The search for a permanent solution to Canada’s nuclear waste dilemma has reached a pivotal point. After 14 years of exhaustive research and community engagement, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) announced the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as the chosen sites for the nation’s deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel. This consequential decision, made in late November 2024, is seen not just as a step forward for waste management, but as a historic movement driven by both local governments and Indigenous communities.

Laurie Swami, the NWMO’s president and CEO, described this moment as one of great significance. “This project will solve an environmental issue and supports Canada’s climate change goals,” she asserted. The deep geological repository (DGR) is set to house millions of used fuel bundles, which can remain hazardous for up to 400,000 years—a stark reminder of the long-term responsibility associated with nuclear energy. Currently, about three million bundles of high-level nuclear waste, equivalent to filling eight hockey rinks, are stored temporarily near power reactors across Canada.

Selected following what the NWMO termed as a “consent-based” siting process, the decision came after years of thorough consultations and feasibility studies. Originally, 22 communities were assessed, but by 2024, the focus narrowed to two combinations: the Saugeen Ojibway Nation and South Bruce, and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and Ignace. Due to the unwillingness of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation to participate, Ignace and Wabigoon emerged as the clear choice.

Notably, fears surrounding the project have echoed within and beyond the chosen communities, particularly among nearby groups like the Grassy Narrows First Nation. After suffering for decades from mercury poisoning linked to environmental mishaps, Grassy Narrows members expressed deep concerns about the potential risks associated with nuclear waste transportation and the repository itself. Joseph Fobister, leading land protection for Grassy Narrows, voiced alarm, stating, “The transport of extremely dangerous nuclear waste and its disposal within our watershed will do irreparable destruction.” Such sentiments underline the complexity of community engagement within this massive project.

At the heart of the selection process was community consent, successfully demonstrated through referendums and public votes. The Township of Ignace voted overwhelmingly—77%—in favor of hosting the repository, marking their dedication to what Mayor Kim Baigrie characterized as constructive engagement. The community has been involved since the very beginning, according to Baigrie, which shaped the decision’s acceptance and readiness to learn about the nuclear waste issue.

Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation mirrored the sentiment of the township. Chief Clayton Wetelainen underscored the responsibility his community holds: “We view our role as the potential host for Canada’s used nuclear fuel as one of the most important responsibilities of our time.” He emphasized being guardians of their land and water throughout the repository’s development, ensuring any potential impacts are mitigated and aligned with Anishinaabe values.

The NWMO plans to begin its regulatory approval process next. This would include extensive reviews by both the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The entire construction is projected to span approximately 10 years, with operations likely starting around the 2040s, contingent on obtaining the required licenses.

While support for the project has emerged, critics point to the broader regional impacts, noting neighboring communities like Dryden, Ontario, are within the transportation corridor for hazardous waste yet had no say in the process. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, highlighted this disparity: “Other communities… were not asked for their approval nor was agreement sought from any of the communities along the 2,600-kilometre transportation corridor needed.” These concerns draw attention to the potential risks communities face as Canada moves forward with its nuclear ambitions.

Despite these controversies, the NWMO remains firm on the principle it established from the get-go: any proposed repository site must meet high standards for safety and stability. The area designated for the DGR, also known as the Revell site, is estimated to be over 600 metres deep and would employ both engineered and natural barriers to isolate the waste from the environment. Supporting data suggest the geology beneath the site can contain the radioactive waste securely, minimizing the risk of leakage.

Looking toward the future, Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation now brace for the regulatory challenges ahead. The project aims to not only securely dispose of nuclear waste but also demonstrate leadership from Indigenous communities and municipalities in addressing global climate efforts. Ontario’s Minister of Energy, Stephen Lecce, expressed gratitude to both communities, stating, “This achievement by NWMO is just the latest example of Ontario cementing its position as a world leader.”

Yet, it’s uncertain if opposition can still materialize. The final phase of the project will involve rigorous scrutiny from various regulatory bodies, ensuring the safety and environmental integrity of Canada’s future nuclear waste management strategy.

For many Canadians, the notion of nuclear energy often incites mixed feelings—its potential for clean energy starkly contrasted with the looming threat of radioactive waste. The decision to build the DGR raises questions about the responsibilities national and local governments hold toward communities, particularly those with deep historical ties to the land, making the advancement of the project something to watch closely.

Decades later, as future generations tend to the legacy left by today’s decisions, the hope is this facility will not only encapsulate nuclear waste safely but also transform the handling of energy sources, shaping a proactive instead of reactive approach to the nation’s nuclear legacy.