Calls for Public Input on Two Major Nuclear Projects
This article by Graham Saunders, president of Environment North and Kerstin Muth, member of Environment North was originally published in the Chronicle Journal on Tuesday, February 3, 2026.
Highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste could be travelling through numerous communities, including Thunder Bay, starting in a couple of decades. The destination would be a facility at Revell Lake, near Ignace and Wabigoon Lake First Nation. The transport would continue for at least 50 years, daily if by truck. Most of the waste would be travelling from Southern Ontario but also from Quebec and from New Brunswick.
The site was selected late last year by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). On January 5, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) began the review of this project. The NWMO has submitted their Initial Project Description to the IAAC and the public has until February 4 to submit comments. Public comments will be an important consideration in the Agency’s decision on whether the project will undergo a federal impact assessment and what will be included in the assessment.
About 50 years ago the region avoided having a radioactive future. At that time Atomic Energy of Canada Limited had test drill sites near Atikokan to assess whether the area was suitable for disposal of nuclear waste. There was a lot of public opposition. The campaign was successful and the drilling was halted.
Now we are faced with a potential radioactive a déjà vu. It is an experiment because there are no deep geological repositories in operation anywhere in the world. A huge flaw in the NWMO’s Initial Project Description is that they are excluding the transportation of the radioactive waste as part of their project. Environment North and many other groups are calling for an impact assessment that will include transportation so that the numerous communities along the transportation route will be fully informed of the risks and will be able to have meaningful input. It is an unprecedented undertaking on account of the distances travelled, the years it will take to complete and the highly radioactive loads that are being moved through many communities on a recurring basis.
The NWMO states that their nuclear waste project will, “support Canada’s commitments to climate action and achieving net-zero by 2050 by ensuring nuclear energy remains a sustainable and socially responsible energy source”.
According to Amory Lovins, a professor of engineering at Stanford University, one must consider carbon, time and cost of energy sources when addressing the climate emergency. One should invest in those that deliver the most electricity in the shortest time with the least carbon emissions and at the least cost. Simply put, new nuclear energy takes too long to come online and is too expensive.
Environment North would add that an energy source that produces radioactive waste that must be isolated from the environment for at least 100,000 years cannot be considered sustainable and is highly irresponsible.
Incredibly, the Ontario government is proposing new nuclear projects, including the largest nuclear power plant in the world. Ten new nuclear reactors (10,000 MW) at Wesleyville, on the shore of Lake Ontario would produce radioactive waste for at least 60 years. Ontario Power Generation has submitted the Initial Project Description to the IAAC and the public has until February 11 to submit comments.
Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates the cost at 230 billion dollars and notes that the costs will affect electricity rates and also be buried in taxes. This is reminiscent of the debt caused by the Darlington nuclear power plants built in the 1980s.
These new power plants will take many years of planning and many years to build. It would take a long time until we start saving carbon and it is expensive. As has been the case with previous reviews of new nuclear power plants, a specific plan for the waste is not part of the project description. Where will this additional nuclear waste go? We suspect it would eventually be somewhere in northern Ontario.
Investing in efficiency, renewable energy and storage is the alternative. It is the best way to reducing carbon in the shortest amount of time and at the least cost, and without the radioactive waste. The public has an opportunity to tell the IAAC that they do not wish to expand nuclear energy and make more radioactive waste and that Ontario Power Generation should examine alternatives.
We encourage everyone to comment on these two projects. The impacts will affect generations. For more information about submitting comments to the IAAC visit environmentnorth.ca or wethenuclearfreenorth.ca