission concludes by calling on the Government of Canada to withhold approval for this specific site selection. The commenter emphasizes that the mandate to find a host should not result in a location that puts the country's main transportation artery at risk. They advocate for a relocation of the project to a more remote northern area where the geological benefits can be realized without the inherent risks associated with being situated next to the Trans-Canada Highway.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, focusing their objection on the safety and feasibility of the transportation plan. The primary concern is the daily transit of nuclear waste along Highway 17 in Northern Ontario, which the commenter argues is fundamentally unsafe. This stance is rooted in the commenter’s personal experience as a daily commuter on this corridor, leading to a direct rejection of the proposal based on perceived logistical and environmental risks.

The key issues raised center on infrastructure limitations and environmental hazards specific to the Northern Ontario region. The commenter highlights that Highway 17 is a congested, two-lane highway that is frequently impacted by severe weather and wildlife crossings. They point to a history of transport vehicles ending up in ditches or involved in severe accidents as evidence that the current road conditions are unsuitable for the high-stakes nature of nuclear waste transport. These physical constraints are presented as insurmountable barriers to ensuring the safety of the local population.

Furthermore, the submission raises significant ethical and socio-economic red flags regarding regional equity and the value of human life. The commenter expresses a belief that the transport proposal undervalues the lives of Northern Ontario residents, suggesting that the risks are being disproportionately placed on their community. There is a stated fear of a catastrophic outcome, where a single accident could result in mass fatalities or render the entire region uninhabitable. This reflects a deep concern that the project prioritizes waste management objectives over the fundamental safety and viability of the local northern communities.

The commenter, Mark Erickson, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. Drawing on his professional background in instrumentation engineering and his experience as a trained Radiation Safety Officer, he expresses a fundamental rejection of any plan that could result in the release of nuclear waste into the environment. He categorizes such a release as entirely unacceptable and cites the Fukushima disaster as a cautionary example of the risks involved. His stance is rooted in a deep skepticism of the human capacity to safely manage these materials, regardless of the extensive regulatory frameworks currently in place.

The primary issues raised in the submission center on ethical concerns, intergenerational equity, and long-term biological safety. The commenter highlights the unprecedented volume of rules and documentation associated with the nuclear industry compared to other sectors, suggesting that this complexity reflects an inherent danger that cannot be fully mitigated. He raises a significant ethical red flag by questioning the wisdom of burdening future generations with what he describes as "genetic poison," characterizing the current approach to nuclear waste as a product of ignorance and stupidity.

Furthermore, the commenter links his observations of global birth rate changes to the broader implications of nuclear technology, implying a concern for the long-term socio-economic and biological health of the human population. By framing the waste as a permanent threat to the genetic integrity of future generations, he argues that the project represents a failure of human intelligence and responsibility. His assessment suggests that the technical and regulatory efforts to contain nuclear waste are insufficient to justify the potential for catastrophic, multi-generational harm.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, as evidenced by their opening statement requesting an end to the development of nuclear dumps and mines. Their opposition is rooted in a desire to preserve the existing natural environment, specifically the trees and the wildlife that inhabit the area. The commenter views the project as a direct threat to the local ecosystem and demands that no harm come to the animals living at the location.

A primary ethical and environmental concern raised is the use of animal testing for pollution and effluent monitoring. The commenter specifically opposes the use of laboratory fish for sewer water testing and urges the proponent to work with the Canadian Centre for the Alternatives to Animal Methods to implement non-animal testing protocols. This highlights a significant concern regarding the ethical implications of the project's environmental monitoring strategies and a demand for modern, humane scientific alternatives.

The submission also focuses heavily on wildlife management and pest control policies. The commenter identifies the potential for lethal conflict with local species such as geese, beavers, coyotes, bears, and rodents. They strongly advocate for a "no kill wildlife coexistence strategy" and the use of non-lethal management techniques. Specific concerns are raised regarding conventional pest control methods, such as glue traps, snap traps, and rodenticides, which the commenter describes as cruel and dangerous to non-target animals. Instead, they suggest the project invest in non-lethal solutions, including bear-proof bins to remove attractants, humane contraception programs for rodents, and structural modifications to buildings to prevent wildlife entry.

The commenter emphasizes that killing animals is an ineffective solution to wildlife conflicts and instead promotes public education and the removal of attractants as superior management strategies. By providing numerous resources and references to animal welfare organizations, the commenter indicates that the project's social license is tied to its ability to implement humane, non-lethal operational policies. The primary red flags identified are the potential for habitat destruction and the implementation of lethal environmental or facility management practices.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository is Neutral/Unclear. The submission does not explicitly state support for or opposition to the project; instead, it takes the form of a procedural demand for further documentation and analysis. The commenter is calling for a comprehensive evaluation of the project's implications before a determination is made, focusing on the adequacy of the current planning process.

The primary issues raised in the submission center on the requirement for a full impact assessment of the waste plan and a specific transportation assessment. The commenter emphasizes the need to evaluate the risks and logistics associated with moving nuclear waste across Canada. This indicates a significant concern regarding the geographic scope of the project’s impact, suggesting that the assessment must account for the safety and environmental risks inherent in long-distance transport through various jurisdictions and communities, rather than focusing solely on the final disposal site.

The tone of the submission, characterized by the use of multiple exclamation marks, suggests a high degree of urgency or concern regarding perceived gaps in the current regulatory review. By specifically highlighting the transportation of waste across the country, the commenter identifies a major socio-economic and environmental red flag involving the potential for accidents, radiation exposure, or infrastructure strain during the transit phase of the waste management lifecycle. The submission implies that the current assessment may be insufficient if it does not thoroughly address these cross-country logistical risks.

The commenter, Jim Laven, expresses a stance that is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, primarily due to significant concerns regarding transportation safety and the adequacy of regulatory oversight. The submission focuses on the perceived high-risk nature of moving high-level radioactive waste through Northwestern Ontario and argues that the project cannot safely proceed without the direct and rigorous involvement of the Department of Transportation. The commenter views the current planning as insufficient to protect the public from the potentially catastrophic outcomes of a transportation accident.

A primary issue raised is the vulnerability of the regional infrastructure, specifically the use of two-lane highways for what the commenter describes as "overloaded transports" hauling highly toxic materials. The commenter identifies a major socio-economic red flag: the potential for even a minor traffic incident to shut down the Trans-Canada Highway for weeks or months. Such a closure is described as having devastating consequences for both regional industries and the numerous communities that depend on this single route for essential connectivity and economic stability.

Furthermore, the commenter highlights significant environmental and public health concerns related to the nature of the waste itself. By characterizing the cargo as a "highly toxic substance" with a "deadly lifespan of 25,000 years," the submission emphasizes the extreme long-term risks involved. There is a strong ethical appeal for the government to fulfill its "reason for being" by protecting citizens from these devastating consequences. The commenter concludes that failing to employ every available precaution and regulatory safeguard would be "unforgiveable," stressing that the safety of all residents along the entire transport route must be the absolute priority.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, concluding their submission with the command to stop and stating that the project description receives failing marks on both technical and social aspects. They argue that the project lacks broad public support and that the information provided is insufficient for any knowledgeable expert or member of the public to make an informed decision. The commenter expresses a deep skepticism toward the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), suggesting it is too closely connected to nuclear industry interests and that the current process fails to adequately consider alternatives or the long-term safety implications of the repository concept.

A primary technical concern raised involves the thermal pulse generated by the waste, which the commenter argues could compromise the entire multiple-barrier system. They elaborate that heat could lead to the illitization of the bentonite buffer, causing it to lose its essential swelling and sealing properties. Furthermore, the commenter suggests that thermal expansion could cause fracturing, stress cracks, and seismic events in the host rock, creating pathways for radionuclide migration. There are also specific concerns regarding the corrosion of the copper-coated canisters, particularly microbial influenced corrosion (MIC), which the commenter claims could penetrate the protective coating in a much shorter timeframe than the project's safety requirements demand.

The commenter identifies the transportation of nuclear waste as the riskiest part of the entire project, criticizing its omission from the project description. They raise concerns about the potential for container leaks, the health risks of gamma radiation to communities along the transport routes, and the physical impact of heavy transport casks on the existing road network. The submission highlights a lack of compensation for those living along these routes and questions the adequacy of insurance and the Nuclear Liability Act in the event of a significant accident or act of sabotage. Additionally, the commenter points to the risks of radioactive venting from underground shafts, specifically mentioning the health hazards of radon and its decay products, such as Polonium-210, on local wildlife and human populations.

Ethical and socio-economic concerns are central to the submission, particularly regarding the burden placed on future generations and the rights of Indigenous peoples. The commenter argues that there is a lack of transparency regarding deals struck with the Ojibway people and emphasizes that those living near the repository should be the primary guardians of the site rather than profit-motivated entities. They suggest that the nuclear industry has not proven itself to be clean or reliable and that the project should not proceed without a broader national debate on the future of nuclear power in Canada. The commenter advocates for a cautious approach, suggesting that waiting for the waste to cool further and conducting more research into knowledge gaps is preferable to rushing a design that may compromise the well-being of future generations.

The Kitchissippi-Ottawa Valley Chapter of the Council of Canadians is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically regarding the proponent’s request to exclude transportation from the federal Impact Assessment. The commenter asserts that the transportation of high-level nuclear waste is the most contentious and high-risk aspect of the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project. They argue that a full federal Impact Assessment must be mandatory and must encompass the entire lifecycle of the waste, including its movement from various temporary storage sites across Canada to the proposed facility in northwestern Ontario.

The primary concern raised involves the safety and environmental risks associated with transporting "used fuel" over exceptionally long distances on public roadways. The commenter highlights that the northern sections of the TransCanada highway are notorious for high accident rates, particularly during winter months. They argue that every kilometer of travel statistically increases the potential for an accident, which could result in the contamination of waterways, natural environments, and human settlements. The submission notes that high-level radioactive material is notoriously difficult to clean up, posing a significant liability risk to the proponent and the government should a spill occur in a remote area where emergency response and specialized personnel are not immediately available.

A significant regulatory red flag is identified regarding the scope of the Impact Assessment. The commenter claims that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is attempting to bypass scrutiny by requesting that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) omit transportation from its review. The submission argues that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) does not have the mandate or capacity to conduct the necessary risk assessments or public consultations regarding the broader environmental and human impacts of waste movement. They assert that the Initial Project Description is misleading and fails to identify all affected communities, particularly those located along the proposed transit routes who have not been consulted.

Ethical and socio-economic concerns are also prominent, specifically regarding Indigenous rights and public consultation. The commenter demands that the project uphold the rights of impacted communities to be informed and have a say in the process. They explicitly mention the obligation to protect Indigenous rights, including the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent as recognized under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and Canadian law. The exclusion of transportation routes from the project scope is viewed as a failure to identify and engage with all populations that may be affected by the project’s operations.

Environmental and security issues are further elaborated upon as reasons for opposition. The commenter points out that transporting waste over long distances will generate significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions compared to the internationally recommended practice of storing waste at or near the site of generation. Additionally, the submission raises security concerns regarding the potential for theft or sabotage during transit. They argue that the predictable nature of the shipments and the long, remote routes increase the risk of security lapses, which could have catastrophic consequences. The commenter also notes that the project may eventually include waste from Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), further increasing the volume and geographical spread of hazardous shipments.

The commenter, Jeff Archambeault, appears to be in Support of the project and the broader nuclear energy sector. This stance is explicitly stated through his support for nuclear power and his expressed desire for Canada to become a global leader in resolving the challenges associated with nuclear waste management. The submission reflects a perspective that views the repository as a necessary and potentially prestigious solution to a technical reality.

The primary issue raised in the submission is the safety and impact of transporting nuclear waste. The commenter specifically requests that the impact assessment include a detailed evaluation of transportation risks. Furthermore, he raises a technical query regarding the optimal mode of transport, asking for a comparison between the safety of rail versus road transportation. This indicates that while the commenter supports the project's goals, he considers the logistical movement of hazardous materials to be a critical area requiring rigorous study and optimization.

Beyond the technical focus on transportation, the commenter highlights a socio-economic interest in national leadership and innovation. By framing the project as an opportunity for Canada to lead the world in waste management solutions, the submission suggests that the project carries significant weight for the country's international reputation and technical expertise. The comment does not raise specific red flags or concerns regarding Indigenous rights, local environmental impacts, or ethical dilemmas, focusing instead on the high-level execution and safety of waste transit.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository, characterizing the plan as risky and ill-advised. Their opposition is rooted in a broad critique of nuclear energy as a viable strategy for meeting climate commitments. They argue that nuclear development generates pollution at every stage of its lifecycle and produces waste that is inherently difficult to manage. Furthermore, the commenter raises socio-economic and ethical concerns by highlighting the high financial cost of nuclear power relative to renewable energy and its potential associations with the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Regarding the specific project site, the commenter identifies significant environmental risks, noting that the repository would be located at the headwaters of an important watershed. This positioning raises concerns about long-term threats to water quality and the broader ecosystem. Additionally, the commenter points to the dangers of transporting large volumes of hazardous waste through environmentally sensitive areas, suggesting that the logistics of the project pose a threat even before the waste is placed in permanent storage.

A critical socio-political red flag raised in the submission is the lack of Indigenous consent, as the commenter notes that thirteen First Nations have declared their opposition to the project. This highlights a major conflict regarding Indigenous rights and territorial sovereignty. In light of these concerns, the commenter demands a rigorous regulatory process, specifically calling for a full impact assessment and a transparent public examination of the risks associated with the transportation of nuclear waste.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. As a resident of northwestern Ontario for over seven decades, the individual expresses significant distrust in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, characterizing the current regulatory process as a mockery of democratic rights and a failure of meaningful consultation.

The primary environmental and health concerns center on the extreme toxicity and longevity of high-level nuclear waste. The commenter argues that while nuclear energy is often marketed as clean, the resulting waste remains lethal for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. A major red flag identified is the discrepancy between the project’s proposed 160-year lifespan and the millions of years the waste will remain hazardous, specifically noting the absence of a plan for long-term monitoring after the project closes. The commenter fears catastrophic impacts on water, air, wildlife, and human health, citing the historical precedents of Chernobyl and Fukushima as evidence of the potential risks involved in handling such materials.

Procedural and ethical concerns are also a major focus of the submission. The commenter strongly objects to the 30-day public comment period, arguing that it is insufficient for the public to review and respond to over 1,200 pages of technical documentation. They suggest that a minimum of 90 days is required for the process to be considered transparent or legitimate. Furthermore, the commenter views the attempt to "fast-track" the project as a violation of the public's right to be heard and a failure of the government to provide adequate time for scientific and public scrutiny.

Finally, the commenter identifies the exclusion of transportation from the project’s scope as a critical failure. They argue that the repository cannot function without the transport of used fuel rods and that excluding this aspect from the Impact Assessment is a strategic omission. This concern is heightened by current regional anxieties regarding road safety and the frequency of tractor-trailer accidents in Ontario. The commenter insists that the project must be redefined to include a comprehensive analysis of transportation hazards and emergency preparedness for all communities along the transit routes, asserting that the current exclusion is an insult to those who will be impacted by the movement of radioactive waste.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in a fundamental rejection of prioritizing economic gain over environmental sustainability and human integrity. The submission characterizes the project as a manifestation of greed and a continuation of historical harms, specifically citing colonization, genocide, and a lack of transparency as precursors to the current proposal. The commenter views the project as a threat to the spiritual and physical well-being of the community, linking such industrial pursuits to broader social issues like rising addiction and suicide rates.

A primary concern raised involves the socio-economic impact on the local population, with the commenter predicting that the project will cause the cost of living to rise, effectively forcing the community to pay a high price for what they perceive as a corporate monopoly. There is also a significant legal red flag raised regarding the Emergency Act and its potential to override or negatively affect treaties. The commenter questions the safety and necessity of the project by asking why the waste must be shipped to a new location rather than being managed in the communities where it is currently generated, suggesting that the "job creation" argument is a smokescreen for moving a dangerous substance away from its point of origin.

From an environmental and ethical perspective, the commenter emphasizes the toxic nature of nuclear waste, arguing that it is fundamentally incompatible with the health of nature and the community. They use the analogy of watering a garden with toxic waste to illustrate the perceived absurdity and danger of the proposal. The submission concludes by advocating for the intrinsic value of nature, which remains indifferent to financial profit, and calls for supporters to reflect on their motivations, which the commenter attributes to a lack of discernment and a focus on wealth over the sacred offerings of the earth.

The commenter, P. Fraser, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository. The submission is characterized by a highly critical and cautionary tone, describing the project as one of the "greatest of all humankind's mistakes." The author views the initiative not as a scientific solution, but as a dangerous endeavor driven by "stupidity and greed" in the pursuit of "good cheap energy." The language used is emotive and adversarial, comparing the proponents of the project to "Children Playing With Matches" and suggesting that future generations will remember the decision-makers as "fools."

The primary concern raised in the submission is the inevitability of containment failure over geological time. The commenter uses the erosion of ancient petroglyphs and pictographs as a metaphor for the impermanence of human structures. They argue that "Mother Earth" eventually reclaims all things and that the erosion of human-made containers is "imminent" when viewed through the lens of deep time. This represents a fundamental lack of confidence in the long-term integrity of the repository, asserting that it is ignorant to believe that any man-made vessel can withstand the natural processes of change and decay "forever."

Ethical and intergenerational concerns are also central to the comment. The author emphasizes the responsibility to "future inhabitants" and "future generations," suggesting that the current generation is failing in its duty by creating a permanent hazard. By labeling nuclear waste as "the most toxic of human wastes" and "the greatest of all poisons," the commenter highlights a significant environmental and safety red flag regarding the potential for catastrophic contamination once the containers inevitably fail. The submission concludes that the project ignores the "very essence" of natural change, posing an unacceptable risk to the future of the planet.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project as currently framed. Their opposition is rooted in the exclusion of transportation from the Impact Assessment (IA) process, which they argue is an integral and "incidental" component of the project. The author advocates for the eventual phaseout of the nuclear industry, characterizing it as expensive and dangerous, and insists that a project of this magnitude requires parliamentary approval and a more rigorous evaluation of both safety and long-term costs.

A primary concern raised is the safety and transparency of nuclear waste transportation. The commenter highlights two specific highway accidents—one in 2001 near Dryden and another in early 2026 near Lansdowne—to illustrate the risks of transit. They raise significant red flags regarding regulatory oversight, alleging that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) acts as a gatekeeper that limits public reporting of accidents. Specific issues identified include the lack of radiation warning signs on transport vehicles, inadequate training for drivers and carriers, and the use of containers that the author suggests may not be sufficiently tested or appropriate for the materials being moved. The commenter also questions the emergency response capabilities and the lack of investigative journalism surrounding these incidents.

The submission identifies significant socio-economic and legal concerns, particularly regarding liability and insurance. The author points out that under the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act (NLCA), individuals are functionally excluded from using standard automobile insurance for damages resulting from a nuclear incident. This creates a gap in protection for the public. Furthermore, the commenter calls for the Auditor General of Canada to conduct an independent evaluation of the safety and commercial costs of disposal, questioning whether the Long-Term Radioactive Waste Fund is sufficient to cover the federal government's future obligations. They also express concern over the new types of radioactive waste, such as salt and liquid from Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which they believe will present unique packaging and security challenges.

Ethical and procedural concerns are also central to the submission. The commenter emphasizes the need for the Impact Assessment to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Additionally, they highlight a lack of procedural fairness regarding public access to information, noting that hardcopies of the project description were not made available in public libraries outside of the immediate host communities. The author concludes that without including transportation in the assessment and ensuring a fair, transparent public process, the true danger and cost of the "forever decision" cannot be accurately estimated.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project in Northwestern Ontario. Their opposition is rooted in the belief that the project is an unproven experiment lacking historical precedence or scientific backing to support the safety claims made by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. The commenter characterizes the project as a first-of-its-kind endeavor, which leads them to reject the assurances provided regarding the long-term security and safety of the facility and its operations.

The primary technical concerns raised involve the transportation of high-level nuclear waste to the Revell River site and the potential for environmental contamination. Specifically, the commenter challenges the assertion that transportation will be leak-proof and that the waste containers are indestructible. There is a significant focus on the risk of groundwater contamination, with the commenter arguing that providing guarantees against such outcomes is premature and unfounded given the experimental nature of the repository. These points highlight a fundamental distrust in the current safety projections and the physical integrity of the proposed containment systems.

Furthermore, the submission identifies critical issues regarding the regulatory process and governance. The commenter expresses a lack of confidence in the current assessment framework, alleging that the provincial government is already biased in favor of the project. To address these concerns, the commenter advocates for enhanced oversight, specifically recommending that the assessment be conducted by an independent panel. This suggests a perceived need for a more rigorous and impartial review process to counter what they view as unfounded assurances provided by project proponents.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository is Neutral/Unclear. While the individual provides a lengthy philosophical and metaphysical critique of how humanity perceives and interacts with nuclear energy and waste, they do not explicitly advocate for or against the specific construction of the repository. Instead, they propose a fundamental shift in the conceptual framework used to address nuclear waste, moving away from traditional engineering and towards a recognition of what they describe as the sentient nature of the atomic world.

The primary issue raised is the metaphysical interpretation of nuclear physics and the nature of radiation. The commenter, drawing on their background as a geologist and experience at a nuclear reactor site, argues that the four fundamental forces of physics are manifestations of "Love" and "Light." They posit that atoms are social, sentient "family systems" and that the Atomic World should be viewed as a dimension of life. Consequently, the commenter identifies radiation not merely as a physical phenomenon, but as a "collective expression of the distress" of particles whose family structures have been disrupted by the fission process. This suggests a concern that current waste management strategies are based on a flawed, purely materialist understanding of the subject matter.

A significant ethical concern raised is the "colonial gaze" through which humanity views the atomic realm. The commenter draws a direct parallel between the treatment of atoms and the history of colonialism, specifically urging the government to view atomic particles as the "First Nations inhabitants" of a "sub-continent of Atomica." This suggests that the current approach to nuclear waste disposal may be ethically problematic if it does not account for the perceived rights or sentience of the particles being managed. The commenter advocates for a remedial response to radiation based on this new paradigm, though they do not provide specific technical details on how this would alter the physical plans for the repository.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their submission indicates that while they have followed the project since its inception, their opposition has intensified as more information has become available. They characterize the project as dangerous and environmentally harmful, concluding that the proposal is unacceptable and must be stopped entirely.

A primary concern raised is the perceived geographic and ethical inequity of the project. The commenter argues that nuclear waste should be stored closer to the generating plants in Southern Ontario rather than being shipped to Northwest Ontario. They highlight that the Bruce, Darlington, and Pickering plants historically supplied power to Southern Ontario and only recently connected to the Northwest via the East-West tie line in 2022. The commenter views it as an unfair burden to risk contamination on land and people who did not originally benefit from the nuclear energy produced.

The scale and safety of transportation represent significant red flags for the commenter. They express alarm at the projected volume of traffic, noting that three to four trucks per day for nine months a year over fifty years would result in approximately 41,000 truckloads. The commenter describes the 1,700-kilometer route as involving some of the most dangerous roads in Canada and asserts that a crash or collision is a statistical certainty. Furthermore, they question the environmental "green" status of nuclear power when considering the carbon footprint required to truck waste over such long distances.

The commenter also raises concerns regarding the scope of the facility and its hydrological impact. They suggest that if built, the site near Ignace would be the only one of its kind in North America, leading to the acceptance and transportation of waste from various other jurisdictions. Additionally, they point out that the local watershed flows north toward the Arctic Ocean and away from the Great Lakes. The commenter suggests this site selection ensures that any potential contamination would flow through First Nation and northern communities rather than affecting Southern Ontario, which they present as a major ethical and environmental concern.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically regarding the scope of the risk assessment and the perceived dangers of the transportation plan. The submission expresses a lack of confidence in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) current approach, suggesting that the organization is ignoring significant hazards associated with moving radioactive materials across the country.

The primary issue raised is the safety and environmental risk associated with the long-term transportation of radioactive waste. The commenter highlights the significant logistical scale of the operation, which involves two to three trucks per day for a fifty-year period. They express concern that these shipments will travel an average of 1,800 kilometers, primarily over two-lane public roads. This focus on infrastructure suggests a concern for public safety and the potential for accidents on narrow, high-traffic, or poorly suited transit corridors.

Furthermore, the commenter identifies a specific environmental concern regarding the proposed site's location in the headwaters of the Wabigoon River in northwestern Ontario. By linking the transportation route from southern Ontario and eastern Canada to this specific watershed, the commenter emphasizes the potential for widespread geographical impact in the event of a transport-related incident. The submission concludes with a demand for regulatory rigor, insisting that transportation risks must be formally assessed and managed rather than excluded from the project's risk assessment framework.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project, or at the very least, highly critical of its potential environmental consequences. Their stance is rooted in the conviction that the proposed development will inevitably result in damage to the environment, which they personify as "Mother Earth." The commenter explicitly demands that both an impact assessment and an environmental damage assessment be conducted, operating under the stated assumption that harm to the natural landscape is a certainty rather than a risk.

The primary issues raised in the submission are centered on environmental degradation and the necessity of rigorous regulatory oversight. The commenter draws a direct comparison between the proposed project and the environmental impact of the "tar sands," suggesting that the Deep Geological Repository could result in similar large-scale ecological scarring. By urging the Impact Assessment Agency to review aerial imagery of oil sands operations, the commenter highlights a concern regarding visible and permanent damage to the terrain.

From an ethical and environmental perspective, the commenter views industrial development as a physical injury to the planet. They use the term "Bobo's" (likely a colloquialism for sores or wounds) to describe the impact of existing industrial projects on the earth's surface. This language indicates a deep-seated concern for the physical integrity of the land and suggests that the commenter views the regulatory process as a vital mechanism to address the perceived certainty of environmental harm.

The commenter is explicitly in Support of the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project. As an Indigenous resident of Northwestern Ontario with over ten years of engagement with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the individual expresses confidence in the project’s safety, the regulatory oversight provided by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), and the long-term economic and environmental benefits. While the commenter initially held concerns, they now believe the project is a responsible solution for nuclear waste, though they present several specific areas requiring further attention and transparency.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the ethical sourcing of materials and Indigenous rights. The commenter questions whether the copper coating on the Used Fuel Containers is strictly necessary and emphasizes that if it is used, it must be ethically sourced in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). They raise similar concerns regarding the sourcing of bentonite clay, suggesting that Canadian deposits should be prioritized over American ones to ensure environmental and Indigenous rights standards are met. Furthermore, the commenter identifies a critical omission of Métis communities in the project’s current engagement plans and tables, asserting that Métis are distinct rights-bearing people under Section 35 of the Constitution Act who must be included in all decision-making processes.

Environmental protection and site management are also highlighted as key issues. The commenter expresses concern regarding the Excavated Rock Management Area (ERMA), specifically the need for continuous testing for acid-generating potential and the establishment of secured funding for long-term rehabilitation. They also call for more detailed inventories of local flora and fauna, including Species at Risk such as moose, bats, and Black Ash, as well as the protection of wetlands like swamps, marshes, and fens which act as natural filters. The commenter suggests that any plants disturbed by construction should be relocated to an educational garden.

Regarding operational logistics, the commenter raises concerns about cumulative traffic impacts on Highway 17. While they trust the safety of nuclear fuel transportation, they worry about the volume of worker commutes, supply shipments, and rock hauling, especially given the frequency of highway closures in the region. They also note a discrepancy in shipment estimates, observing that the project may process up to five shipments per day rather than the previously discussed two, and they request more information on seasonal shipping windows and the specifications for temporary dry storage of fuel modules.

Finally, the submission addresses waste management and public discourse. The commenter requests greater clarity on the handling and disposal of low- and intermediate-level waste (LLW and ILW), including whether such waste will be co-emplaced in the DGR and how contaminated transportation containers will be managed. They also express concern over the environmental impact of protest activities, such as the release of "nuke pucks" into waterways and the use of plastic signs, which they characterize as "unwelcomed actions." They urge the NWMO to improve the communication of its extensive scientific body of work to address public skepticism and ensure transparent discourse.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Revell Site Deep Geological Repository (DGR). The submission characterizes the project as procedurally flawed, environmentally risky, and socially illegitimate, calling for an immediate halt to the impact assessment process pending an independent review and an audit by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. The commenter argues that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has failed to perform adequate due diligence and that the regulatory environment surrounding the proposal is substandard and polarized.

A primary procedural concern raised is the inadequacy of the 30-day public comment window, which the commenter describes as a catastrophic functional barrier to entry. The submission asserts that requiring stakeholders and volunteer-run groups to review over 1,200 pages of technical documentation within a single month is patently unfair and undermines the legitimacy of the consultation process. This compressed timeline is viewed as a failure of proportionality, given the project's 160-year operational lifespan and millennial hazard duration. Furthermore, technical barriers such as digital portal glitches and the lack of physical copies in local libraries are cited as factors that disenfranchise residents with limited internet access.

Ethical and governance red flags are prominent throughout the submission, specifically regarding allegations of "buying consent" through financial inducements and secret agreements. The commenter highlights a lack of transparency concerning the hosting agreement with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON) compared to the public agreement with Ignace. There are allegations of economic coercion, with the commenter citing reports of "exit payments" and significant disparities in negotiated funds between communities, which have led to internal discord and a breakdown of trust. The "willing host" model is criticized as undemocratic because it excludes regional populations and corridor communities who bear transportation risks but are denied a voice in the consent framework.

Environmental concerns focus on the hydrogeological integrity of the Revell site, which sits at the headwaters of the Wabigoon and Rainy/Turtle River watersheds. The commenter warns that any failure in containment could contaminate critical waterways flowing into Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipeg, with transboundary implications for Manitoba and the United States. There is significant skepticism regarding the long-term stability of the Canadian Shield, with the commenter questioning the predictability of rock integrity over hundreds of thousands of years in the face of seismic activity and glacial cycles. Additionally, the project is seen as a threat to a pristine wilderness, with potential radiological accumulation in the food chain affecting moose, fish, and migratory birds.

The exclusion of transportation risks from the initial assessment scope is identified as a catastrophic regulatory oversight. The commenter argues that transporting high-level waste along narrow, two-lane northern highways like Highway 17 and 11 is inherently dangerous due to severe weather and inexperienced drivers. With an estimated two to three shipments daily for 50 years, the submission contends that accidents are a statistical inevitability. This "road of radioactive risk" is viewed as inseparable from the repository itself. Socio-economically, the commenter fears a "boom and bust" cycle, the stigmatization of the region as a "nuclear dump" damaging the tourism industry, and the potential for a transportation accident to sever the Trans-Canada Highway, which serves as a vital national supply chain artery.

Regarding Indigenous rights, the submission alleges that the process fails to meet the standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). The commenter points to specific territorial disputes, such as the legal action taken by Eagle Lake First Nation, and expresses concern for communities like Grassy Narrows that are already dealing with industrial legacies like mercury poisoning. The submission emphasizes that the potential "irreversible molestation" of Mother Earth and the contamination of sacred headwaters represent a fundamental violation of the fiduciary duty of the Crown and a failure to integrate Indigenous Knowledge into the safety assessment.

The commenter is Opposed to the project proceeding under its current evaluation framework, as evidenced by their formal demand for a full impact assessment and a public hearing. Their position is defined by a lack of confidence in the current scope of the project's review, specifically regarding the exclusion or insufficient treatment of waste transport risks. The submission functions as a procedural challenge, insisting that the regulatory process must be expanded to include a comprehensive analysis of the logistical and safety implications of the project's long-term operations.

A primary concern raised is the safety and scale of transporting radioactive waste over a fifty-year period. The commenter highlights a significant logistical red flag, noting that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) intends to manage two to three truckloads of radioactive waste per day. The submission emphasizes the high-risk nature of these trips, which are expected to average 1,800 kilometers in length. Furthermore, the commenter points out that these shipments will travel mostly on two-lane public roads, which suggests concerns regarding traffic safety, the potential for accidents, and the adequacy of existing infrastructure to handle hazardous materials over such a prolonged duration.

The commenter also identifies a major environmental concern related to the proposed site's location. By noting that the repository is situated in the headwaters of the Wabigoon River in northwestern Ontario, the submission implies a risk to water quality and the broader ecosystem. The geographic scope of the concern is vast, spanning from nuclear generating stations in southern Ontario and eastern Canada to the sensitive headwaters in the north. This highlights a socio-economic and environmental tension regarding the movement of hazardous waste across diverse regions and the potential for long-range impacts in the event of a transportation failure or site leakage.

The commenter explicitly states their position as being strongly opposed to the proposed project. Their opposition is rooted in the risks associated with the logistics of the operation, specifically the movement of hazardous materials.

The primary issue raised in this submission is the safety of transporting hazardous waste. The commenter expresses significant concern regarding the transit of these materials through local communities and across provincial boundaries. They characterize the transportation aspect of the project as an extremely dangerous proposition, suggesting a high level of perceived risk to both human populations and the environment.

The commenter identifies two main areas of concern regarding potential negative impacts: public safety and the integrity of nature. By highlighting the danger to the public and nature, the submission underscores a fear of accidents, spills, or exposure during the transportation phase. There are no mentions of economic benefits or other mitigating factors, as the focus remains entirely on the perceived environmental and safety threats posed by the movement of waste.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear regarding the ultimate approval of the Deep Geological Repository; however, they are explicitly critical of the current scope of the Impact Assessment. The submission functions as a formal request for a broader regulatory review, characterized by a tone of concern regarding the perceived omissions in the project's planning phases. By labeling the exclusion of certain factors as "incredibly unwise," the commenter signals a lack of confidence in the current assessment's comprehensiveness.

The primary issue raised is the necessity of including nuclear waste transportation routes and their associated risks within the formal impact assessment. The commenter argues that the territory potentially affected by the movement of radioactive materials is too vast to be ignored. This highlights a concern for geographic scope, suggesting that the environmental and safety implications of the project extend far beyond the physical boundaries of the repository site itself. The commenter insists that a full understanding of the project is impossible without accounting for these transit corridors.

Furthermore, the submission emphasizes several high-level environmental and ethical concerns, specifically the cumulative effects of the project and its long-term sustainability. There is a significant focus on intergenerational equity, as the commenter explicitly mentions the need to understand impacts on future generations. This suggests that the commenter views the project not just as a contemporary technical challenge, but as a long-term legacy issue that requires a holistic evaluation of risks to ensure the safety and well-being of the public and the environment over an extended timeline.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their submission is characterized by a high degree of concern regarding the safety of the project and a perceived lack of transparency and inclusion in the regulatory and consultation process. The commenter views the project as an imminent threat rather than a beneficial development, describing it as a disaster waiting to happen.

A primary issue raised in the submission is the lack of consultation with local residents and property owners. The commenter expresses frustration that they have not been contacted by the project proponents despite living in close proximity to the proposed site. This raises significant ethical and procedural concerns regarding the adequacy of the proponent's community engagement efforts and whether all potentially affected stakeholders are being given a fair opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

The commenter also highlights specific geographic concerns related to proximity and transportation safety. They identify as a property owner located 15 kilometers from the excavation site and only 1 kilometer from the train tracks. This proximity drives their assessment that the project is completely unsafe, particularly regarding the transport of materials by rail. The submission suggests that the risks associated with the project and its logistics directly affect nearby residents who feel excluded from the dialogue, leading to a total lack of confidence in the project's safety and management.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically regarding the perceived exclusion of transportation risks from the impact assessment. The submission expresses a clear lack of confidence in the regulatory process, questioning how the authorities can justify omitting the dangers associated with moving nuclear waste over long distances. The tone is critical and suggests that the current scope of the assessment is insufficient to protect public safety.

The primary issue raised is the safety and frequency of nuclear waste transportation. The commenter highlights the logistical scale of the operation, noting that two to three trucks per day would be required to travel an average distance of 1,800 kilometers. A significant infrastructure concern is identified regarding the use of two-lane highways for these shipments, which the commenter implies are unsuitable or higher-risk for such hazardous cargo. This presents a clear safety and environmental red flag concerning the potential for radioactive release in the event of a transit mishap.

Furthermore, the commenter focuses on the statistical inevitability of accidents over the project's long-term operational phase. They argue that even if the travel distance were significantly reduced to 300 kilometers, statistical projections indicate that at least ten accidents would occur over a 50-year period. By suggesting that these risks are easily identifiable through modern analytical tools like artificial intelligence, the commenter challenges the rigor of the current assessment and raises an ethical concern regarding whether the project's proponents are intentionally ignoring predictable safety failures.

The commenter’s stance is categorized as Neutral/Unclear. While they explicitly state they are not saying "no" to the proposed project, they withhold support until specific and significant infrastructure conditions are met. Their perspective is rooted in a conditional framework where the project’s viability is dependent on prior improvements to regional transportation networks.

The primary issue raised is the safety and adequacy of the transportation corridor between Thunder Bay and Ignace. The commenter highlights that the current single-lane highway system is already dangerous due to factors such as inclement weather, wildlife, heavy transport traffic, and frequent accidents or closures. They argue that introducing high-risk nuclear waste shipments to this existing infrastructure is inappropriate. As a prerequisite for the project, the commenter demands the twinning of the highway from Thunder Bay to Ignace to mitigate these safety risks.

Furthermore, the submission addresses concerns regarding rail transportation. The commenter emphasizes that if waste is moved by train, there must be significant investment in rail safety, active monitoring, and robust emergency response systems. They caution against making assumptions about the inherent safety of rail transport without these dedicated resources. The central ethical and socio-economic argument presented is that infrastructure and safety measures must be fully implemented before the project moves forward, rather than being addressed as an afterthought.

The commenter, representing the organization Montreal for a World BEYOND War, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project. The submission characterizes the project as a failure to address the fundamental drawbacks of nuclear waste, which the author argues cannot be realistically managed. The commenter views the continued reliance on nuclear energy as a short-term financial gain for investors that results in long-term environmental degradation, describing the industry as a boondoggle that leaves the planet irradiated and poisoned.

A primary concern raised in the submission is the exclusion of transportation risks from the project description. The commenter argues that omitting the risks associated with transporting 112,750 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste over a fifty-year period is a significant oversight. They contend that the regulatory separation of transportation infrastructure does not eliminate the physical dangers of potential incidents on Canada’s roads. This is presented as a major red flag regarding the project's safety assessment and scope.

The submission also highlights a significant temporal mismatch between the project’s lifespan and the nature of the waste. The commenter points out that while the project covers a period of 160 years, the nuclear waste will remain radioactive for a duration described as close to eternity. Consequently, the DGR is viewed as an inadequate solution. The author disputes the characterization of the project as safe or environmentally friendly, questioning how the burial of such a massive quantity of radioactive material can be framed as an ecological benefit.

Ethical and socio-economic concerns are woven throughout the text, with the commenter describing nuclear waste as a poisoned pill and a legacy of human hubris. The submission suggests that the intelligence required to create nuclear technology has not been matched by the wisdom to manage its consequences. The commenter urges the cancellation of the project and a total shift away from nuclear energy toward alternative energy sources, arguing that the DGR is not a viable solution for the burden nuclear waste places on the planet.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project and the broader nuclear industry. Writing from the professional perspective of a physician, the individual expresses significant concern regarding the risks that uranium exploration, mining, and nuclear power generation pose to human health and the environment. The commenter asserts a fundamental belief that nuclear waste cannot be disposed of safely due to its persistence for thousands of years, which serves as a direct critique of the feasibility and safety of long-term storage solutions like a Deep Geological Repository.

The primary issues raised in the submission center on public health, environmental protection, and the long-term management of radioactive materials. The commenter highlights the intergenerational ethical concern of leaving behind hazardous waste that remains dangerous for millennia. Furthermore, the submission identifies a perceived failure in current waste management strategies, suggesting that the inherent dangers of the material outweigh any potential benefits of nuclear energy. This leads to a call for a total cessation of nuclear-related activities, reflecting a deep-seated distrust in the industry's ability to mitigate long-term biological and ecological risks.

From a socio-economic and policy perspective, the commenter advocates for a strategic shift in government investment away from nuclear energy and toward renewable alternatives such as wind and solar. The commenter argues that these renewable sources are more economically viable, faster to deploy, and ethically preferable because they do not generate radioactive waste. By citing the success of renewables in other jurisdictions, the commenter suggests that the project is unnecessary and that the Canadian government should instead prioritize a transition to a non-nuclear energy grid to ensure the well-being of the population and the environment.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically regarding the logistics of waste movement. The primary concern identified is the inherent danger associated with transporting hazardous nuclear waste over long distances. The commenter expresses a lack of confidence in containment measures, arguing that regardless of the precautions taken, the risk of unexpected events or accidents remains a significant and unacceptable threat to public safety and the environment.

The submission highlights a specific safety concern regarding the geographical gap between the waste's origin and its final repository. To mitigate these risks, the commenter suggests an alternative approach where nuclear waste is deposited closer to the nuclear plants where it is generated. This recommendation is rooted in the desire to eliminate the transportation phase entirely, which the commenter views as an unquestionably dangerous component of the proposed plan. There are no mentions of economic benefits or Indigenous rights, as the focus is strictly on the perceived environmental and safety hazards of transit.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project based on the concerns raised regarding its scope and technical uncertainty. A primary issue identified is the exclusion of waste transportation from the environmental assessment process. The commenter argues that the logistics of moving nuclear waste from generation sites to the depository involve numerous trips over very long distances, which they believe should be a central component of the regulatory review.

The submission highlights significant safety concerns related to the transportation of hazardous materials. The commenter asserts that accidents are almost certain to occur given the frequency and distance of the trips required. They specifically point to the risk of accidents in remote locations, which implies concerns about the difficulty of emergency response and the potential for environmental contamination in areas that may be hard to access or remediate.

Furthermore, the commenter raises red flags regarding the unprecedented nature of the project. They note that the deep depository would be the first of its kind in the world, leading to a high degree of technical uncertainty. The commenter expresses skepticism based on historical precedents where large-scale projects resulted in unintended consequences that were not identified during the planning phases. By characterizing the proposal as a pioneer in the industry, the commenter suggests that unforeseen and negative outcomes are an inherent and almost certain risk of proceeding with this specific technology.

The Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition - No Nukes Manitoba Campaign is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project as currently described in the Initial Project Description. The commenter characterizes the project as one of the largest industrial developments in Canada, involving the burial of highly toxic materials, and argues that it must be subject to a Comprehensive Impact Assessment with a Panel Review and meaningful public hearings. They find the current Initial Project Description inadequate and the 30-day comment period and participant funding timelines insufficient for public interest groups to address the complex technical, health, and engineering risks involved.

A primary concern raised is the project's justification regarding climate change. The commenter strenuously objects to the NWMO’s positioning of nuclear power as a solution to climate change, labeling such claims as false and misleading. They argue that refurbishing or building new nuclear plants may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions due to the continued use of fossil-fuel-generated electricity during lengthy construction periods. The submission demands that the assertion that this project assists in meeting climate commitments be removed from the project justification.

The exclusion of waste transportation from the scope of the impact assessment is identified as a major red flag. The commenter insists that the movement of high-level waste is integral to the project and must be assessed, particularly regarding the use of hazardous routes like Highways 11 and 17 in Ontario. They raise safety concerns about weather-related road closures that could force trucks carrying radioactive materials to stop in unplanned areas, potentially increasing radiation exposure for drivers. They emphasize that the project lacks social license because it has not secured the consent of the Indigenous Nations and small communities located along these extensive transportation corridors.

Environmental concerns extend to transboundary impacts, specifically challenging the claim that there will be no impacts outside of Ontario. The commenter points out that the proposed site is located on watersheds that drain into Manitoba via Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipeg. They argue that any radioactive contamination of water or air could travel into Manitoba or the United States, affecting Manitobans who own property or travel in the area. Additionally, they criticize the NWMO for failing to report the greenhouse gas emissions associated with 50 years of daily waste transportation.

Ethical and socio-economic issues are highlighted regarding Indigenous rights and intergenerational equity. The submission notes the stated opposition of at least 13 Treaty 3 First Nations and specifically supports Eagle Lake First Nation’s position that they have not been properly consulted. The commenter describes the NWMO’s language regarding the "lesser extent" of respect for certain Indigenous groups as disrespectful. Finally, they dispute the claim that the project relieves future generations of the burden of nuclear waste, arguing that as long as the nuclear industry continues to expand and produce new waste, the claim of eliminating future burdens is illogical and misleading.

The commenter is explicitly in Support of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed Deep Geological Repository. Their submission is primarily a defense of the project’s scientific basis and an attack on what they characterize as "scaremongering" and "mis-information" from activists. The commenter believes that the process for evaluating the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel in Northwestern Ontario is being unfairly disrupted by unsupported data and emotional appeals rather than objective analysis.

A primary issue raised is the safety of transportation and the physical state of the waste. The commenter argues that concerns regarding radioactive leaks during transit are unfounded because the spent fuel is a solid material and therefore cannot leak. They emphasize that transportation will be governed by the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and utilize robust, proven containers. The commenter views the focus on transportation accidents as a "red herring" designed to distract from the scientific mitigations proposed by the NWMO to protect watersheds and the environment.

The submission also addresses the socio-ethical concerns regarding community willingness and the agency of local populations. The commenter specifically defends the roles of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON), rejecting the characterization of these areas as "vulnerable" or "depressed" communities that were "bought off." Instead, they assert that these are informed host communities exercising their right to participate in a legal licensing and approval process. They emphasize that consultation is a mandated part of the law and that the decision to be a host is a rational one based on a desire to be informed.

Regarding the technical maturity of the project, the commenter disputes the claim that the technology is "unproven" or merely a "concept." They argue that Deep Underground Repositories are the globally recognized solution for high-level nuclear waste, noting that several other nuclear-producing nations are further ahead in the implementation process than Canada. They dismiss the suggestion to "keep it where it is made" as a deceptive tactic that ignores the necessity of long-term isolation provided by a repository.

The commenter highlights significant socio-economic benefits as a major reason for their support. They project that the repository will revitalize the economy of Northwestern Ontario by providing long-term, well-paying jobs and increasing the regional population, which would in turn improve social services. They anticipate that small businesses will thrive, tourism will "boom," and local youth will have the opportunity to remain in the region for high-quality employment rather than being forced to move away for work.

In conclusion, the commenter advocates for an assessment process where objectivity and science are the determining factors. While they acknowledge the importance of hearing from First Nations and other regional stakeholders to address legitimate risks, they caution against allowing "subjective fear" to derail the project. They maintain that the repository represents a safe, long-term solution backed by technology and common sense.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project in Northwestern Ontario. Their opposition is rooted in a fundamental lack of trust regarding the safety assurances provided by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and a skepticism toward the promised economic benefits for the local community of Ignace and its surrounding areas.

A primary concern raised involves the long-term environmental impact on the regional watershed. The commenter expresses significant apprehension regarding the potential for nuclear waste to leak into water systems, which they believe would result in devastating consequences. They highlight a perceived failure by the proponent to provide a total guarantee against such leaks. This demand for absolute certainty extends to the transportation of nuclear waste, where the commenter questions the integrity of transport containers and the potential for human health risks in the event of an accident. The commenter notes that their requests for a guarantee of zero negative impact during transit have not been met.

From a socio-economic perspective, the commenter disputes the project's ability to address existing economic issues in the Ignace region. They suggest that the millions of dollars allocated for project-related infrastructure, such as a new facility, would be better spent on immediate community needs like housing initiatives. Furthermore, the submission raises an ethical concern regarding the distribution of benefits, asserting that the project primarily serves the interests of government entities and high-level executives rather than the local population.

The commenter, Catherine Courtine, expresses a clear stance of being Opposed to the project proceeding under its current conditions. As a resident of Thunder Bay, the author highlights that their community would be significantly impacted by the proposal. The tone of the submission is one of high concern, specifically regarding the safety and environmental implications of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's plans.

The primary issues raised in the submission center on the transportation of nuclear waste and the long-term environmental consequences of geological burial. The commenter identifies Thunder Bay as a key location on the proposed transportation route, which serves as the basis for their concern regarding the movement of hazardous materials through their region. Additionally, the author raises environmental red flags concerning the act of burying nuclear waste, suggesting apprehension about the potential for contamination or unforeseen ecological damage resulting from the repository.

Furthermore, the commenter outlines specific procedural demands that reflect a perceived need for greater transparency and rigorous oversight. They explicitly request that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conduct a full Impact Assessment inclusive of a public hearing to facilitate community engagement. A critical requirement identified by the commenter is that the scope of this assessment must be expanded to include a thorough examination of waste transportation risks, indicating that any assessment excluding these transit factors would be considered insufficient.

Stance: Neutral. The commenter seeks clarification on economic mitigation plans and federal policy regarding future mining developments. They emphasize that regulatory certainty and predictable timelines are crucial for personal and financial planning, suggesting that a lack of clarity may lead residents to relocate to other jurisdictions.

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) provides a stance that is Neutral/Unclear regarding the final approval of the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project, as the organization functions as a national advocacy body rather than a rights-holder. However, the report conveys a high degree of skepticism and conditional requirements from the First Nations participants involved in their dialogue sessions. The AFN emphasizes that while the presence of nuclear waste is an existing reality that requires a solution, any progress on the DGR is strictly contingent upon the fulfillment of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as mandated by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The submission underscores that the project currently lacks the necessary transparency and trust required to secure such consent from the many affected communities.

The primary environmental and ethical concerns center on the protection of water and the long-term integrity of the land. Participants expressed significant fears regarding the potential for groundwater contamination, specifically affecting the Great Lakes and interconnected watersheds which hold profound spiritual and cultural significance. There is a strong sentiment that the current 70-year monitoring plan proposed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is woefully inadequate for a substance that remains hazardous for millennia. The AFN calls for life-cycle monitoring and clear accountability regarding which entity will be responsible for the waste following the eventual closure of the repository. Furthermore, the report highlights red flags regarding climate change and natural disasters, such as melting permafrost, forest fires, and seismic activity, which could compromise the structural integrity of the DGR.

Transportation safety is another critical issue, with the AFN identifying at least 210 First Nations communities located along potential transport routes. The report notes that many participants view current transportation testing methods as outdated and rely too heavily on old simulations. There is a significant concern regarding the lack of transparency regarding exact transportation routes, which prevents First Nations from being fully prepared for emergencies. The AFN recommends the development of First Nations-led emergency response plans and communication systems that account for the unique challenges of remote locations. The submission also points to a socio-economic imbalance, noting that while Southern Ontario receives the majority of the benefits from nuclear power, Northern regions and First Nations communities bear a disproportionate share of the risks associated with waste storage and transportation.

Finally, the AFN raises concerns regarding the broader nuclear energy landscape, including the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and the potential for Canada to become a "dumping ground" for international waste. The report suggests that nuclear energy is often "greenwashed" and calls for a greater focus on renewable energy alternatives. To address these issues, the AFN urges the NWMO to support First Nations-led impact assessments and to provide independent resources for communities to conduct their own research. The submission concludes that the dialogue is only in its beginning stages and that the federal government must fulfill its fiduciary responsibility by ensuring that First Nations' inherent rights, sovereignty, and traditional knowledge are the guiding forces in any decision-making process.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project and the nuclear industry as a whole. They characterize radioactive waste as a potent poison and advocate for a federal ban on nuclear fission reactors, viewing the technology as a science failure and a deadly weapon rather than a viable business or energy solution.

The primary concern raised is the fundamental incompatibility of radioisotopes with biological life and DNA. The commenter argues that nuclear fission introduces unstable atoms into an enclosed global environment where materials are constantly recycled at an atomic level. They contend that these isotopes displace the stable atoms necessary for life, leading to a slow, stealthy, and permanent poisoning of the planet. The submission highlights that unlike carbon dioxide, which can be recycled by nature, radioactivity cannot be eliminated and persists for millions of years, effectively lasting forever in the context of human existence.

The commenter cites a long list of historical nuclear incidents and contaminated sites—including Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, St. Louis, Chalk River, Port Hope, Windscale, ASSE II mine, Kyshtym, and Andreev Bay—as evidence of the lethal nature of nuclear technology. There is a significant ethical concern regarding the prioritization of economic growth and progress over the long-term safety of the species. The commenter suggests that the pursuit of nuclear energy is a failure of human intelligence to utilize safer, more economic alternatives.

Regarding the specific proposal of a Deep Geological Repository, the commenter views the act of transporting and burying waste underground as an irresponsible approach akin to hiding dust under a carpet. They argue that this strategy fails to address the root cause of the problem, which is the production of waste at the source. Consequently, they suggest that waste should remain at its point of origin rather than being moved, while simultaneously calling for the cessation of all nuclear reactor operations to prevent further waste generation.

A major red flag identified is the potential for global radioactivity contamination, which the commenter views as a more severe and permanent threat than carbon dioxide emissions. They express a deep concern for intergenerational equity, arguing that leaving a legacy of radioactive waste is an indiscriminate threat to the survival of future generations. The submission concludes by framing the current trajectory as a path toward extinction, urging a shift in strategy to avoid a fate worse than that of the dinosaurs.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in the belief that the risks associated with high-level radioactive waste are too great to justify the project, suggesting that if a safer alternative to burial in Northern Ontario cannot be found, then nuclear energy as a whole should be abandoned. The submission characterizes the project as "dumping" and concludes that the potential for catastrophic failure makes the endeavor not worth the risk.

The primary environmental and health concerns raised center on the extreme toxicity of radioactive waste. The commenter argues that accidental exposure or leaks into the land and waterways would cause irreparable harm, including gene mutations and cancer in humans, while poisoning the diverse species of Northwestern Ontario. They emphasize that there is no 100% guarantee against leaks and that such failures have occurred in the past, threatening the long-term health of the ecosystem, including birds, insects, fish, and mammals.

Ethical and socio-economic issues are also prominent in the submission, particularly regarding Indigenous rights and regional equity. The commenter calls for the respect of First Nations and their right to a clean, toxic-free environment, specifically highlighting the importance of protecting their river systems. Furthermore, the commenter raises a significant concern regarding environmental justice, questioning why Northwestern Ontario is considered a permissible location for waste disposal when the residents of the Greater Toronto Area would likely react negatively to a similar proposal in their own region.

Finally, the commenter identifies the transportation of nuclear waste as a major red flag. They point out the high risk inherent in moving approximately 5.9 million used nuclear fuel bundles over thousands of kilometers from various provinces daily for up to 50 years. The commenter believes that the probability of a transit accident over such a long duration and distance poses an increasingly high and unacceptable risk to public safety.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository in northwestern Ontario. Their opposition is rooted in a fundamental rejection of nuclear energy, which they characterize as an expensive, slow, and dangerous response to the climate crisis. The individual expresses a deep-seated concern regarding the long-term safety of nuclear waste and the risks associated with its storage and transportation.

The primary environmental concerns raised involve the potential for subsurface pollution and the contamination of critical watersheds. Specifically, the commenter highlights the risk to the Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipeg watersheds, noting that any leakage or failure could impact all communities within these areas. They argue that human activity has already degraded air, water, and soil quality, and they view the repository as an extension of this pollution into the underground environment.

From a regulatory and procedural standpoint, the commenter demands a comprehensive impact assessment. They emphasize the need for a transparent public examination of the risks associated with transporting nuclear waste and the technicalities of underground storage. Furthermore, they call for the meaningful participation of concerned Canadians within a timeframe that is both sufficient and adequate for thorough review. Ultimately, the commenter frames their opposition as an ethical necessity for the protection of current and future life, urging the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada not to proceed with the proposal.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project and the broader operation of nuclear power plants. Their stance is rooted in the belief that the safe management of radioactive waste and emissions is an impossible goal. The submission rejects the fundamental assumptions made by nuclear operators and proponents, arguing that the inherent risks associated with nuclear materials cannot be mitigated through current or proposed management strategies.

The primary issues raised in the comment center on the extreme toxicity of radioactive waste and the perceived inevitability of containment failure. The commenter characterizes radioactive waste as some of the most dangerous substances in existence, posing a severe threat to both human life and the environment. A significant technical concern cited is the concept of material entropy, which the commenter uses to argue that no material can be permanently contained over time. They assert that radioactive waste and emissions will naturally move and disperse, regardless of the storage or disposal methods employed.

From an ethical and policy perspective, the commenter views the pursuit of nuclear energy as an act of arrogance, suggesting that it is irresponsible to create substances that cannot be safely managed. The submission concludes with a broad demand to cease the construction and operation of all nuclear power plants. The commenter’s position is that the only way to address the environmental and safety risks of radioactive waste is to stop producing it entirely, thereby eliminating the need for long-term storage solutions like the proposed repository.

The commenter is categorized as Opposed to the project in its current form, expressing significant concerns regarding the safety and procedural integrity of the proposal. A primary issue raised is the long-term transportation of radioactive waste through or near populated municipalities, which the commenter identifies as an integral but dangerous component of the project. They argue that these activities, spanning multiple decades, present serious threats to public safety, emergency preparedness, and the environment. Consequently, the commenter demands that the scope of the federal impact assessment be expanded to include a comprehensive evaluation of all proposed transportation activities and their associated impacts.

Furthermore, the submission highlights a significant ethical and socio-economic concern regarding the fairness of the regulatory review process. The commenter points to a perceived financial imbalance, noting that while the proponent appears to have unlimited funding to develop and submit their proposal, stakeholder and environmental groups lack the necessary resources to provide an equivalent level of scrutiny. They advocate for equal funding to be made available to these groups to ensure a full and balanced review of the project. This suggests a red flag regarding procedural equity, as the commenter believes the current disparity in resources hinders a truly comprehensive and objective assessment of the proponent's claims.

The commenter appears to be in Support of the project, explicitly stating a preference for increased nuclear energy production as a means to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This indicates a foundational alignment with the nuclear sector's expansion, of which the Deep Geological Repository is a critical component. However, the support is contextualized within a broader demand for significant national infrastructure improvements.

The primary issues raised by the commenter are socio-economic and logistical, focusing on the urgent need to modernize Canada’s transportation networks. Specifically, the commenter identifies the improvement of the railway system and the expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway to four lanes as essential requirements. These upgrades are viewed as necessary to support commercial drivers through the provision of pull-off areas and services, which in turn benefits less populated communities and facilitates interprovincial trade.

While the submission does not directly address the technical or environmental specifics of the repository itself, it highlights a perceived dependency between large-scale energy initiatives and the robustness of national transit infrastructure. The commenter presents these infrastructure upgrades as an immediate priority that must accompany the shift toward nuclear energy to ensure economic viability and safety for the transportation sector.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository and the associated transportation of nuclear waste through Northern Ontario. Their opposition is rooted in a fundamental disagreement with the expansion of nuclear energy and the specific logistics of the waste management plan. The commenter expresses a lack of trust in the regulatory process, suggesting that the government may be prioritizing corporate interests over the well-being of the public.

A primary concern raised is the need for procedural fairness and transparency. The commenter argues that the current timeline for community engagement is insufficient, demanding more time for affected populations to understand and respond to the proposal. This concern extends geographically to all communities located along the potential transportation routes, those living at the proposed site, and specifically those residing within the Wabigoon and Rainy/Turtle River watersheds. The mention of these specific watersheds highlights a significant environmental concern regarding the potential for toxic contamination of vital water systems.

The submission also challenges the ethical and socio-economic justifications for the project. The commenter disputes the claim that nuclear energy is a necessary tool for addressing the climate crisis, labeling such assertions as misleading. They argue that the high cost of nuclear power relative to renewable energy, combined with the lengthy timelines required for nuclear development, makes it an ineffective solution for urgent climate mitigation. Furthermore, the commenter points to the pollution generated during all stages of the nuclear cycle as a reason to pivot away from nuclear investment.

In summary, the commenter identifies several red flags regarding the long-term management of nuclear waste and the integrity of the decision-making process. They advocate for a complete shift in energy policy, urging the government to cease investment in nuclear development and instead direct resources toward renewable energy solutions. The commenter views the risks to local watersheds and the environmental impact of the entire nuclear lifecycle as unacceptable burdens for the affected communities in Northern Ontario.

The commenter, Roger Dufault, explicitly identifies as a very strong supporter of the Deep Geological Repository project moving ahead. As a long-term resident of Ignace and a former chair of the Ignace Ad Hoc committee, he emphasizes his desire to see the community grow and prosper. However, his support is tempered by significant concerns regarding the current host agreement, the negotiation process, and the perceived lack of equitable economic benefits for the residents of Ignace compared to other stakeholders.

A primary issue raised is the perceived imbalance in the recognition of community needs. The commenter argues that the health and economic prosperity of Ignace residents should be given the same weight as Indigenous needs in project documentation. He asserts that since the project depends on the work and support of Ignace residents, there should be no distinction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people regarding who benefits from the development. He expresses concern that the current focus may overlook the contributions and requirements of the local township.

The commenter highlights a major erosion of trust and confidence in both the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) and the local municipal council. He attributes this to a poorly negotiated host agreement that he claims provides the community with less annual funding than it received prior to the contract. He points out a lack of transparency and public consultation during the negotiation phase, noting that the final agreement of $170 million is significantly lower than the $4 billion agreement for the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the deal offered to South Bruce. This disparity has led to feelings of resentment among residents who feel the NWMO took advantage of the community.

Socio-economic concerns are central to the submission, particularly regarding infrastructure, housing, and essential services. The commenter notes that despite the project, residents have seen increases in property taxes and water rates. He argues that the current agreement is too weak to provide for necessary improvements in education, healthcare, and housing. He advocates for the NWMO to build employee housing and locate manufacturing facilities within Ignace to drive the population growth required to secure provincial funding for services. He warns that without adequate infrastructure investment from the proponent, the town risks financial instability, drawing parallels to a historical period when the community entered provincial receivership due to mining-related growth costs.

Finally, the commenter addresses the issue of safety and long-term community viability. While acknowledging that safety is the primary concern for residents, he focuses on the necessity of guaranteeing economic prosperity to ensure the project's success. He views the host agreement as a living document and expresses hope that future negotiations will address the current shortcomings. He concludes by reiterating his support for the project, provided it is executed in a way that allows the community to feel the promised prosperity and regain its pride as a host community.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. Their stance is rooted in a fundamental distrust of the regulatory process and the long-term safety of nuclear waste management. They argue that the project represents a significant threat to public safety and the environment, specifically challenging the characterization of nuclear energy as a clean power source.

A primary concern raised is the transportation of nuclear waste over thousands of kilometers on public roads. The commenter identifies the exclusion of transportation from the assessment process as a major red flag, suggesting that this omission is a tactical move by the government to hide extreme hazards and stifle public opposition. They demand a full impact assessment and public hearings to ensure transparency, asserting that the current lack of disclosure indicates a secretive approach to project planning.

The commenter also raises significant environmental and ethical concerns regarding the integrity of the disposal site, which they describe as a "mound." They contend that such a facility will inevitably leak, leading to the contamination of the surrounding area and the Ottawa River. This potential for environmental degradation is framed as a failure of current technology to safely manage radioactive waste. Finally, the commenter highlights a socio-economic and ethical issue regarding intergenerational equity, viewing the project as a "horrible legacy" that unfairly burdens future generations with the risks of radioactive contamination.

The commenter appears to be in Support of the project in principle, though this support is strictly conditional upon the fulfillment of specific procedural and scope-related requirements. He explicitly states a preference for the Deep Geological Repository over continued above-ground storage in populated areas, citing the safety of his family in Ontario as a primary motivator. However, he emphasizes that his support is contingent on the project undergoing a comprehensive assessment that includes the risks associated with transportation.

A primary procedural concern raised is the inadequacy of the 30-day comment period, which the commenter argues is insufficient for reviewing the extensive 1200-page full Project Description. He strongly recommends an extension of this timeline to allow for meaningful commentary. Furthermore, he advocates for a comprehensive assessment involving a full Panel review process under the Impact Assessment Act to ensure an enhanced and transparent public review. He also calls for an independent panel dedicated to the public interest, drawing parallels to previous environmental impact assessments such as the Canaport LNG Project.

The commenter identifies the transportation of high-level radioactive waste as a critical omission from the current Project Description. He argues that the project cannot be separated from the risks of moving waste across Canada and expresses a lack of confidence in existing regulatory frameworks, such as the Dangerous Goods Act and NWMO oversight, to manage these risks or provide adequate public engagement for communities along travel routes. He insists that a detailed, project-specific public participation plan must be developed to inform and consult residents who live near these transportation corridors, ensuring they receive the same level of engagement as those near the repository site.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the psycho-social health effects of the project, specifically the potential for increased stress and anxiety among the public. The commenter highlights that the project may aggravate existing mental health conditions and notes a lack of recognition for vulnerable populations as defined by Health Canada. He points out that the repository area has limited mental health resources and suggests that the Public Health Agency of Canada should be involved to identify and mitigate these effects. He references historical precedents where public fear and perception were recognized as legitimate health risks requiring mitigation through robust engagement.

Regarding alternatives and the proximity principle, the commenter mentions the option of enhanced on-site storage silos at nuclear power plants but ultimately rejects this in favor of the repository. His reasoning is based on the perceived risk of keeping radioactive material in above-ground silos near densely populated regions. He concludes by reiterating that while he supports the repository concept to secure hazardous materials, it must be subject to the most rigorous, inclusive, and robust review process possible, covering both the site itself and the transportation infrastructure required to service it.

The commenter’s stance regarding the proposed Deep Geological Repository project is Neutral/Unclear. The submission does not provide any specific feedback, data, or opinions regarding the merits or risks of the nuclear waste project itself. Instead, the commenter focuses entirely on the technical difficulties encountered while attempting to use the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s (IAAC) public comment system, noting that they intend to provide their actual project-related comments at a later time.

The primary issue raised is a procedural and technical barrier to public participation. The commenter highlights a significant flaw in the digital engagement process, specifically the lack of a time-sensitive indicator or warning before a session expires. This technical limitation resulted in the loss of an hour’s worth of work and prevented the individual from submitting their views. The commenter explicitly calls for a review of the IAAC’s web interface to ensure that Canadians are not "kicked off" the page, which suggests a concern for the overall accessibility and user-friendliness of the regulatory process.

From a regulatory standpoint, this submission identifies a red flag concerning the integrity and inclusivity of the public consultation phase. If the submission portal is prone to timing out without saving progress or notifying the user, it creates a barrier to entry that may discourage or prevent meaningful public discourse. This raises ethical concerns regarding procedural fairness, as technical hurdles can inadvertently silence stakeholders and undermine the transparency of the impact assessment process.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their submission characterizes the creation and long-term storage of nuclear waste as an act of "hubris and folly," reflecting a deep-seated ethical and philosophical objection to the project. The commenter views the current plan not as a solution, but as a "grievous error" that fails to account for the extreme longevity of the hazardous materials involved.

The primary concerns raised center on environmental preservation and transportation safety. The commenter specifically objects to the burial of waste in "pristine wilderness," suggesting that such an action would cause irreparable harm to untouched ecosystems. Furthermore, they highlight the risks inherent in transporting dangerous materials over "thousands of miles," suggesting that the logistics of moving the waste significantly increase the overall danger of the project. The long-term toxicity of the waste, which remains dangerous for a duration exceeding recorded history, is presented as a fundamental flaw in the repository concept.

As an alternative to the repository, the commenter advocates for a strategy of on-site storage and intensified scientific research. They suggest that waste should remain where it was originally generated until research can provide a method to make the material inert. Additionally, the commenter proposes a significant policy shift by recommending the phasing out of nuclear power production. This is intended to prevent the further accumulation of toxic waste until a definitive technological solution for neutralization is found, rather than relying on permanent geological burial.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project based on the significant safety concerns raised regarding the transportation of nuclear waste. The submission is characterized by apprehension and a lack of confidence in the existing infrastructure's ability to facilitate the safe movement of hazardous materials to the Ignace site. The commenter’s stance is rooted in the perceived incompatibility between the high-risk nature of the cargo and the current state of regional transportation routes.

The primary issue identified is transportation safety, specifically focusing on the physical risks associated with the highway system. The commenter points out that the highways in the area are dangerous and subject to frequent closures. This raises a significant logistical and safety red flag regarding the potential for transport trucks to become stranded during road closures or, more severely, to be involved in traffic accidents while carrying nuclear waste. These concerns highlight a perceived environmental and public health risk, as an accident involving nuclear waste could have catastrophic consequences for the local area.

Furthermore, the commenter raises a critical question about the feasibility of the project’s safety protocols given the unreliability of the local infrastructure. By highlighting that the highways are "often so unsafe," the submission suggests that the socio-economic and environmental costs of a potential transit incident have not been adequately addressed. The commenter seeks a guarantee of safety that they feel is currently impossible to provide under existing road conditions, indicating that the proponent must address these infrastructure vulnerabilities before the project can be considered viable.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. The submission concludes with a clear statement that no further nuclear waste should be generated and that the burial of any such waste should not be attempted. The commenter views the project as an unacceptable risk to public safety and the environment, citing both technical and ethical grounds for their opposition.

A primary concern raised is the danger associated with the transportation of nuclear waste over hundreds of miles. The commenter asserts that this process is inherently dangerous and places the lives of thousands of people at risk. Furthermore, the submission challenges the validity of safety calculations provided by proponents. The commenter argues that historical nuclear accidents worldwide demonstrate that low-probability risk assessments are often incorrect and that unforeseen failures are a recurring reality in the nuclear industry.

Environmental and health risks are also central to the submission. The commenter identifies the potential for long-term radioactivity and leaks to contaminate soil, water, and air, which would subsequently impact crops, livestock, and broader ecosystems. Regarding human health, the commenter highlights the risk of chronic radiation exposure, particularly for vulnerable populations living in proximity to the waste site. These environmental threats are linked to socio-economic concerns, including the potential for property devaluation, the loss of tourism, and increased healthcare costs that could economically isolate affected communities.

The submission emphasizes the ethical issue of intergenerational burden, noting that nuclear waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. The commenter argues that burying waste creates an unfair responsibility for future generations. Additionally, the commenter questions the technical feasibility of burial, stating that waste must be maintained for ten half-lives to be safe—a requirement they claim cannot be met if the material is buried. To support this, they point to international precedent, specifically mentioning that Germany attempted burial and was forced to retrieve the waste at significant expense and risk, suggesting that burial is a failed strategy.

The commenter, Val Klassen, expresses a stance that is Opposed to the proposed project. This opposition is rooted in specific environmental concerns regarding the long-term safety and containment capabilities of the repository, particularly as they relate to the protection of vital water systems.

The primary issue identified in the submission is the potential for water quality degradation. The commenter highlights a significant geographical concern, noting that the proposed project site is situated at the headwaters of the Wabigoon and Rainy/Turtle River watersheds. The commenter points out that these watersheds eventually drain into Lake Winnipeg, suggesting that the environmental risks are not localized but could have far-reaching downstream impacts. The central concern is that any potential leakage from the facility would negatively affect the water quality of these interconnected systems.

From a regulatory standpoint, this submission raises a red flag regarding the hydrological integrity of the site and the potential for transboundary or large-scale environmental contamination. By linking the project site to the health of Lake Winnipeg, the commenter emphasizes the high stakes of repository failure. The submission focuses exclusively on environmental safety and the preservation of water resources, without mentioning socio-economic benefits or other project justifications.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a historical lack of trust in nuclear waste management, specifically citing the experience in Port Hope, Ontario, where radioactive tailings used as landfill were linked to high cancer rates and required significant compensation for removal. This personal history serves as a primary red flag, leading the commenter to argue that even if the perceived chance of a problem is small, the consequences of failure are catastrophic and historically proven to occur.

A major concern raised is the safety of transporting nuclear waste over hundreds of miles, which the commenter describes as a dangerous activity that puts thousands of people at risk. The submission further elaborates on the risks of burial, including the potential for long-term radioactivity to cause leaks that contaminate soil, water, and air. Such environmental contamination is identified as a threat to crops, livestock, and ecosystems, while also posing chronic health risks to vulnerable populations living near the waste sites.

The commenter also identifies significant socio-economic and ethical concerns. They argue that contaminated regions may suffer from property devaluation, loss of tourism, and increased healthcare costs, leading to economic isolation. From an ethical standpoint, the commenter highlights the intergenerational burden, questioning the responsibility placed on future generations to manage hazardous materials that remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. They also point to international precedents, such as challenges faced in Germany, as evidence that burial may not be a permanent or safe solution.

Finally, the submission raises technical concerns regarding the longevity of the waste. The commenter asserts that because the half-life of nuclear waste can extend into millions of years, it requires maintenance that cannot be performed once the material is buried. Based on these cumulative risks, the commenter concludes that the generation of more nuclear waste should cease and that burial should not be pursued as a disposal method.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository and the continued generation of nuclear waste. Their position is rooted in a personal and historical perspective, citing their upbringing in Port Hope, Ontario, where radioactive tailings from fuel rod production were used as landfill. The commenter links this past mismanagement to significant health consequences, including the cancer-related deaths of family members and hundreds of other residents. This experience serves as a primary justification for their skepticism toward risk assessments, as they argue that low-probability events frequently occur in practice and that the consequences of failure are catastrophic.

A major concern raised is the safety of transporting nuclear waste over hundreds of miles, which the commenter characterizes as an obviously dangerous activity. Beyond transportation, the submission outlines several specific risks associated with the burial of waste, including the potential for long-term radioactivity to cause leaks and contamination of soil, water, and air. Such environmental degradation is noted for its potential to impact crops, livestock, and broader ecosystems. The commenter also highlights the health risks of chronic radiation exposure, particularly for vulnerable populations living in proximity to the disposal site.

The submission further identifies significant socio-economic and ethical red flags. From an economic standpoint, the commenter warns of property devaluation, the loss of tourism, and increased healthcare costs that could lead to the economic isolation of affected communities. Ethically, the commenter raises the issue of intergenerational burden, questioning the morality of leaving hazardous waste that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years to be managed by future generations. They argue that because the waste must be maintained for ten half-lives to be considered safe, burial is an inadequate solution as it prevents necessary maintenance.

Finally, the commenter points to international precedents as a reason for caution, specifically mentioning that countries like Germany have attempted waste burial only to face the increased expense and risk of retrieving the waste later. The submission concludes with a firm recommendation against the burial of any nuclear waste and a call to stop the generation of new waste entirely, based on the belief that the technical and ethical challenges of long-term containment cannot be met through the proposed repository model.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project in its current state, characterizing the proposal as premature and potentially illegal. They argue that the current announcement should be declined because it lacks a defined scope of work and fails to provide the necessary technical and procedural details required for a project of this magnitude. The commenter suggests that the current process is designed to secure approval before the full risks and costs are actually understood or disclosed to the public.

A primary concern raised involves the adequacy and timing of consultation with First Nations. The commenter asserts that while public announcements mention Indigenous groups, there is no evidence of substantive consultation regarding storage risks, transportation, or long-term funding responsibilities. They emphasize that Indigenous consultation must be a foundational first step rather than a concluding one. They demand a transparent record of the consultation process, including start dates, participants, and the specific topics discussed, to ensure that legal requirements for consultation are met before the project proceeds.

The submission also highlights significant gaps regarding transportation safety and infrastructure. The commenter identifies a lack of detail concerning the specific routes, volumes, and types of nuclear waste to be moved. They raise red flags regarding the involvement of transportation engineers and the assessment of infrastructure such as bridges, roads, and rail lines. Furthermore, they point to a lack of engagement with the various municipalities through which the waste will be transported and express concerns regarding the design and safety of the containment vessels intended for transit.

Finally, the commenter raises critical questions regarding long-term financial liability and risk management. They express skepticism about whether existing utilities and nuclear power plant owners will remain financially responsible for the facility’s costs over a 160-year period. From a regulatory perspective, the commenter identifies the absence of a formal Risk Register as a major deficiency. They argue that without a comprehensive document that identifies all potential risks, mitigation actions, and resultant risk levels, it is impossible for the Review Panel to accurately assess the viability and safety of the proposed long-term nuclear storage facility.

The commenter, Jaro Franta, appears to be in Support of the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project, primarily by challenging the accuracy and objectivity of opposing testimony provided by Dr. Erika Simpson of the University of Western Ontario. The submission functions as a technical and historical rebuttal, arguing that the information used to foster public "insight" against the project is misleading. The commenter emphasizes that for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to proceed in a well-reasoned manner, the claims made by project opponents must be rigorously checked for factual correctness.

A primary issue raised is the mischaracterization of historical nuclear research in Canada. The commenter asserts that earlier efforts at the Whiteshell Laboratories in Manitoba and the Eye-Dashwa pluton near Atikokan were strictly for geological research and the development of site characterization techniques, rather than actual attempts to select a disposal site. By providing historical news clippings and research citations, the commenter argues that these sites were never intended to be DGR locations, contradicting claims that they represent failed siting processes. This distinction is presented as a critical correction to the "historical context" offered by project critics.

Regarding socio-economic concerns and public engagement, the commenter highlights a perceived omission of local support in previous DGR proposals. Specifically, the submission points to a 2013 poll in the Municipality of Kincardine which showed a majority of residents (60% to 73%) supported the establishment of a long-term management facility. The commenter suggests that ignoring such data constitutes a misleading representation of public sentiment and procedural history. Furthermore, the commenter addresses international examples like the Asse mine in Germany, noting that its failures were due to it not being originally licensed or regulated as a nuclear facility, a context he claims is often omitted by opponents to create undue alarm.

Environmental and safety concerns, particularly regarding seismic activity, are also addressed in detail. The commenter disputes the relevance of the Fukushima Daiichi accident to the Ontario DGR project, labeling the comparison "pathetic" due to the vast difference in earthquake magnitudes. The submission notes that the largest recorded earthquake in northwestern Ontario (magnitude 3) releases a billion times less energy than the magnitude 9 Tohoku earthquake. Additionally, the commenter points out that the damage at Fukushima was caused by a tsunami, not the earthquake itself, and that interim nuclear fuel storage remained undamaged. The commenter argues that the structural integrity of used fuel containers is sufficient to withstand extreme external forces, drawing a parallel to the durability of materials observed in other major seismic events.

Finally, the commenter raises an ethical and institutional red flag regarding the involvement of the University of Western Ontario. He suggests that the university should dissociate itself from Dr. Simpson’s submission, alleging that the work lacks objectivity, misrepresents historical information, and is driven by "antinuclear ideology." The commenter concludes that the university should not be listed as the author of such claims, as they undermine the integrity of the regulatory assessment process.

The Town of Kapuskasing presents a stance that is best characterized as Neutral/Unclear regarding the overall approval of the project, yet they are explicitly critical of the current regulatory scope. Their submission functions as a formal expression of concern regarding the exclusion of critical project components from the Initial Project Description. While the Town does not explicitly state total opposition to the repository itself, their insistence on a more comprehensive federal Impact Assessment indicates a high level of caution and a demand for greater regulatory oversight and transparency before the project moves forward.

The primary issue raised by the Town is the omission of long-distance transportation of high-level radioactive waste from the project's assessment framework. The municipality argues that transportation is an integral and inseparable part of the project's operations and must be treated as such. By omitting this from the Initial Project Description, the Town suggests the current review is incomplete. They emphasize that the movement of radioactive materials through or near Northeastern Ontario municipalities will span multiple decades, necessitating a thorough evaluation of the long-term implications for the region.

The Town identifies several specific areas of concern related to these transportation activities, including public safety, the integrity of municipal infrastructure, and environmental protection. There is a significant focus on emergency preparedness, implying that municipalities may face risks or burdens that have not been adequately addressed in the current project description. The Town demands that these transportation activities and their associated impacts be included within the scope of the federal Impact Assessment to ensure the review process is comprehensive and accounts for the safety and infrastructure needs of all potentially impacted communities.

The stance of Dr. Erika Simpson’s submission is Neutral/Unclear. While the author does not explicitly state a personal position of support or opposition, the document serves as a critical academic critique of the institutional and procedural dynamics of the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) process. The submission is framed as a series of "lessons learned" and "fifty questions" intended for oversight, which largely highlight significant risks, procedural deficiencies, and areas of public and international concern.

A primary issue raised is the safety and security of transporting nuclear waste. The author identifies the risks associated with an estimated 22,000 to 24,000 truck shipments over a 30-year period, noting the potential for dozens of road collisions. A significant red flag is raised regarding the vulnerability of these shipments to terrorism or militant attacks, as well as the lack of transparency regarding transportation routes. The submission also critiques the proponent’s preference for road transport over rail, suggesting that cost and infrastructure flexibility were prioritized over potential safety benefits or public preference.

Environmental concerns focus heavily on the proximity of the proposed site to the Great Lakes. The author questions the wisdom of locating a repository just 1.6 kilometres from Lake Huron, which provides drinking water for 40 million people. The submission highlights concerns regarding the cumulative effects of radiation on deep groundwater and the potential for "disruptive scenarios" such as shaft failure, undetected fractures, or human intrusion after the site is closed. The author notes that the proponent has historically dismissed these scenarios as "very unlikely," a stance the submission suggests warrants greater scrutiny.

Socio-economic and ethical issues are also prominent. The author points to the need for a more robust analysis of Indigenous sovereignty, land rights, and cultural heritage. A specific ethical concern is raised regarding the legitimacy of the consent process, noting that financial payments made to Indigenous groups and local councils could be perceived as influencing their ability to oppose the project. The submission emphasizes "seven-generation thinking," questioning the morality of making permanent waste disposal decisions today that shift all long-term risks onto future generations who have no voice in the current process.

Finally, the submission addresses geopolitical and procedural challenges. The author notes that the DGR project has faced significant opposition from hundreds of municipalities and U.S. members of Congress, suggesting that the project could strain international relations between Canada and the United States. Procedurally, the author critiques the short timelines for public input and the proponent’s tendency to dismiss alternative sites based on cost and project delays rather than a comprehensive comparison of safety and public confidence. The document concludes that the DGR represents a long-term challenge that requires more than short-sighted technical or economic solutions.

The commenter, Roy Fuller, a long-term resident of Ignace since 1967, explicitly expresses support for the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project. His stance is rooted in a desire for economic revitalization, as he notes the community’s history of growth during active mining operations followed by the subsequent decline after mine shutdowns. He specifically highlights the anticipation of new jobs and town growth as primary socio-economic benefits of the project.

A significant portion of the submission details the commenter's transition from initial opposition to full support. He mentions owning a camp on a lake north of the proposed site, which initially caused him to be "totally against" the project. However, his perspective shifted following extensive personal engagement with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). By participating in three different committees and attending various information sessions and courses in Southern Ontario, he concluded that the project is safe.

The key issues addressed in the comment include the safety of the repository itself and the safety of transporting used nuclear fuel. The commenter emphasizes that his "total turn around" was the result of the information provided by the NWMO, praising the organization for its efforts in public education and transparency. He views the project as a safe endeavor that will provide necessary economic stability to the region.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project and the continued use of nuclear energy. Their stance is rooted in a fundamental distrust of the safety, economic viability, and transparency of the nuclear industry. They characterize the promotion of nuclear energy as an attempt to pacify the public rather than an honest assessment of the risks involved. The commenter suggests that the regulatory process is currently failing to be upfront about the dangers of nuclear power and the difficulties of managing its waste.

A primary concern raised in the submission is the safety and long-term management of high-level nuclear waste. The commenter expresses significant doubt regarding the ability to safely store such waste and implies that the public is being misled about the safety of these operations. This is framed as a moral and ethical issue, with the commenter stating that the conscience of those in charge is at stake and that the "right thing" to do is to acknowledge the harm caused by nuclear energy to human and environmental health.

The submission also focuses on socio-economic and infrastructure concerns, specifically criticizing the reliance on large, expensive energy grids powered by uranium fission. The commenter advocates for a shift toward decentralized energy production, suggesting that smaller grids tailored to specific ecosystems would be more efficient and wiser. They propose a focus on passive energy housing and communities designed for energy efficiency as alternatives to the current model. The commenter argues that human ingenuity should be redirected toward researching and implementing renewable energy rather than supporting big projects that they believe fail to meet the needs of diverse global ecosystems.

Finally, the commenter highlights a conflict between corporate profits and public health. They assert that humanity must prioritize health over the financial interests of corporations. The submission concludes by calling for a transition to what the commenter describes as "true green" and renewable energy sources, suggesting that the current path is unsustainable and that a change in leadership perspective is necessary to protect the world from the perceived harms of the nuclear industry.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their stance is rooted in a fundamental skepticism regarding the necessity of the facility and a significant concern over the risks associated with the logistics required to make the project functional. By referring to the repository as a "dépotoir" (dump), the commenter signals a lack of confidence in the project's framing and its long-term value compared to maintaining waste at its sites of origin.

The primary issue raised is the transportation of 112,750 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste across Canadian territory. The commenter emphasizes that this logistical undertaking would span several decades and involve various potential methods of transport. They argue that the sheer scale and duration of these transport activities present such significant risks that they must be mandatorily included in any impact assessment. The commenter suggests that the environmental and safety implications of moving such a massive quantity of hazardous material are inseparable from the project itself.

Furthermore, the commenter raises a concern regarding the project's "raison d'être" or reason for being. They posit that if the waste were to remain at its current locations, the repository would have no justification for existing. This highlights a socio-economic and safety-based argument that the risks introduced by transporting the waste may outweigh the perceived benefits of a centralized deep geological repository. The submission serves as a demand for a broader regulatory scope that accounts for the entire lifecycle and movement of radioactive materials rather than just the storage site itself.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. A primary concern raised in the submission is the risk associated with transporting nuclear waste over long distances across Canada, specifically along the TransCanada Highway. The commenter highlights the highway's role as a vital national link and expresses fear that a catastrophic accident could lead to significant service interruptions, which they view as a threat to national connectivity and nationhood. They specifically point to the danger of wildlife collisions in Northern Ontario, such as hitting a moose, as a plausible and common occurrence that could trigger a transport disaster.

The submission raises significant environmental and socio-economic red flags regarding the potential for toxic waste to enter watersheds and impact local communities. The commenter draws parallels to historical nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and the events in Japan to illustrate the potential for long-term displacement of people and the cessation of economic activity. There is a specific concern for the province of Manitoba, as the commenter asserts the disposal site is part of the Lake Winnipeg watershed. They argue that any leaching of nuclear waste would destroy the ecological health, recreational enjoyment, and economy of the Lake Winnipeg area, which is already struggling with recovery needs.

Beyond the immediate physical risks of the repository, the commenter critiques the broader utility of nuclear energy in the context of climate change. They argue that nuclear power is slow, expensive, and hazardous compared to wind and solar energy, which they claim have seen rapid reductions in cost and installation time. The commenter suggests that nuclear energy is a poor choice for meeting urgent carbon emission reduction goals. Finally, the submission concludes with a regulatory demand, stating that the assessment process must include a mandatory public examination of the transportation of nuclear waste to be considered proper.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a fundamental rejection of the plan to transport nuclear waste 1,700 km from Southern Ontario to Northern Ontario, arguing that if the waste were truly safe, it should remain at its current location. The submission highlights a perceived lack of social license, stating that the citizens of Northern Ontario do not want the project or the risks it entails.

A primary concern raised involves the environmental and safety risks associated with the transportation of nuclear materials over long distances. The commenter asserts that the potential for accidents and contamination during transit is a critical factor that must be considered. Furthermore, they express a high degree of certainty that the project will eventually lead to the contamination of the water table through leaks. This environmental concern is coupled with a deep-seated distrust of the nuclear industry, which the commenter describes as having a careless attitude toward safety.

The submission identifies several historical and ongoing examples of contamination—including sites at Chalk River, Port Hope, Elliot Lake, Pickering, Gunnar, and Lorado—to justify this lack of trust. The commenter alleges that the industry has a history of brushing aside or failing to report leaks and contamination issues. This perceived lack of transparency and historical failure to manage waste safely serves as a significant red flag regarding the proponent's ability to manage the proposed repository safely and ethically.

Finally, the commenter raises socio-economic and strategic concerns regarding Canada’s energy future. They argue that nuclear energy is an outdated technology and that the continued investment in this sector, driven by those heavily invested in the industry, is hindering the country's transition to green technologies and alternative energy sources such as hydrogen. The commenter suggests that Canada is being left behind by other advanced countries by failing to pivot away from nuclear power.

The commenter, Lindsay Williams, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed underground nuclear waste repository in Northwestern Ontario. The submission frames the project as a significant threat to the environment, local communities, and future generations, arguing that the inherent risks of the project are unacceptable given the sensitive nature of the region's ecosystems.

A primary concern raised involves the potential for environmental contamination of freshwater resources, forests, and Indigenous lands. The commenter argues that these ecosystems are not easily repaired and that no long-term containment system can be considered truly risk-free over the thousands of years that nuclear waste remains hazardous. The submission suggests that any failure in containment would result in catastrophic consequences for the region’s culture, life, and local economies.

The commenter also identifies significant risks associated with the transportation of radioactive materials over long distances. Specific red flags include the potential for accidents, spills, or exposure events, which are exacerbated by Northern Ontario’s severe weather and limited infrastructure. Furthermore, the submission highlights a socio-economic concern regarding the lack of preparedness of local emergency services to handle nuclear-related incidents. The commenter notes that many communities along the proposed transport routes have not consented to these risks.

Finally, the submission addresses ethical and Indigenous rights concerns, stating that consultation with local residents and Indigenous rights-holders has been insufficient. The commenter emphasizes that a project of this magnitude requires genuine engagement and free, prior, and informed consent rather than a reliance on technical assessments alone. The analyst notes that the commenter urges the government to explore alternative waste management strategies that prioritize transparency and safety without placing the people and lands of Northwestern Ontario at risk.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project in its current form, characterizing the Initial Project Description as technically premature, democratically insufficient, and lacking the necessary social license. The submission argues that the foundation of the project is built upon admitted data deficiencies, particularly regarding socio-demographic information for unincorporated communities and the surrounding region. A significant ethical and procedural concern is raised regarding the claim of having "willing and informed hosts" when Indigenous social, cultural, and health data remain incomplete and unverified by many directly affected First Nation and Métis groups. The commenter asserts that without this validation, any claims of "low risk" are speculative.

A major red flag identified in the submission is a "transparency barrier" resulting from the confidentiality of the hosting agreement with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, which prevents public and regulatory oversight of environmental and social safeguards. The commenter also criticizes the proponent’s attempt to decouple off-site transportation risks from the project assessment and the exclusion of a "no-action" alternative, which they argue hinders a neutral evaluation of the project's necessity. These issues are presented as fundamental flaws in the transparency and scope of the current impact assessment process.

Socio-economic and safety concerns are centered on the critical lack of local emergency services in unorganized territories. The commenter highlights that the project area has no local fire, police, or ambulance presence, forcing a reliance on distant regional hubs in Ignace or Dryden. This is viewed as creating unacceptable response times for a major industrial and nuclear project. The influx of a transient workforce of 800 people and subsequent secondary population growth are expected to further strain fragile regional services. Consequently, the commenter demands that the proponent demonstrate 100% on-site self-sufficiency for emergency response rather than downloading risks onto neighboring communities.

The 160-year project lifecycle is noted for introducing extreme long-term uncertainty. The commenter points out that the Initial Project Description relies on generalities for post-closure monitoring and institutional control rather than specific, enforceable protocols. This leaves legal and financial mechanisms for long-term liabilities undefined. Additionally, the "adaptive management" approach is criticized for lacking clear, quantitative thresholds or "off-ramps" that would signal when to modify or suspend the project. The assessment is also deemed insufficient for failing to account for the foreseeable expansion of the repository to include Intermediate-Level Waste or waste from Small Modular Reactors.

To rectify these issues, the commenter formally requests that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada mandate a restructuring of the process. This includes extending the review period for independent technical peer-review, expanding the assessment scope to include the full transportation corridor as a core Valued Component, and requiring full transparency regarding confidential hosting agreements and missing socio-demographic data. The commenter concludes that failure to enforce quantitative off-ramps and ensure on-site emergency self-sufficiency will result in an assessment that prioritizes industry timelines over public safety and community consent.

The commenter is Opposed to the current regulatory process and the project's proposed timeline, arguing that the existing framework fails to provide the necessary rigor for a project of such immense duration and scale. The primary objection centers on the 30-day review window, which the commenter characterizes as fundamentally inadequate for a multi-billion-dollar project intended to last 160 years. They argue that this brief period prevents communities from moving beyond promotional narratives provided by the proponent to conduct their own independent verifications of the project's claims.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on transparency gaps and the integrity of the data used in the assessment. The commenter highlights the confidentiality of key agreements as a barrier to meaningful engagement and points to an admitted lack of verified socio-economic and Indigenous data. This suggests an ethical concern regarding the basis upon which decisions are being made, implying that the current assessment may be relying on incomplete or unverified information rather than a comprehensive regional understanding.

The commenter raises socio-economic and equity concerns regarding the potential disenfranchisement of residents in unorganized territories. These neighbors are identified as particularly vulnerable because they lack the municipal infrastructure and technical resources required to interpret thousands of pages of complex nuclear documentation within the allotted timeframe. The submission emphasizes that for informed consent to be legitimate, the Government of Canada must provide independent technical support to local and regional communities, ensuring that administrative efficiency and industry-led timelines do not take precedence over thorough public understanding and participation.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in the belief that the project is an irresponsible, short-sighted attempt to justify continued investment in nuclear energy rather than a genuine solution to waste management. They emphasize that nuclear waste remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, a timeframe they argue exceeds the reliability of any human-built structure. The commenter asserts that the proposal to bury and eventually abandon the waste is a fundamental failure to protect future generations from potential water contamination and environmental degradation.

A primary concern raised is the risk associated with the transportation of nuclear waste. The commenter argues that a full impact assessment must include transportation risks, specifically highlighting the dangers of using highways in Northwestern Ontario which they claim are already prone to fatal accidents. They express significant worry for the safety of first responders and communities along the transit routes, noting that any accident or leakage would be irreversible. Furthermore, the commenter points to a perceived lack of scientific data regarding the long-term behavior of materials deep within the Canadian Shield, suggesting that the reactions at such depths are unknown and require more rigorous testing before any decisions are made.

The submission also raises significant ethical and socio-economic red flags regarding the decision-making process. The commenter alleges that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has influenced local authorities through financial incentives and promises, which they characterize as greed-driven decision-making. They argue that the project lacks broad social license, stating that the decision should involve all people within the affected watershed and along transportation corridors, rather than just those in the immediate vicinity of the site. They specifically align their opposition with First Nations people and other residents of Northwestern Ontario.

Finally, the commenter suggests that the DGR model is flawed because it precludes the use of future technologies. They argue that burying the waste for "all eternity" prevents future generations from utilizing or neutralizing the material should new scientific advancements occur. They propose that storing waste adjacent to existing reactors would be a more responsible approach, as it keeps the material accessible for potential future treatment. The commenter concludes by reiterating that the risks to the environment, humanity, and future generations are simply too great to justify the project.

The commenter is Opposed to the expansion of nuclear energy and maintains a critical, cautionary stance regarding the Deep Geological Repository project. While the individual acknowledges the project's role in addressing the existing burden of nuclear waste, their overall position is rooted in a rejection of nuclear power as a viable component of Canada’s future energy mix.

The primary issues raised center on the perceived failure of nuclear energy to meet environmental and climate goals. The commenter argues that nuclear fission is not a suitable solution for Canada’s commitments under the Paris Agreement or the target of net-zero emissions by 2050. This opposition is based on the assertion that nuclear power is significantly more expensive than renewable energy and that its slow deployment timeline prevents it from replacing fossil fuels quickly enough to mitigate climate change.

Furthermore, the submission highlights several environmental and ethical red flags. The commenter describes nuclear energy as a "dirty" technology, citing pollution generated throughout its entire lifecycle. They also raise concerns regarding international security, suggesting that the nuclear energy cycle potentially contributes to nuclear proliferation. Regarding the Deep Geological Repository specifically, the commenter expresses a concern that investing too heavily in waste management infrastructure might inadvertently encourage the construction of more reactors. They conclude that while the DGR may solve a legacy problem, it should not be used as a justification for further investment in nuclear energy production.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a fundamental distrust of the project's long-term safety and the adequacy of the current regulatory process. They argue that the timeline for public commentary is insufficient and that the communication surrounding the project has been inadequate, suggesting that a decision of this magnitude—involving materials that remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years—is being rushed.

A primary concern raised in the submission is the perceived irresponsibility of burying and eventually abandoning nuclear waste. The commenter challenges the technical feasibility of the project by questioning whether humans are capable of building anything that can last for the thousands of years required to ensure safety. They characterize the plan as a "limp effort" designed to justify continued investment in nuclear energy rather than a legitimate solution to waste management. This reflects a broader ethical concern regarding intergenerational equity, as the commenter believes the project saddles future generations with the risk of environmental contamination.

The submission also highlights significant risks related to transportation and water quality. The commenter insists that a full impact assessment must account for the dangers posed to all communities located along the waste transportation routes. They express a high degree of skepticism toward the nuclear industry’s safety claims, asserting that accidents are an inevitable reality. Ultimately, the commenter views the proposal as a shortsighted decision that puts both the environment and humanity at risk by failing to fully assess long-term effects and the potential for catastrophic failure.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project, describing it as a "nuclear madness" and a "utopian" endeavor that should never be authorized. The submission characterizes the project description as a document that conceals true risks to secure authorizations and spend "pharaonic" amounts of money without genuine regard for public safety or environmental protection.

A primary issue raised is the perceived lack of trustworthiness and logical consistency of the project proponents. The commenter points out a contradiction in the proponents describing nuclear energy as "clean" while simultaneously planning to isolate 112,750 tonnes of highly radioactive heavy metals, including Plutonium-239. They argue that the proponents lack the objectivity required to manage such a project and are presenting incongruous arguments to hide negative aspects. Furthermore, the commenter asserts that the project's stated goals—guaranteeing safety for 160 years and ensuring zero risk to health or the environment—are fundamentally unattainable. They compare the 160-year guarantee to short-term consumer warranties, labeling the proponent's claims as "delusional" given the extreme longevity of radioactive waste.

The submission identifies a significant red flag regarding the absence of a detailed budget. While the proponents claim the project is funded by the nuclear industry rather than the federal government, the commenter argues that because the industry receives government subsidies, the project is indirectly funded by taxpayers. They demand a complete financial plan and a detailed breakdown of costs. Additionally, the commenter finds the project's timeframe "doublely absurd." They argue that 160 years is far too short to ensure the safety of isotopes like Plutonium-239, which remain dangerous for over 100,000 years, yet also too long for stable human management. They cite historical volatility, such as wars and pandemics, as evidence that maintaining consistent political and technical oversight over 40 successive governments is impossible.

Ethical and safety concerns are also raised regarding transportation and long-term liability. The commenter criticizes the exclusion of waste transport from the project scope, arguing that the risks of accidents on Canadian roads and railways over a 50-year period are unacceptably high. They highlight a perceived logical flaw where the proponents reject space disposal due to accident risks while claiming ground transport is safe. Finally, the commenter notes that the project does not account for waste from newly announced reactors and lacks a "denuclearization" strategy. They conclude that the repository is not a permanent solution but rather a way for current decision-makers to "shovel" a dangerous problem onto future generations who will have no way to hold the original proponents accountable.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project in Northwestern Ontario. Their stance is rooted in significant concerns regarding the safety of transporting nuclear waste and the perceived unsuitability of the chosen geographic location. The author concludes their submission by aligning themselves with a broader movement of Canadians and First Nations people who are against the burial of nuclear materials in the region.

A primary issue raised in the submission is the risk associated with the transportation of hazardous waste. The commenter points to a contemporary accident on Highway 401 involving nuclear waste transport as evidence of the inherent dangers. They argue that the infrastructure leading to Ignace is significantly more hazardous and less maintained than the 401, suggesting that the likelihood of a transport-related incident is higher in the north. The commenter insists that a comprehensive impact assessment must prioritize transportation safety as a critical factor, labeling it a matter of common sense.

The submission also highlights environmental and socio-political concerns. The commenter emphasizes the ecological value of Northwestern Ontario, specifically citing its freshwater lakes, forests, and wildlife as assets that should not be jeopardized by hazardous materials. There is a clear rejection of the site selection process, with the author questioning the judgment of those who proposed burying waste in such an environmentally sensitive area. Furthermore, the commenter underscores the importance of Indigenous opposition, indicating that the lack of social license from First Nations people is a major red flag for the project's viability.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is based on the belief that permanent, inaccessible burial is a strategic error and that the risks associated with transportation and environmental proximity to water outweigh the benefits of the proposed facility. The commenter concludes that the wisest course of action is to maintain and upgrade existing storage facilities at reactor sites rather than proceeding with the repository.

A primary issue raised is the potential loss of access to nuclear waste. The commenter argues that burying the waste makes it inaccessible for future use, suggesting that emerging technologies may eventually be able to utilize or neutralize the material. By keeping the waste at reactor sites, it remains readily available for such future opportunities. This reflects a concern regarding the long-term management strategy and the potential for the waste to be viewed as a resource rather than a permanent liability.

The commenter identifies significant red flags regarding the logistics of moving nuclear waste. Specifically, they highlight the dangers of using two-lane highways in Northern Ontario, noting a high frequency of accidents in the region. They express skepticism toward claims that transport containers are indestructible, suggesting that the physical risks of transit through challenging infrastructure are a major deterrent to the project's safety profile.

Finally, the submission questions the scientific validity of placing a repository near major watercourses, such as rivers and lakes. The commenter emphasizes the inherent limitations of current predictive modeling, stating that unforeseen factors could lead to the contamination of vital water sources. This point underscores a lack of confidence in the long-term environmental safety assessments provided by the project proponents and a preference for a more cautious, localized approach to waste management.

Stance: Support. The commenter strongly supports nuclear power development, citing its reliability, low greenhouse gas impact, and small land footprint. They express high confidence in Canadian nuclear technology, safety protocols, and the economic benefits associated with large-scale energy projects.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their submission characterizes the initiative as an "alarming plan" and expresses significant skepticism regarding the safety and long-term viability of burying nuclear waste near Dryden. The tone of the comment suggests a deep-seated concern for public safety and a fundamental disagreement with the continued use of nuclear technology.

The primary issues raised in the submission center on transportation safety and the logistical risks of moving hazardous materials over long distances. The commenter highlights the dangers of trucking nuclear waste from Eastern Canada, specifically pointing to the hazards of remote highways. They identify "terrible weather conditions" and "road monotony" as critical risk factors that could lead to driver distraction and subsequent mishaps. These environmental and human-factor concerns serve as the basis for their argument that the project poses an unacceptable risk to the regions along the transport route.

Furthermore, the commenter raises significant regulatory and ethical concerns. They insist that the project must not be "rushed through" and demand that every possible assessment and contingency plan be established before any progress is made. Beyond the specific repository, the commenter expresses a broad ethical opposition to the nuclear industry, calling for the global phase-out of both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. This indicates that their opposition is rooted not only in local safety concerns but also in a wider ideological rejection of nuclear materials.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project. Their primary objection centers on the proximity of the repository to Manitoba’s watershed, expressing a fundamental concern regarding the potential for water contamination. The commenter views the risk of polluting a provincial water supply as a grave matter, even characterizing the potential for such an event as criminal.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the permanence and irreversibility of nuclear waste. The commenter highlights that spent nuclear fuel does not biodegrade, which compounds the perceived danger. They challenge the proponent's ability to provide an absolute guarantee against leaks, arguing that any failure or accident would result in permanent, undoable damage to the environment and public health.

The submission raises ethical concerns regarding the long-term safety of the project, suggesting that the repository poses a threat to countless people for the duration of the world's existence. This points to a concern for intergenerational equity and the enduring nature of nuclear hazards. Finally, the commenter suggests a strategic shift away from nuclear energy, asserting that the risks are too great and that alternative fuel sources should be utilized instead.

The commenter appears to be in Support of the project, as they characterize public environmental concerns as misconceptions and urge the proponent to reassure the community of the project's safety. The author explicitly dismisses the validity of opposition based on watershed impacts, suggesting that the technical risks to surface water are non-existent or misunderstood. By framing the public's fears as "unwarranted," the commenter aligns with the position that the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) does not pose the threat that neighboring residents suggest.

The primary issue raised in this submission is the impact of the DGR on surface watersheds in the regions surrounding the Revell site. The commenter identifies a significant gap between public perception and what they believe to be the reality of the project's environmental footprint. They note that the fear of harm to both current and future generations is a central theme among neighboring communities, but they argue that this fear is rooted in a misplaced understanding of how the facility interacts with the surrounding water systems.

From a socio-economic and regulatory perspective, the commenter highlights a failure in communication or public education. They place the onus on the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to engage in more effective outreach to correct these perceived misconceptions. The submission suggests that the heart of community opposition is not a legitimate technical flaw in the project, but rather a psychological or informational issue that must be addressed through better reassurance and clarification regarding hydrological safety.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, specifically regarding the transportation of nuclear waste through their territory. Their stance is rooted in significant safety concerns derived from personal observations of hazardous driving conditions on the Trans-Canada Highway. The commenter highlights the frequency of transport trucks ending up in ditches during winter months due to a failure to adjust to road conditions, leading to the conclusion that introducing nuclear waste shipments into this environment presents an unacceptable risk to their community.

A primary environmental concern raised is the proximity of the transportation routes to Lake Superior, which serves as the community’s source of drinking water and is interconnected with all waterways along the North Shore. The commenter identifies a major red flag regarding the potential for a transportation accident to cause devastating contamination of the water and food supply. They argue that such an event would result in long-term harm to their way of life and the ecological integrity of the region.

The submission also emphasizes critical socio-economic and infrastructure vulnerabilities. The commenter notes that for their community, there is only one road in and one road out, making the highway a vital lifeline for accessing food, healthcare, family, and emergency services. Any disruption caused by a nuclear waste accident would effectively isolate the community and sever access to essential services. This creates a high-stakes scenario where the community's survival and daily functioning are tied to the safety of the transport corridor.

Finally, the commenter addresses ethical and procedural issues related to Indigenous rights and project governance. They call for meaningful consultation with First Nations along the route and demand transparency regarding safety precautions for northern winter driving. Specific questions are raised concerning driver qualifications, the possibility of restricting transport to safer seasons, and the establishment of clear accountability and emergency response plans for spills or collisions. The commenter concludes that the current proposal fails to respect the people who depend on the land and water, necessitating stronger protections and more rigorous safety standards.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Identifying as a concerned citizen, the individual expresses significant apprehension regarding the safety, regulatory oversight, and logistical scale of the proposal, specifically focusing on the risks associated with the long-term transportation of nuclear waste.

The primary issue raised is the inherent danger of transporting radioactive waste, which the commenter argues is more hazardous than transporting uniform radioactive commodities. They contend that because radioactive waste consists of complex, difficult-to-characterize mixtures of radioisotopes, it poses a range of significant hazards to the public, first responders, and transport workers in the event of an accidental release. This concern is framed as an environmental and public safety risk that is currently exacerbated by a perceived lack of specific regulations and standards governing the transport of such waste.

Furthermore, the commenter raises ethical and procedural concerns regarding transparency and justification. They argue that the transport of radioactive waste should not proceed without strong justification, full transparency, and meaningful public input. This suggests a lack of confidence in the current decision-making process and the adequacy of the information provided to the public regarding the risks involved in the project's logistics.

Finally, the commenter highlights a significant operational red flag by comparing the Canadian proposal to international efforts. They note that there are currently no operating deep geological repositories in the world. While acknowledging that Finland is close to completing one, the commenter points out a critical geographic difference: Finland’s waste transport involves very short distances, whereas the Canadian plan requires transporting high-level waste over thousands of kilometers for many years. This comparison serves to emphasize the unprecedented scale and duration of the transportation risks unique to the Canadian context.

The commenter is Opposed to the project proceeding under its current framework, specifically citing the absence of a comprehensive environmental assessment as a primary barrier. Their opposition is conditional but firm, stating that the project cannot move forward unless specific criteria regarding transportation, Indigenous rights, and environmental justice are met and analyzed through a formal assessment process.

A major concern raised involves the risks associated with nuclear waste transport routes. The commenter argues that these routes must be included within the project's scope to properly evaluate cumulative effects and the long-term impacts on sustainability and future generations. This highlights a perceived gap in the current planning regarding the geographical extent of the project's impact beyond the immediate storage site, suggesting that the environmental assessment must account for the full logistical footprint of the waste management process.

The submission emphasizes the necessity of respecting Indigenous rights and consent as recognized by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and required under Canadian law. Furthermore, the commenter introduces the concept of environmental justice, asserting that all communities located along transportation routes have the right to be informed and participate in the decision-making process. This points to significant ethical and socio-political concerns regarding the inclusivity and legality of the project's current trajectory.

The commenter concludes by reiterating that the project must not proceed without a well-designed and executed environmental assessment that incorporates these specific points. The primary red flag identified is the potential for the project to bypass a rigorous environmental review that accounts for the broader impacts on human rights and environmental safety across all affected jurisdictions.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository and the continued use of nuclear energy. Their stance is rooted in a fundamental rejection of nuclear power as a viable energy source, characterized by the repeated demand for "no more nukes." The individual views the project not as a necessary solution for waste management, but as a counterproductive measure that threatens human survival and exacerbates broader environmental crises.

The primary issues raised center on the comparative benefits of renewable energy and the existential risks associated with nuclear waste. The commenter argues that solar and wind energy, combined with storage technology, are superior alternatives to nuclear power. They frame the management of nuclear waste within the context of ecological overshoot and global warming, suggesting that the infrastructure for nuclear waste is incompatible with long-term environmental sustainability. The submission implies that the existence of nuclear waste is a direct threat to the future of humanity.

Furthermore, the commenter expresses a total lack of support for terrestrial storage solutions, suggesting instead that waste from current infrastructure should be relocated to the moon. This proposal highlights a significant red flag regarding the public's lack of confidence in the safety or appropriateness of the Deep Geological Repository. The commenter’s rhetoric indicates that any project facilitating the continued operation of the nuclear industry is viewed as an ethical and safety failure.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project in its current state, expressing significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the planning process and the safety of the proposed operations. Their stance is characterized by a lack of confidence in the project's transparency and a belief that the current approach to logistics is irresponsible.

The primary issue raised in the submission is the perceived lack of comprehensive planning for the transportation of nuclear waste to the repository. The commenter identifies transportation as an integral part of the project that has been neglected in the initial planning phase. They highlight the high frequency of transport—estimated at two to three shipments per day for 50 years—as a major risk factor. This sustained volume of hazardous material movement is viewed as creating an unacceptable margin for error, with the commenter specifically citing the potential for a catastrophic event occurring along the transit route.

Furthermore, the commenter raises significant ethical and procedural concerns regarding transparency and community engagement. They argue that the communication regarding the project and the timelines provided for public commentary are inadequate. A major red flag identified is the exclusion of transportation assessments from the current planning phase, which the commenter suggests is a failure to provide a full and transparent assessment to the communities located along the transport routes. They assert that for the project to be considered responsible, these communities must be included in the planning and provided with a clear understanding of the risks involved.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository at Revell Township. They characterize the project and the government agencies overseeing it as irresponsible and foolhardy, asserting that the decision to proceed is being made despite a clear understanding of the significant risks involved. The tone of the submission is highly critical, utilizing a quote from Albert Einstein to suggest that the project is a manifestation of human stupidity.

A primary concern raised in the submission involves the long-term environmental risks and the potential impact on future generations. The commenter views the plan to store and eventually abandon highly radioactive waste as a disaster waiting to happen. This opposition extends to the broader energy sector, as the commenter argues that nuclear energy is not a valid solution for increasing electricity demands because the industry has not established a safe method for waste disposal.

The submission also highlights significant ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding Indigenous communities within Treaty 3 territory. The commenter accuses these communities of selling out for financial gain, suggesting that accepting the project brings shame to those who prioritize the protection of "Mother Earth." This indicates a perceived conflict between economic incentives and the traditional stewardship responsibilities of Indigenous peoples.

Finally, the commenter identifies transportation safety as a critical red flag. They express fear regarding the movement of highly radioactive waste from Canadian reactors to the repository site. The commenter concludes that the production of radioactive waste should cease entirely if no safe disposal method exists, framing the current proposal as an unacceptable risk to both the environment and public safety.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed project in its current form, citing significant procedural, ethical, and technical concerns. At the outset, the commenter identifies a procedural red flag regarding the regulatory process itself, stating that the communication and the timeline provided for public commentary have been inadequate. This suggests a perceived lack of transparency and a concern that the current impact assessment process may not be sufficiently open or informed to account for all affected people and ecosystems.

A primary technical and safety concern raised is the scope of the impact assessment, specifically the exclusion of spent fuel transportation. The commenter argues that transportation risks are inherent to the project and must be fully integrated into the assessment. This is linked to a broader socio-economic and environmental justice concern regarding the distribution of risk. The commenter asserts that the burden of nuclear waste storage should be borne by the organizations and jurisdictions that benefitted from the power generation, rather than being displaced onto distant watersheds and communities located along transportation routes that did not receive those benefits.

Furthermore, the commenter challenges the long-term reliability of the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) as a solution. While acknowledging it may be the best available option, they categorize it as an unproven technology. They express a fundamental lack of trust in the ability of this method to contain toxins over a million-year timeframe. This technical skepticism is framed as a significant risk to the environment and future safety, highlighting the uncertainty of managing active toxins over geological timescales.

Finally, the submission emphasizes a major ethical concern regarding intergenerational equity. The commenter describes the initiation of nuclear power without a waste plan as "inherent short-sightedness" and argues that the DGR project continues this trend. They contend that the project unfairly foists the consequences of current waste management decisions onto the next seven generations and untold future descendants who will remain at risk while the fuel toxins are still active.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in procedural, technical, and ethical concerns, beginning with a critique of the regulatory process itself. The commenter explicitly states that the communication regarding the project and the timeline allowed for public commentary have been inadequate, suggesting a lack of transparency and insufficient opportunity for meaningful public engagement.

A primary concern raised is the scope and integrity of the impact assessment. The commenter argues that the current assessment must be expanded to be fully inclusive of all people and ecosystems that could potentially endure an impact. A significant red flag identified is the necessity of including the transportation of spent fuel within the formal assessment. The commenter maintains that the risks inherent in moving radioactive waste are inseparable from the project itself and must be scrutinized with the same rigor as the storage site.

The submission further highlights a major socio-economic and ethical issue regarding the distribution of risk. The commenter argues that the burden of nuclear waste storage should be borne by the specific organizations and jurisdictions that benefitted from the nuclear power generation. They express a strong objection to externalizing these risks to distant watersheds and populations living along transportation routes who did not receive the direct benefits of the energy produced. This points to a concern regarding environmental justice and the perceived unfairness of the project's geographical risk distribution.

Finally, the commenter raises significant doubts regarding the technical reliability and long-term safety of the Deep Geological Repository. They characterize the DGR as an unproven technology and question the wisdom of trusting such a system over the million-year lifespan of the toxins involved. The commenter frames the project as a manifestation of "short-sightedness," echoing the original lack of a waste management plan at the start of the nuclear era. They emphasize the ethical responsibility to protect the "seven generations" and all future descendants, arguing that the current generation should not foist the risks of active fuel toxins onto those who will live long after the project's inception.

Stance: Support. While expressing a personal distaste for nuclear energy and a preference for pipelines, the commenter ultimately supports the project as a necessary means to improve the quality of life for future generations and as a viable path for energy development.

The commenter, Jaro Franta, appears to be in Support of the Deep Geological Repository project, specifically regarding the technical characterization of the waste's hazard duration and the scientific validity of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) data. The submission is structured as a rebuttal to an objection raised by a project critic during a public webinar. Franta argues that the opposition's claim that the waste remains hazardous for ten million years is a misrepresentation of scientific facts, and he seeks to validate the shorter hazard timeframe of "thousands of years" by providing technical context on radioactivity levels.

The primary issue raised in the submission is the scientific methodology used to define the hazard period of irradiated CANDU fuel. The commenter asserts that comparing used fuel to artificially purified uranium is a "disingenuous" benchmark because purified uranium is exceptionally low in radioactivity and does not exist in that state in nature. Instead, Franta argues that the radioactivity of used fuel should be compared to the natural uranium ore from which it was originally mined. He notes that while it may take millions of years to reach the level of purified uranium, the radioactivity of used CANDU fuel actually drops to the level of high-grade Saskatchewan uranium ore within just a few hundred years. This distinction is presented as a critical factor in accurately assessing the long-term environmental and safety risks of the repository.

The submission also addresses the ethics of public discourse and the potential for misinformation during the impact assessment process. By labeling the critic's claims as a "misrepresentation," the commenter highlights a concern regarding the integrity of the information being used to influence public opinion and regulatory decisions. Furthermore, the commenter introduces a socio-cultural perspective by referencing the use of uranium-bearing minerals by Indigenous groups for ceremonial face and body paint. This anecdotal evidence is used to provide a comparative context for radioactivity, suggesting that the levels of radiation found in natural ores are a known element of the environment and that the repository's contents should be evaluated against these naturally occurring geological baselines.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository and the broader nuclear energy industry. Their opposition is rooted in deep concerns regarding the long-term plan to excavate the Canadian Shield for the purpose of burying and eventually abandoning highly radioactive waste. The language used suggests a lack of confidence in the permanent disposal strategy, viewing the sealing of the repository as an act of abandonment rather than a controlled safety measure.

The submission identifies several key socio-economic and environmental issues, starting with the high financial cost of nuclear energy relative to renewable energy sources. The commenter also raises a strategic concern regarding the climate crisis, arguing that nuclear energy development is too slow to replace fossil fuels in a timeframe that would effectively mitigate environmental damage. Furthermore, the commenter points to the risk of pollution at every stage of the nuclear cycle, suggesting that the environmental hazards are not limited to the repository itself but are inherent to the entire industry.

Finally, the commenter raises a significant ethical and security-related red flag by highlighting the possible link between the nuclear power industry and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The submission concludes by advocating for a policy shift away from nuclear development and toward a greater emphasis on what they describe as truly renewable energies, specifically naming solar, wind, and geothermal power as the preferred alternatives.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project, stating a vehement objection to the current proposal. Their stance is rooted in a deep distrust of long-term containment strategies and a belief that the potential risks far outweigh any perceived benefits. The submission characterizes the project as a potential disaster with broad-reaching impacts that are difficult to fully conceptualize, ultimately arguing that the risks associated with the project are nightmarish in scope.

A primary concern raised involves the protection of water quality and the integrity of North American watersheds. The commenter draws parallels to historical environmental disasters, specifically citing water contamination in the Wabigoon River and the ongoing remediation of the Rockwood Sensitive Area near Stonewall, Manitoba. They highlight the porous nature of limestone and the long-term failure of containment in previous industrial contexts as evidence that geological storage is unreliable. The commenter argues that even a minor fracture in the repository’s containment could lead to the catastrophic pollution of one of the largest watersheds on the continent.

Beyond geological concerns, the submission identifies significant risks regarding the storage, transportation, and security of nuclear waste. The commenter asserts that the impacts and the long-term continuity of the site are impossible to foresee with any degree of certainty. Furthermore, they raise an ethical and regulatory critique regarding the lack of foresight in the nuclear industry, suggesting that the management of this waste only became a pressing concern at the end of its viable life. This perceived lack of planning is presented as a red flag regarding the overall safety and viability of the proposed project.

The commenter appears to be in Support of the nuclear industry and the management of its byproducts, though they specifically advocate for the recycling and reprocessing of spent fuel rather than treating it as waste for permanent disposal. The submission frames nuclear waste as a misunderstood and highly managed material, contrasting its safety record favorably against other industrial wastes and toxic substances. The commenter emphasizes that nuclear waste is contained and accounted for, whereas coal waste is described as more toxic, uncontained, and responsible for millions of premature deaths.

A primary issue raised is the safety and toxicity of nuclear waste relative to other common materials. The commenter provides a list of substances they claim are more toxic than nuclear waste, including lead, mercury, asbestos, and various chemicals. They also highlight the safety of nuclear waste transportation, citing expert claims that these materials have been transported millions of miles without injury. The submission suggests that public fear of nuclear waste is a result of a lack of understanding and encourages a science-based perspective to mitigate these concerns.

The submission also focuses heavily on the economic and resource value of what is currently labeled as waste. The commenter identifies spent nuclear fuel as "slightly used nuclear fuel" and argues that it represents a multi-trillion-dollar resource. They advocate for the use of fast breeder reactors and closed-loop nuclear power systems, which would allow for the recycling of fuel to provide sustainable energy. The commenter points to historical examples of successful breeder reactors and current commercial efforts to build advanced fuel centers as evidence that the material should be reused rather than discarded at a high cost.

Finally, the commenter emphasizes the societal and environmental benefits of a circular nuclear fuel cycle. By referencing reports from international organizations, the submission argues that recycling is a key enabler for a sustainable, net-zero grid. The commenter suggests that the current regulatory and disposal focus may be overlooking the "hidden value" of nuclear fuel. The overarching theme of the submission is that through technological innovation and a better understanding of radiological risks, nuclear byproducts can be transformed from a perceived liability into a significant economic and environmental asset.

The Town of Latchford is Opposed to the project as currently outlined in the Initial Project Description. The municipality expresses significant concern regarding its position as a community potentially affected by the long-term transportation of high-level radioactive waste. Their opposition is centered on the perceived deficiency of the project's scope and the lack of consideration for municipalities that are not designated as host communities but must still bear the risks associated with the project's logistics.

A primary issue raised is the exclusion of long-distance transportation from the Initial Project Description. The Town argues that transportation is an integral and inseparable component of the deep geological repository, asserting that the project cannot proceed without it. By excluding this element, the Town contends that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is improperly removing the ability of affected municipalities to have community impacts assessed under the Impact Assessment Act. They maintain that any activity incidental to the project must be included in the federal assessment to ensure regulatory compliance and transparency.

The submission highlights a socio-economic and ethical concern characterized as "all risk, no benefit." The Town of Latchford notes that while they are not a host community and have not consented to the project, they would be subjected to two to three shipments of high-level radioactive waste daily for over 50 years. The identified risks include routine radiation exposure, the potential for accidents, and the resulting strain on emergency response infrastructure. Furthermore, the Town points to the long-term public concern and psychological impact on the community as significant factors that have been overlooked.

Environmental and jurisdictional concerns are also detailed regarding the potential for marine shipping. The Town rejects marine transport as a viable alternative, noting it would introduce risks to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system and critical drinking-water sources. They argue that because the waste originates inland, land-based transportation is unavoidable and involves complex jurisdictional and treaty obligations. Consequently, the Town requests that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada require the inclusion of transportation within the project's scope to ensure that the impacts on non-host municipalities are fully evaluated and mitigated.

The commenter’s stance regarding the Deep Geological Repository project is Neutral/Unclear. The submission does not explicitly state support for or opposition to the project’s implementation. Instead, the commenter focuses on the procedural requirements and safety standards they believe must be met, suggesting a conditional perspective based on the adequacy of risk management and public oversight.

The primary issue raised in the submission is the management of transportation risks. The commenter emphasizes that the risks associated with moving nuclear materials must be assessed with a high degree of care. This concern extends to the development of robust risk reduction strategies and damage mitigation plans, which are viewed as essential components of the project's safety framework. The commenter identifies these areas as critical points of potential vulnerability that require formal planning and preparation.

Furthermore, the commenter highlights significant concerns regarding transparency and public participation. They advocate for the risk assessment and mitigation planning process to be fully accessible for public review. A key ethical and regulatory point raised is the necessity for the public to have the power to trigger revisions to these plans if they are found to be insufficient. This suggests a demand for democratic oversight and a red flag regarding the potential for closed-door decision-making in the current regulatory process.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository and the associated transportation of nuclear waste. Their primary objection centers on the safety of transporting nuclear fuel across Ontario highways, which they characterize as dangerous and prone to frequent closures due to accidents. The submission highlights a perceived lack of investment in highway infrastructure, specifically the route connecting the Manitoba border to southern Ontario. The commenter emphasizes the human cost of current road conditions, noting that members of their community have died in highway accidents, leading to the conclusion that transporting nuclear waste on these specific roads is a reckless endeavor.

The commenter situates their opposition within a broader landscape of societal crises, including trade relation issues, the cost of living, the drug crisis, underfunded healthcare, and insecurities regarding food and education. There is an underlying socio-economic concern that the project is being prioritized while essential public services and social safety nets remain underfunded or in crisis. This context contributes to the commenter's view of the project as a misplaced priority during a time of significant economic and social strain.

Beyond transportation logistics and socio-economic factors, the commenter expresses significant concern regarding the potential for radioactive accidents. They specifically identify the risk of contamination entering watersheds, which represents a major environmental and public health concern for the region. The submission concludes by reiterating a strong sense of disappointment in the project and the risks it poses to the community and the environment.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) and the continued use of nuclear energy. They argue that nuclear power is not a viable solution to the climate crisis, asserting that the entire nuclear fuel chain—including mining, processing, and transportation—generates significant carbon emissions and releases toxic, carcinogenic pollutants into the air and water. The commenter views the production of radioactive waste as a fundamental flaw, noting that it requires complex containment in perpetuity, which they deem an unacceptable long-term burden.

A primary environmental concern raised in the submission is the potential for the contamination of entire watersheds. The commenter highlights a significant technical red flag regarding the irretrievability of the waste; they argue that if radioactive water escapes the repository in the future, there would be no way to contain the leak or retrieve the thousands of buried canisters to fix the problem. Additionally, the commenter identifies the transportation of millions of canisters and the repackaging of waste at the DGR site as high-risk activities where accidents or exposure could occur, further endangering the environment.

From a socio-economic and ethical perspective, the commenter advocates for a shift toward renewable energy alternatives such as solar panels, wind turbines, and smart grid technology, which they believe are safer and more efficient investments. They also raise a significant concern regarding the inclusivity of the regulatory process, stating that communities located along affected waterways, specifically mentioning residents of Manitoba, must be given a formal voice in the project’s assessment. The commenter concludes that the risks associated with the DGR are unnecessary given the availability of helpful, environmentally friendly alternatives.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed project at its current location. The submission explicitly requests that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada choose a different site for the Deep Geological Repository, expressing a strong desire for the authorities to reconsider the placement of the facility. The commenter’s opposition is rooted in a personal and emotional connection to the specific area in Ontario, which they describe as a place that means a great deal to many people.

The primary environmental concerns raised in the submission focus on the safety and preservation of the local ecosystem, including the protection of people, animals, and the natural environment. The commenter expresses a fear that the repository would compromise the "cleanliness and safety" of the region, which is located on the Canadian Shield near Dryden. There is a clear concern that the project could lead to devastating consequences for the pristine nature of the area, suggesting that the introduction of nuclear waste storage is incompatible with the goal of keeping the ecosystem safe.

From a socio-economic and recreational perspective, the commenter highlights the importance of the area as a destination for nature appreciation and outdoor activities. They specifically mention that the site is close to many paddling routes used by individuals from across Canada. The submission suggests that the project poses a threat to the recreational value of the land and its status as a place where people go to experience nature. The commenter views the potential loss of this space's integrity as a significant blow to the community and the visitors who value the area for its natural beauty and safety.

The commenter, We the Nuclear Free North, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. The submission, addressed to the Prime Minister and relevant federal ministers, outlines a fundamental rejection of the plan to transport, process, and bury Canada’s nuclear fuel waste at the Revell site in Treaty #3 territory. The organization characterizes the project as an unproven experiment and expresses a profound lack of confidence in both the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) operations and the federal government's oversight of the siting process.

A primary concern raised is the perceived violation of Indigenous rights and the failure to achieve genuine consent. The commenter highlights that Grand Council Treaty #3 passed a unanimous resolution opposing the repository and notes that Eagle Lake First Nation has initiated legal action against the site selection. The submission argues that the NWMO’s siting process has been divisive and manipulative, failing to align with the principles of Reconciliation or Indigenous Knowledge. According to the survey results provided by the commenter, 92% of respondents do not believe the siting process was fair or based on consent from all impacted parties.

Technical and safety concerns are also central to the opposition. The commenter points out that the NWMO’s proposal remains conceptual in all key technical areas despite twenty years of development, and emphasizes that no deep geological repository for high-level waste is currently operating anywhere in the world. Specific red flags are raised regarding the safety culture of the NWMO, with 94% of surveyed individuals expressing a lack of confidence in the industry's ability to protect the public. Furthermore, the submission critiques the governance of the project, noting that 96% of respondents are uncomfortable with the nuclear industry being in charge of the NWMO rather than it being an arm's-length organization.

Environmental and transportation risks are detailed as significant threats to Northern Ontario. The commenter describes a "road of radioactive risk" involving two to three shipments of high-level waste per day for over 50 years, mostly traveling on two-lane roads. Concerns include the continuous emission of low-level radiation during transit and the potential for catastrophic releases in the event of an accident. Additionally, the submission identifies the Revell site’s location in the headwaters of the Wabigoon watershed as a major environmental risk, suggesting that any failure of the repository would jeopardize downstream and international waters.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear regarding the project itself, as the text does not explicitly state support or opposition to the repository. Instead, the comment focuses on the procedural aspects of the impact assessment process, specifically questioning the adequacy of the consultation timeline.

The primary issue raised is the perceived imbalance between the project's 160-year duration and the one-month period provided for the public to review a 92-page document. This highlights concerns regarding procedural fairness and the ability of stakeholders to provide meaningful feedback on complex, long-term infrastructure within a constrained timeframe.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically regarding the transportation of nuclear waste and the existing decision-making process. They argue that the current scope of community consent is too narrow, asserting that the town of Ignace should not have the sole authority to decide on a site that affects the broader region. The commenter advocates for a province-wide referendum to determine whether nuclear waste should be transported over long distances along the Trans Canada Highway, emphasizing that all Ontario citizens have a right to vote on an issue that will impact the province for decades.

The primary concerns raised include transportation safety and the potential environmental risks to forests, lakes, and rivers along the transit route. The commenter expresses significant distrust in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), labeling them as prejudiced and capable of unfairly influencing a vote. Consequently, they call for a transparent referendum process overseen by independent scientists and environmental groups, such as "We, the Nuclear Free North," to ensure the rights and safety of Ontario citizens and future generations are protected.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in a fundamental distrust of the safety claims made by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), particularly regarding the logistics of transporting nuclear waste over a distance of 1,607 kilometers from southern Ontario to northwestern Ontario. The commenter argues that spent nuclear waste should be stored as close as possible to its point of origin in southern Ontario, citing the example of Finland’s Onkalo repository, which is located only five kilometers from the reactors it serves.

A significant portion of the submission focuses on the perceived risks of the transportation route. The commenter highlights the high frequency of collisions, fatalities, and road closures on Highways 11 and 17, expressing concern that the infrastructure and the quality of commercial truck driver training are insufficient for the safe transport of radioactive materials. They note that the proposed schedule of two to three shipments per day for nine months of the year poses an unacceptable risk to the forests, lakes, rivers, and communities along the route. The commenter fears that a transportation accident or the disposal of waste within the local watershed would cause irreparable destruction to the land and the way of life for current and future generations.

The commenter also raises ethical concerns regarding the site selection process, which they describe as suspect. They point to specific financial inducements and "exit payments" offered to the potential host communities of Ignace and South Bruce, suggesting that these monetary rewards influenced the willingness of local councils to remain in the selection process. The commenter questions whether these communities would have been as eager to participate if the financial incentives were removed or if they were required to bid for the project instead of receiving compensation.

Finally, the submission challenges the validity of using Finland’s Onkalo repository as a successful model. The commenter points out that the Finnish facility is not yet fully operational and therefore lacks a proven track record of safety or efficacy. They emphasize the stark contrast between the Finnish model’s proximity to power plants and the NWMO’s plan to transport waste across the province. The commenter concludes by reiterating their strong opposition to storing 5.9 million bundles of used nuclear fuel near Revell Lake and urges the regulatory body to reconsider the plan in favor of a site closer to the nuclear power plants.

The commenter, Jaro Franta, is explicitly in support of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR). The submission serves primarily as a rebuttal to opposition groups, specifically "We the Nuclear Free North" (WTNFN), whom the author accuses of conducting a misinformation campaign. The author views the DGR as a necessary project backed by a federal mandate under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and argues that the current public comment period is being used by activists to unfairly delay the project through a tactical focus on transportation issues.

A central theme of the submission is the safety and legitimacy of transporting used nuclear fuel. The author argues that nuclear fuel transport is unfairly characterized by opponents as uniquely dangerous. By comparing emergency response guidelines for radioactive materials against common hazardous goods like anhydrous ammonia, the author asserts that nuclear fuel—being a solid material housed in certified casks—presents lower immediate risks to the public and requires smaller evacuation zones in the event of an accident. Furthermore, the author cites international precedents, such as Sweden’s CLAB facility, to demonstrate that the centralized transport and storage of nuclear waste is a well-established global practice that has been conducted safely for decades.

Regarding the socio-political aspects of the project, the author raises concerns about the definition of community consent. He strongly opposes the demand that every community along a transportation corridor must grant explicit consent, characterizing such a requirement as an impractical "veto power" that would undermine representative democracy and lead to national chaos. The author highlights that the City of Thunder Bay Council voted against adopting a stance opposing nuclear fuel transport, using this as evidence that local representative bodies do not necessarily share the views of activist groups. Additionally, the author identifies an ethical concern regarding the consistency of opposition, pointing out that similar transports have occurred in the past without the same level of public outcry, which he labels as hypocritical.

The commenter’s stance is Neutral/Unclear regarding the project's overall approval, as the submission focuses on a procedural request for information rather than a definitive statement of support or opposition. While the commenter notes that there are "strong concerns" about the project within the Thunder Bay community, the primary intent of the communication is to ensure public access to project documentation.

The key issue raised is information accessibility and transparency. Specifically, the commenter requests that printed copies of project information be provided to local libraries in Thunder Bay to facilitate public review of the lengthy materials. The submission emphasizes the importance of local residents having physical access to information to better understand the project and address community concerns.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project as it is currently defined in the Initial Project Description (IPD). The primary basis for this opposition is the exclusion of nuclear fuel transportation from the project's scope, which the commenter characterizes as a significant gap that undermines the completeness, transparency, and legitimacy of the impact assessment process. The submission argues that the project cannot be properly evaluated if a constitutive and necessary component—the movement of radioactive waste across the country—is treated as a separate, purely technical matter rather than an integral part of the repository's operational life.

A central issue raised is the perceived inadequacy of the current regulatory scoping. The commenter asserts that while the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulates the technical safety of transport packages, this does not replace the need for a comprehensive impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). The commenter argues that the IPD fails to address the spatial, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions of transport corridors, including the cumulative effects of thousands of shipments over several decades. By focusing only on the repository site, the commenter suggests the NWMO is ignoring foreseeable effects on federal lands, Indigenous lands, and diverse jurisdictions across Canada.

The submission highlights significant ethical and socio-economic concerns regarding consent and Indigenous jurisdiction. The commenter points out that the current "consent-based" framework is limited to the host communities, effectively ignoring the numerous municipalities and Indigenous Nations whose territories will be traversed by transportation corridors. This exclusion is described as rendering these communities "procedurally invisible" despite their exposure to risks related to emergency preparedness, land and resource use, and long-term institutional responsibility. The commenter argues that the rights and concerns of these "corridor communities" must be integrated into the assessment to ensure a fair and transparent process.

Environmental and climate-related risks are also identified as major red flags. The commenter notes that the IPD does not examine how climate change—specifically wildfires, flooding, and extreme weather—might affect transportation infrastructure, route reliability, or emergency response capabilities over the project's long operational lifespan. There is a specific concern that the cumulative impact of repetitive, long-duration transportation activities has been overlooked, representing a failure to account for the evolving environmental conditions that will characterize the coming decades.

Finally, the commenter provides a comparative analysis of international precedents in Finland and Sweden to argue that the NWMO’s approach deviates from global best practices. In those jurisdictions, transportation was treated as an integral part of the repository project, with specific corridors identified and assessed geographically rather than abstractly. The commenter concludes that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada should require the NWMO to bring transportation within the project scope to address corridor-level effects, cumulative shipment volumes, and the participation of all affected Indigenous and municipal groups along the transport routes.

The commenter is Opposed to the selection of the Ignace site for the proposed Deep Geological Repository. Their position is based on the argument that the Bruce site is a more suitable location because it is closer to the nuclear reactors and is situated in an area that is less environmentally "pristine" than Northwestern Ontario. The commenter asserts that choosing the Ignace site over the Bruce site is illogical from both a safety and economic perspective.

The primary concerns raised involve transportation safety, infrastructure deficiencies, and economic impacts. Specifically, the commenter highlights the poor condition of Highway 17, noting its high traffic volume and accident rate as significant risks for hauling nuclear waste. Furthermore, they argue that the increased distance to Ignace will result in higher transportation costs, which will ultimately be passed on to consumers through increased hydro bills. The commenter concludes that for the sake of safety and cost-efficiency, the waste should be stored at the site closest to its point of origin.

The commenter is clearly Opposed to the proposed project. Their primary concerns center on the risks associated with transporting "sensitive volatile material" over long distances, specifically noting the potential impact on pristine land, rivers, and watersheds. The author expresses significant apprehension regarding the safety of communities and the billions of people they claim will be bypassed during the transportation process, characterizing the nuclear waste as "garbage" that threatens to poison the environment.

Furthermore, the commenter questions the long-term viability of burying the material, expressing skepticism about the effectiveness of monitoring for leaks once the waste is underground. They challenge the notion of community willingness, questioning why any individual or community would volunteer to host such a site. The text concludes by prioritizing the "priceless" value of the natural environment over financial considerations, explicitly demanding that the waste remain in its current location rather than being moved to the proposed repository.

The commenter is explicitly opposed to the proposed project. Their primary concerns center on the risks associated with the transportation of nuclear waste via highways, particularly the potential for contamination of lakes and rivers. They emphasize the vital importance of water and suggest that the repository should be located closer to the point of waste production rather than in Northwestern Ontario.

Additionally, the commenter raises significant concerns regarding the decision-making process and regional representation. They argue that the voices of two small communities, such as Ignace, are being prioritized over the opposition of numerous other cities and towns along the proposed transportation route. Speaking on behalf of the Fort William First Nation, the commenter asserts a strong stance against the presence of nuclear waste in their territory and the broader region.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed project. While they acknowledge that deep geological storage is technically superior to current interim surface storage near the Great Lakes, they explicitly reject the implementation of the repository at the proposed location. Their opposition is rooted in the potential impact on the Grassy Narrows First Nation, arguing that placing nuclear waste near a community already suffering from historical mercury poisoning is a violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

The primary issues raised include Indigenous rights, environmental justice, and the broader ethics of nuclear energy production. The commenter characterizes the storage of radioactive waste as "ecocide" and advocates for the cessation of nuclear power as an energy source to prevent further waste generation. Additionally, the commenter cites concerns regarding the high costs of nuclear energy and urges the government to adopt a "No to Nuclear" stance based on external advocacy and fact sheets.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project in its current state, explicitly describing the provided report as incomplete and not comprehensive. Their primary concerns involve the environmental risks associated with transporting nuclear waste over long distances across the province and the potential for containment failure in the event of an earthquake. The commenter seeks specific details on the seismic thresholds the repository can withstand before a release occurs and questions the adequacy of the risk assessment regarding these factors.

Additionally, the commenter raises significant questions regarding health impact monitoring, accountability, and the long-term lifecycle of the facility. They identify a lack of information concerning who will monitor health effects, where the waste will be stored, and who is responsible for taking action on health-related issues. The submission also calls for clarity on the project's closure timeline and the specific restoration efforts planned for the area once the waste is barriered. By highlighting these gaps, the commenter suggests that the current documentation fails to address critical safety and environmental remediation concerns.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, arguing that the Initial Project Description fails to address several critical risks. They express significant concern regarding the exclusion of transportation impacts from the project scope, specifically citing the potential for traffic accidents, spills, and security incidents during the long-distance movement of radioactive waste. Furthermore, the commenter highlights a lack of emergency response capacity in small communities to handle such incidents, suggesting that the current safety framework is insufficient.

At the repository site, the commenter identifies several technical concerns, including the potential for groundwater contamination, long-term container failure, and the impact of seismic activity. They also emphasize that the plan lacks detail on how climate change and extreme weather might affect the facility over centuries, as well as how radiation releases from surface facilities will be monitored. Ultimately, the commenter calls for a more rigorous safety analysis and an extension of the timeline for public input to address the irreversible nature of the proposed nuclear waste burial.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project, labeling the current assessment "unacceptable" and the potential impact on Indigenous communities "criminal." The primary concerns center on the omission of risks associated with the long-distance transportation of nuclear waste, including potential spills, road accidents, and the limited emergency response capacity of small communities along the route. Additionally, the commenter highlights a lack of explicit monitoring measures for radiation and argues that the assessment fails to meet the requirements of the Impact Assessment Act by excluding activities integral to the project.

A significant portion of the objection focuses on Indigenous rights and environmental justice, specifically referencing the Grassy Narrows First Nation and their history of mercury poisoning. The commenter asserts that placing waste in this area violates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and notes that an alternative location exists which would avoid these risks. Ultimately, the commenter demands a more thorough safety assessment that prioritizes human rights and addresses the long-term implications of storing 150,000 tonnes of radioactive waste near Indigenous lands.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project, expressing significant apprehension regarding the safety of transporting nuclear waste through their community. As a resident of Northern Ontario living near Highway 17, the individual characterizes the waste as "dangerous cargo" and indicates a high level of worry concerning the proximity of these transport routes to their home.

The primary issues raised center on transportation safety, specifically the risks associated with using trucks on Northern Ontario’s winter roads where accidents are noted to be common. The commenter seeks clarification on how transport vehicles will be adapted for safety, what specific procedures will be in place to protect the public, and how the organization plans to respond to potential traffic accidents involving radioactive materials.

The commenter is Opposed to the project as currently proposed, specifically questioning the feasibility and safety of the large-scale transportation plan required to move six million bundles of spent nuclear fuel across Ontario. They argue that the unprecedented scale of the proposed shipments—dwarfing all previous nuclear transport in terms of distance and volume—renders existing safety records insufficient for comparison. The primary concern is the physical integrity of the spent fuel during long-distance transit on public highways; the commenter suggests that the vibrations and stresses of transport could damage the fragile fuel, leading to higher radioactive emissions and making the bundles too dangerous to handle efficiently at the destination.

Additionally, the commenter raises technical questions regarding the durability and reusability of transport casks, specifically how many times they can be used before internal radioactive exposure renders them obsolete. They criticize the timing of the regulatory process, arguing that the impact of transportation on fuel integrity must be fully assessed now rather than after significant funds have been spent on repository development. The commenter concludes that the risks associated with transport damage may ultimately make the long-distance movement of this material unfeasible.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the current progression of the project, specifically citing failures in public engagement and the inadequacy of the consultation process. They argue that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has a responsibility to ensure broad public comprehension for the project to maintain democratic legitimacy, yet they claim most Canadians and corridor communities remain unaware of the project’s risks and implications. The commenter suggests that the lack of awareness, supported by personal anecdotal evidence, indicates that the NWMO has not been sufficiently accountable in its outreach efforts.

A primary concern raised is the perceived unfairness of the regulatory timeline. The commenter asserts that providing a 30-day window to review and comment on over 1,300 pages of complex documentation is unreasonable and "patently unfair" to both the current public and future generations. They emphasize that the scale, duration, and societal implications of the Deep Geological Repository require a much higher standard of public understanding and a more accessible review period than what is currently being offered.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the current framework of the project's approval and site-selection process. Their opposition is rooted in the perceived inequity between the communities designated as "hosts" and those that will bear the environmental and safety risks associated with the project's operation. The submission suggests that the current decision-making model is flawed because it grants authority to a limited number of entities while marginalizing a broader range of stakeholders who will be impacted by the long-term consequences of the repository.

A primary issue raised is the lack of consultation and consent for communities located along the transportation corridor. The commenter points out that these regions are expected to accept decades of nuclear waste shipments without having any formal role in choosing the site, creating what they describe as multi-regional consequences. This highlights a significant ethical and socio-economic concern regarding the distribution of risk versus the distribution of decision-making power. The commenter argues that the risks inherited by these corridor communities are substantial and have been overlooked in the current assessment process.

Furthermore, the commenter identifies a major environmental and procedural red flag regarding watershed protection. They state that all communities within the Wabigoon and the Turtle-Rainy River Watersheds have been excluded from the consultation process. A specific concern is raised regarding the status of Ignace as a potential hosting community; the commenter notes that Ignace is not actually located within the same watershed as the proposed Deep Geological Repository site. This discrepancy suggests a disconnect between the political identification of host communities and the actual geographical and hydrological areas that would be impacted by a potential leak or accident. The submission concludes that the decision-making process is insufficient because it fails to account for these critical transportation and watershed-wide concerns.

The commenter, Jaro Franta, is explicitly in support of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project. The submission is framed as a rebuttal to opposition groups, specifically "We the Nuclear Free North" (WTNFN), whom the author accuses of conducting a misinformation campaign to delay or stop the project. The author views the DGR as a fulfillment of the NWMO’s federal mandate under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and defends the technical and political legitimacy of the project against what he describes as a small group of activists.

A primary issue raised in the submission is the safety and risk assessment of transporting used nuclear fuel. The commenter argues that the risks are significantly lower than those associated with other common hazardous materials (hazmat) transported daily by truck, such as anhydrous ammonia, propane, and toluene. By referencing the 2024 Emergency Response Guidebook, the author highlights that evacuation distances for nuclear material accidents are often smaller than those for other industrial chemicals. He emphasizes that the used nuclear fuel is a solid material that has already proven its durability under extreme reactor conditions and decades of storage, making it uniquely stable for transport in certified casks.

The submission also addresses the socio-political issue of community consent and "veto power." The author strongly opposes the idea that every community along a transportation corridor should have the right to block the project. He characterizes the demand for such consent as a recipe for "chaos" that contradicts the principles of representative and deliberative democracy. To support this, he notes that the City of Thunder Bay Council specifically voted against opposing the transport of used nuclear fuel. The author asserts that the rights of individual communities do not supersede national mandates or the established functions of a representative government.

Furthermore, the commenter provides international context to support the project’s feasibility and safety. He cites Sweden’s CLAB facility as a successful example of centralized interim storage and transport that has been operational since 1985. The author argues that the transport of nuclear waste is a well-established global practice and that the NWMO’s plan is a logical extension of these proven methods. He also raises a concern regarding the consistency of the opposition, pointing out that similar transport campaigns, such as the movement of fuel from Quebec to Chalk River, did not face the same level of scrutiny or protest from current critics.

Finally, the author raises procedural and ethical concerns regarding the public participation process. He alleges that opposition groups use the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) registry as a platform for misinformation while simultaneously blocking open discussion in other media venues. The commenter suggests that the regulatory framework for hazardous materials is already robust and that the NWMO should not be subjected to unique or arbitrary changes in transport rules that do not apply to other dangerous goods.

The commenter is clearly Opposed to the proposed project. They express significant concerns regarding the lack of public accountability and the decision-making process, specifically criticizing the NWMO’s financial spending to influence local communities. The commenter advocates for a referendum, arguing that a small group of individuals should not have the power to approve a project that could impact thousands of people.

A primary issue raised is the safety and oversight of transporting highly radioactive waste along road and rail routes, especially since the commenter resides along these proposed paths. They explicitly object to any attempt to exclude transportation from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s review. Furthermore, the commenter highlights environmental risks to the Wabigoon and Turtle-Rainy River watersheds, citing the long-term dangers of burying 150,000 tonnes of nuclear waste at the headwaters and the potential for catastrophic accidents during the project's 160-year operational lifespan.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository, stating there is nothing positive about the plan. Their primary concerns center on the inadequacy of Indigenous consultation, arguing that the current process lacks meaningful dialogue and that consent from a few communities does not represent broad First Nations approval. The commenter also criticizes the transparency of the project, suggesting that the public has not been properly informed and that the timeline for providing a full response has been insufficient.

Substantive issues raised include the lack of a detailed plan for the safe transportation of nuclear waste and the potential for environmental contamination. The commenter specifically highlights the risk of waste leaching into watersheds, which would negatively impact numerous communities and future generations. Invoking the principle of seven-generation stewardship, the commenter argues that burying the waste is irresponsible and dangerous. They advocate for keeping the waste in its current location under close monitoring rather than proceeding with the repository.

The commenter is in Support of the proposed Deep Geological Repository project, describing it as vital for Canada’s climate leadership and a responsible way to handle nuclear waste. The primary focus of the submission is the safety and superiority of rail transportation. The author argues that dedicated rail spurs minimize road risks and leverage stringent Canadian regulations. A significant portion of the comment is dedicated to contrasting the catastrophic risks of fossil fuel transport, specifically citing the Lac-Mégantic disaster, with the engineered safety of nuclear fuel transport. The commenter emphasizes that nuclear fuel consists of solid, non-flammable ceramic pellets housed in robust, tested steel casks designed to withstand extreme impacts, drops, and fires without releasing radiation.

Beyond transportation safety, the commenter highlights the localized nature of potential nuclear accidents compared to the widespread ecological and chemical devastation caused by oil spills. They assert that the DGR is essential for maintaining nuclear power as a cornerstone of clean energy and protecting the shared environment. Additionally, the submission notes that the project honors Indigenous partnerships and represents a necessary step for a responsible nation. The commenter concludes by advocating for the project’s advancement, citing its safety, inclusivity, and importance for the future of energy waste management in Canada.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed project. Their primary concern involves the risks and necessity of transporting highly dangerous radioactive materials across distances. They advocate for a decentralized approach, suggesting that waste should remain at the original sites where the nuclear energy was generated rather than being moved to a centralized repository.

The commenter also raises issues regarding the historical planning and foresight of the nuclear industry. They question the original decision-making process used during the construction of nuclear plants, expressing frustration that a long-term waste management solution was not established at the outset. Their stance is rooted in a preference for on-site storage and a critique of the perceived lack of accountability in past nuclear waste strategy.

The commenter, representing Eagle Lake First Nation (ELFN), is Opposed to the project proceeding under the current circumstances and specifically objects to the commencement of the Impact Assessment. The primary issue raised is a territorial dispute, as ELFN asserts the project is located within their territory and maintains they have been improperly denied recognition as a host community. The commenter states that the project is moving forward without their consent and that they are participating in the regulatory process under duress to protect their rights, jurisdiction, and lands.

Key concerns include the failure of the NWMO and the Government of Canada to fulfill the constitutional duty to consult and accommodate ELFN, as well as a perceived lack of honourable conduct by the Crown. The commenter highlights an ongoing legal challenge regarding the siting of the project and argues that proceeding with the Impact Assessment at this time is highly prejudicial to their interests. They contend that the process ignores their sovereignty and fails to address the requirement for Indigenous consent before the project advances.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the project and nuclear energy in general, characterizing it as the slowest, dirtiest, and most expensive response to the climate crisis. They raise several broad concerns regarding the nuclear lifecycle, including its high cost relative to renewable energy, the inability of nuclear power to replace fossil fuels quickly enough to mitigate climate change, pollution generated at all stages of the nuclear cycle, and risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation.

Regarding the specific proposal, the commenter identifies nuclear waste management and the transportation of nuclear waste as primary issues. They demand that the project undergo a full Impact Assessment that includes a public examination of transportation risks. Additionally, the commenter calls for an adequate timeline for public comment to ensure the Impact Assessment Agency hears from concerned Canadians.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR), arguing that the project presents significant long-term risks to communities and watersheds in Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario. The primary environmental concern centers on the potential for contamination of the Wabigoon and Rainy/Turtle River watersheds, which drain into Lake Winnipeg, through accidents, groundwater migration, or repository failure. The commenter also highlights the extreme longevity of nuclear waste hazards, questioning the project's claims regarding intergenerational responsibility and the long-term integrity of containment over hundreds of thousands of years.

A major point of contention is the exclusion of nuclear waste transportation, handling, and repackaging from the project scope, which the commenter asserts must be included due to the risks of daily high-level waste shipments over dangerous highway routes. Additionally, the commenter criticizes the public consultation timeline as inadequate for a project of this complexity and permanence, calling for a full federal Impact Assessment. They further challenge the project's framing as a climate action necessity, citing the high costs and slow deployment of nuclear energy compared to renewable alternatives.

The commenter, Mark Olfert, is explicitly opposed to the project, stating that they are not in favor of the movement of nuclear waste. The primary concern raised involves the potential for nuclear waste to contaminate water sources, specifically mentioning the risk of pollutants eventually reaching Lake Winnipeg.

In addition to water quality concerns, the commenter emphasizes the broader need for environmental protection for all Canadians. The assessment of the project is centered on the perceived risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials and the long-term safety of the surrounding ecosystem.

The commenter is Opposed to the proposed project. They express significant skepticism regarding the technical feasibility of the repository, noting that the method is unproven and questioning the validity of "best practices" in this context. Specific technical concerns include the absence of a retrieval system should a failure occur and the potential for negative impacts on the local watershed and the health of nearby residents.

Furthermore, the commenter raises procedural issues, stating that there has been insufficient time for public input on such a significant decision. They also highlight the risks associated with transportation, suggesting that the nuclear waste should remain stored at its point of production to eliminate the need for transit and to address proximity concerns.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. The tone of the submission is highly critical, utilizing a rhetorical suggestion to highlight a perceived injustice in how nuclear waste is managed. By suggesting that the waste be placed in the private property of those who profit from its creation, the commenter signals a total rejection of the current proposal to store used nuclear fuel in the proposed location.

The primary concerns raised in the submission revolve around environmental protection and public safety. The commenter identifies a significant risk to the Canadian environment and the "animal nations" that inhabit the land. This indicates a deep concern for biodiversity and the long-term ecological integrity of the region. Furthermore, the commenter expresses a broad concern for the safety of the Canadian public, suggesting that the current plan places citizens at an unacceptable level of risk.

From an ethical and socio-economic perspective, the submission raises a significant red flag regarding the distribution of risk versus reward. The commenter highlights a perceived lack of corporate accountability, arguing that the entities profiting from nuclear energy production are externalizing the environmental and safety costs onto the general public and the natural world. This points to a fundamental concern regarding environmental justice and the ethical responsibility of nuclear waste producers to manage their own byproducts without endangering the broader population or the ecosystem.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) project. Their opposition is rooted in environmental, safety, and socio-political concerns, and they advocate for a full impact assessment to address the uncertainties surrounding the long-term storage of nuclear waste.

A primary environmental concern raised is the location of the repository within the Lake Winnipeg watershed. The commenter notes that the lake is already in a degraded state and argues that the impacts of a DGR on such a watershed are not fully understood. This poses a significant risk to the various communities that depend on the watershed for their livelihoods and cultural practices, suggesting that any contamination could have far-reaching socio-economic and heritage consequences.

The commenter identifies the transportation of nuclear waste as a major safety risk. They highlight the high potential for environmental contamination should an accident occur during transit to the DGR site. This concern is coupled with a technical skepticism regarding the repository itself, which the commenter describes as an unproven method for waste storage. They argue that these technical uncertainties directly threaten First Nations' traditional ways of living with the land.

Regarding Indigenous rights and social license, the submission points to a significant lack of broad acceptance for the project. The commenter highlights that 13 Indigenous Nations within Treaty 3 oppose the repository. While acknowledging that the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation have reached agreements, the commenter asserts that this does not equate to the wide acceptance necessary for such a high-stakes project.

Finally, the commenter raises a broader policy objection, stating that nuclear energy is not an appropriate solution to the climate crisis. They suggest that projects like the DGR should not be used to promote nuclear energy, especially when they involve unproven storage methods that could negatively impact Indigenous communities and the environment.

The commenter, Judith, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed nuclear waste repository project. Her submission uses highly critical and emotive language, characterizing the project as a "travesty" and a "macabre death wish" for the well-being of the population. The stance is one of total rejection based on perceived risks to both the environment and the democratic integrity of the country.

The primary issues raised in the comment center on governance, ethics, and public safety. The author expresses a significant lack of trust in the Canadian government, describing the current strategy as an "authoritarian approach" that violates democratic values and equal rights. There is a strong emphasis on the ethical obligation to protect the climate and the earth for future generations, suggesting that the project fails to meet these long-term responsibilities.

Environmental and physical safety concerns are also prominent. The commenter specifically highlights the danger of transporting "truckloads of nuclear waste" and the risks associated with placing such waste in areas close to water. The potential for "destructive" outcomes is noted not just for the immediate province but also for bordering lands, indicating a concern for widespread geographical impact and the general well-being of the public.

Finally, the submission raises a red flag regarding the competency of the leadership overseeing energy development. The author labels the responsible officials as "incompetent" and demands their removal, calling for the government to employ more knowledgeable individuals. This reflects a deep-seated concern that the project is being managed by individuals who lack the necessary expertise to ensure the safety and success of such a significant undertaking.

The commenter appears to be Opposed to the project in its current form. This stance is evidenced by the characterization of nuclear waste disposal in Northern Ontario as a "threat" and the description of the current situation as a "mess" that requires resolution. The language used suggests a fundamental lack of trust in the existing proposal and the processes currently governing it.

The primary issues raised by the commenter focus on the necessity for a full and impartial environmental investigation. This indicates a concern that current assessments may lack the required depth or objectivity to safely manage the risks associated with the project. Additionally, the commenter emphasizes the need for an extended timeline to allow for meaningful consultation with Canadians and all invested groups. This suggests that the current engagement efforts are perceived as inadequate or rushed, failing to incorporate the diverse perspectives of the public and stakeholders.

From a regulatory and ethical standpoint, the commenter highlights concerns regarding procedural fairness and environmental safety. By calling for an impartial investigation, the commenter raises a red flag regarding the perceived integrity of the project's oversight. The demand for broader consultation reflects a socio-economic concern for democratic participation in large-scale infrastructure decisions that affect the regional environment of Northern Ontario. Ultimately, the commenter advocates for a more transparent and inclusive process to determine the most appropriate long-term solution for nuclear waste management.

The commenter is explicitly Opposed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. Their opposition is rooted in historical legislative precedent and a long-standing regional rejection of nuclear waste disposal. The commenter references Manitoba’s High-Level Radioactive Waste Act, passed during the Howard Pawley administration, as a reflection of the public's enduring refusal to accept nuclear waste within the province. This historical context is used to argue that the risks associated with such facilities have been recognized and rejected for decades.

A primary environmental concern raised in the submission involves the hydrological connectivity between the proposed site and major water bodies. The commenter notes that the preferred location in Northwestern Ontario resides within a watershed that eventually flows into Lake Winnipeg. They draw a parallel to previous opposition against a proposed United States nuclear waste site that threatened the Red River, suggesting that the current proposal poses a similar transboundary environmental threat. The commenter asserts that the project was not environmentally sound in the 1980s and remains unsafe today due to these potential impacts on water systems.

The submission also highlights significant concerns regarding public health and the ethical responsibility of the government. The commenter calls upon both the Manitoba and Canadian governments to prioritize the health of people and the planet by opposing nuclear waste disposal within their borders. There is a clear demand for regulatory bodies to take these environmental and health risks seriously, with the commenter concluding that the long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste is fundamentally incompatible with the protection of the natural environment and human well-being.

The commenter, Graham Janz, is explicitly Opposed to the proposed project and advocates for a total ban on nuclear power in Canada. The submission argues that the Canadian government needs to rethink its entire nuclear strategy, asserting that the industry is driven by the financial interests of a few rather than the safety of future generations. The commenter concludes that the risks associated with nuclear waste are too high and that the current plans are based on flawed assumptions about geological and technical stability.

A primary concern raised is the unpredictability of geological processes. The commenter argues that while geology can explain the past, it cannot guarantee future stability, particularly regarding the Canadian Shield. There is a specific concern that boring into the bedrock to create a repository could destabilize the segment. The submission suggests a catastrophic scenario where seismic pressure could lead to the formation of a new volcano at the site, which would then eject stored radioactive material into the environment. Furthermore, the commenter highlights the health risks of radiation, noting that both high-level exposure and long-term low-level exposure cause cancer and fatal radiation sickness.

Transportation safety is identified as a major red flag. The commenter asserts that Canadian highways are not safe for transporting nuclear waste due to the high frequency of accidents caused by weather conditions, such as snowstorms, and human factors like drunk driving. The submission compares the potential for nuclear spills to historical leaks in oil and gas pipelines, suggesting that industry promises of safety are often unfulfilled. The commenter believes a disaster during transport is inevitable if the industry continues to expand.

The submission also addresses socio-economic and ethical issues, citing the loss of livelihoods for fishers and farmers following the Fukushima disaster as evidence of the far-reaching impacts of nuclear failures. The commenter critiques the "democratic" versus "soviet" management narrative, pointing out that nuclear accidents have occurred in various political systems, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan. The current conflict in Ukraine and the shelling of the Zaporizhzhia plant are used to illustrate that nuclear facilities are vulnerable to unpredictable geopolitical events and warfare.

Finally, the commenter raises significant concerns regarding transparency and governance. They report a lack of public information and a lack of responsiveness from international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding nuclear incidents. The submission suggests that negative information about nuclear energy is intentionally suppressed by authorities to prevent public concern from turning against the industry. The commenter views the reliance on nuclear power as an outdated "dream of the future" from the 1950s that ignores the lessons learned from past disasters and minor technical incidents.