Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project
Comments from the Environment Department at Nipissing First Nation on the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project
- Reference Number
- 417
- Text
The following comments are being made on behalf of the Environment Department at Nipissing First Nation on the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Project:
Comments #1 – Transportation through the Robinson Huron Treaty Region is treated as “Out of Scope”. This is a major failure. One of the most serious issues with this proposal is that the transport of used nuclear fuel through vast indigenous territories is explicitly excluded from the assessment. The document states that transportation of used fuel from the reactor sites to the project is “not included: because it is regulated separately under CNSC certification and uses “existing infrastructure”. This is unacceptable as treaty lands are not “existing infrastructure corridors”. The Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1950 guarantees the continued use of land and water for fish, hunting, and travel. Rail lines, highways and water crossings, these territories do not extinguish treaty rights. While the WLON is framed to “host”, a dozen First Nations whose territories will be crossed by rail and road have not consented to the movement of high-level radioactive waste through their lands. Nipissing First Nation certainly does not consent to this.
Accidents are not hypothetical. Transport will occur over decades across:
- Rail derailment zones
- Extreme weather corridors
- Wildfire-prone regions
- Watersheds connected to Lake Superior and Lake Huron
An accident anywhere along these routs would directly threaten:
- Drinking water
- Wild rice and aquatic food plants and medicines
- Fisheries
- Sacred, burial and fixed cultural sites.
Emergency response capacity in many First Nations is limited. The proposal does not demonstrate how remote or under-resourced communities would respond to a radiological incident, yet these are the communities which would bear the risk.
In conclusion to Comment #1 – You cannot meaningfully claim “free, prior, and informed consent” while carving out the most dangerous phase of the project: TRANSPORT. This is especially true when it affects Nations who are not the hosts.
Comment #2 – Consent is treated as a local regime, while the risk is region-wide and intergenerational. The proposed project repeatedly emphasizes WLON's willingness and hosting agreements; however, consent is being narrowly interpreted as applying only to the immediate repository site. The risk of transport extends across multiple treaty territories, watersheds, and generations (the half-life of uranium in fuel is 4.5 Billion years!). The situation in which the WLON is creating is one in which one Nation is positioned as the “moral and political shield” for a project that affects many others. Other nations are reframed as merely “potentially affected” rather than rights-holders with decision-making authority.
Comments #3 – Water is Life – it is Anishinaabe Law. While this holds true for all Anishinabek Peoples, the WLON seems to minimize watershed risk. The document repeatedly claims that the risk to water is “low” after mitigation, while also acknowledging uncertainty and data gaps. The fact for Anishinabek peoples is that water is not a resource; it is a living relative. Harm to this relative is not measured only by regulatory thresholds but by spiritual responsibility, cumulative impacts and long-term imbalance. The key issues with this document are:
- Groundwater modelling over hundreds of thousands of years is presented as sufficient assurance, despite climate instability and in lieu of isostatic rebound.
- Interconnect watersheds flowing towards Lake Superior are acknowledge nut not fully assessed in indigenous terms.
- The possibility of future human intrusions, seismic activity, or container failure is treated as technically manageable rather than ethically unacceptable.
It is clear that one does not place permanent poison upstream and call it stewardship because models say it will probably stay contained.
- Submitted by
- Nipissing First Nation
- Phase
- Planning
- Public Notice
- Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
- Attachment(s)
- N/A
- Date Submitted
- 2026-02-04 - 10:10 AM