The decision to store 50,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste sparks political debate and environmental concerns, despite nuclear power’s low carbon footprint and record of safe handling
By Mikaila Bluew
After more than a decade of deliberation, the township of Ignace in northwestern Ontario will welcome a $26 billion nuclear waste storage facility that will hold over 50,000 tons of high-level waste, projected to open in 2040.
The search for a stable location began in 2010 with little success until Nov. 28, 2024, when Ignace voted overwhelmingly in favor, with 77 percent of the votes. The facility will be located in the Great Lakes Basin, about 124 miles northwest of Lake Superior.
The decision has sparked contention in Michigan politics, drawing the attention of local policymakers like Congressman Dan Kildee. He, along with other community leaders, wrote a letter to the authors of the 2025 national defense bill, opposing the facility’s location.
The letter addressed environmental concerns regarding the possible impact on the Great Lakes in the event of an accident with High-Level Nuclear waste contaminating the water supply.
While this is a valid concern, given the lakes’ importance to Michigan and their role in supplying clean water to an estimated 40 million people across the U.S. and Canada, it also reflects common misconceptions about nuclear power and waste.
“Even if multiple things go wrong like earthquake, tsunami—in Michigan—that stuff (nuclear waste) will never, ever, leak into the water supply,” said Delta College professor of Physics and Astronomy Aurelian Balan.
The waste could be harmful if disturbed, but an incident severe enough to cause such disruption would present far greater concerns.
The casks used to store the waste have been safely transported across the U.S. and Canada for the last 55 years without radioactive leaks or environmental impact.
The casks are built to withstand impacts greater than 99 percent of vehicle accidents and can remain intact through water submersion, impact, puncture, and fires.
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest energy sources used worldwide. Although nuclear waste remains radioactive for up to 400,000 years, the levels are less intimidating than many believe. 95 percent of radioactive waste is considered very low or low-level, with less than 1 percent classified as high-level waste.
“Right now, those tons and tons of nuclear waste, they’re just stored,” said Balan. “They’re safe, but they’re not as safe as they could be buried half a mile underground, which is what they’re talking about building.”
The current method of storing this waste is unsustainable and presents greater environmental risks than the safer alternative the plant offers. Currently, the casks that store the waste must be kept on site with nearly 3.2 million being held in temporary storage only sustainable for 50 years. There are no active storage facilities in the U.S. or Canada to offer a more permanent solution.
Nuclear fuel is the most meticulously inventoried, safeguarded, and sealed material in any industry, yet its disposal has been a contentious issue for decades.
Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States, producing zero carbon emissions and has become fully renewable—unlike any other energy source. This, however, does not stop it from garnering a bad rep due to media coverage and historical incidents such as Chernobyl, 3-mile-island, and the Fukushima disaster.
“People are scared of the word nuclear because the word bomb comes after it,” Balan said. “I think the negligence in Chernobyl, and potentially the disaster in Japan in 2011, but remember, Japan is an entire fault line; that’s why people are scared.”
This information, though impactful, does little to highlight the environmental impact of other energy sources. In 2020, the United States avoided nearly 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution, the equivalent of 100 million vehicle emissions due to the use of nuclear power.
“You get less radiation than if you live close to a coal power plant,” said Balan. “In coal there’s trace amounts of radioactive materials that would expose you to more radiation than living close to a nuclear power plant.”
The key question here is whether the gradual pollution from solar energy or coal burning poses a greater risk than the rare but devastating potential of a nuclear meltdown.
The Impact of Alternative Fuel Sources
Solar and Wind Power:
- Solar panels produce 300 times more waste per unit of energy than nuclear power.
- To match the output of a typical commercial reactor, over 3 million solar panels or 430 wind turbines would be required.
- Over the last 60 years, all the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear industry could fit on a single football field, while solar panel waste would rise to the height of two Mount Everests.
Fossil Fuels:
- The burning of coal and oil caused more than 8.7 million deaths worldwide in 2018—one in five deaths that year were attributed to pollution.
Coal Power:
- Fly ash from coal plants releases 100 times more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy.
- Coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, which, when burned, concentrate in the fly ash—up to ten times their original levels.
- Coal ash is more radioactive per ounce than nuclear waste stored safely in water or dry casks.
