Bruce C Nuclear Project

Attachment From Saugeen Ojibway Nation to Bruce Power – Bruce C Assessment – April 10, 2026

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Saugeen Ojibway Nation
• Reference Number: 282
• Submitted: 2026-04-10
• Updated: 2026-04-21 - 2:30 PM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 010129 Highway 6, Georgian Bluffs, ON N0H 2T0 (519) 534-5507 saugeenojibwaynation.ca 10/04/2026 RE: Bruce C Assessment Dear Kalena and Joanna, We write in response to your letter dated April 2, 2026. It is clear from your letter that Bruce Power continues to misunderstand the substance of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s (SON) concerns regarding the Bruce C Project (the “Project”) and the proposed approach to the federal impact assessment process. Nature and Significance of Potential Impacts As SON has repeatedly warned, the Project stands to result in significant adverse impacts, including but not limited to: ● the addition of a substantial stressor to an already stressed aquatic environment; ● the exacerbation of socio-economic impacts on the SON People; and ● the further magnification of the nuclear waste burden within SON Territory. Despite the scale and significance of these potential impacts, Bruce Power has provided no ...

Report

Attachment New nuclear at Wesleyville / Port Hope

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Local resident
• Reference Number: 281
• Submitted: 2026-04-19 - 8:43 AM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• I live directly between the Darlington nuclear station and new proposed site at Wesleyville. Not concerned about living close to these, however I believe the Ontario government is haphazardly progressing in this direction without considering the alternatives as follows: - what is the plan for waste? My neighborhood has been scarred with previous waste? Whose neighborhood is next? - why invest so much in one stream for the province? Nuclear is costly. Refurbished plants are costly. Lead time is significant. - current government subsidy for electricity is very high. Political football to eliminate it. I see very little appetite to reign in nuclear spending especially when it is a monopoly. Need to look at lower cost sustainable options - why not use the site to develop offshore wind, solar and storage? Diversify the energy base of the province. Develop a Canadian manufacturing option. There are a number of global leaders to leverage ...

Report

Attachment From Saugeen Ojibway Nation to IAAC and CNSC – Re SON Independent Work on Bruce C Assessment – April 17, 2026

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Saugeen Ojibway Nation
• Reference Number: 283
• Submitted: 2026-04-17
• Updated: 2026-04-21 - 3:06 PM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 010129 Highway 6, Georgian Bluffs, ON N0H 2T0 (519) 534-5507 saugeenojibwaynation.ca April 17, 2026 Larry Shuter Senior Policy Analyst, Consultation Operations Division Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Keely McCavitt Policy Officer, Indigenous Consultation and Engagement Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Dear Mr. Shuter and Ms. McCavitt: Re: Impact Assessment Process for the Bruce C Project We write further to our meetings of March 27, 2026, and April 15, 2026, to reiterate concerns we have raised in our meetings, to share a copy of the letter recently sent to Bruce Power, and to provide additional information on the independent work that the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (“SON”) has undertaken to date to identify gaps in Bruce Power’s existing information sources and conduct a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed Bruce C Project (“Project”). As you are aware, SON disagrees categorically with Bruce Power’s ...

Report

Attachment Renewable Power Generation far less costly than Nuclear

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Gaol Faveri, P. Eng.
• Reference Number: 280
• Submitted: 2026-04-10 - 6:43 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has overlooked the considerable benefits of renewable power generation in the proposal for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. As the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) announced, it has offered 20-year contracts to 14 new renewable energy proposals comprised of 12 solar projects and 2 wind farms.  It clearly sees that the average price of power of these renewable energy projects (https://ocaa.cmail20.com/t/y-l-aduirud-dkdkthjyij-y/) is 8.8 cents per kWh (https://ocaa.cmail20.com/t/y-l-aduirud-dkdkthjyij-j/) compares favourably to OPG's proposed price for nuclear energy in 2027 (21.4 cents per kWh) and up to 73% lower than the cost of power from its new GE-Hitachi nuclear reactors at Darlington (32.2 cents per kWh) (https://ocaa.cmail20.com/t/y-l-aduirud-dkdkthjyij-t/). Solar and wind combined ...

Report

Attachment Wesleyville

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Dan rudka
• Reference Number: 277
• Submitted: 2026-04-08 - 3:47 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• I will do this later as you could have made it  more simple - all the catergories?! Then you time us out if we are not quick enough with our comment? I am not very quick and would need more time as I am disabled.....disabled from nuclear exposure. There is NO consideration for this and seen as the Assessment offices way restricting comments, making it diificult. The Assessment has already, in this short time, made a mess and is damaging the Lakeshore Road and area. All is not well. Maybe try an actual comment later, will need a timer..... Dan Rudka

Report

Attachment No New Nuclear

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Fiddlehead Nursery
• Reference Number: 276
• Submitted: 2026-04-08 - 11:58 AM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• The fiscally responsible choice for new energy infrastructure in Ontario is the combination of wind, solar and battery storage.  This is much cheaper and faster to build than new nuclear, and produces no toxic waste.  Please invest our public money on a truly sustainable future.

Report

Attachment Go Green , NOT nuclear !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: myself
• Reference Number: 275
• Submitted: 2026-04-07 - 8:34 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• Nuclear is not the way to create a safe and healthy future. Wind,    such as the White Pine's Wind Farm,  built and torn down in the same year,  would be the way to a positive change on this planet.  Nuclear is NOT the way to create a safe , clean , affordable , or encouraging future.  

Report

Attachment Nuclear waste is the worst thing cannot be reversed fish will get contaminated and cost to health and additional cost to maintenance every few years and not to mention safety issue

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Retired
• Reference Number: 274
• Submitted: 2026-04-07 - 3:33 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• Necular for energy is not at all a good option 

Report

Attachment Renewables in preference to nuclear and petroleum.

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Oliver Drerup
• Reference Number: 273
• Submitted: 2026-04-07 - 1:51 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• We are at present witnessing the most serious oil shock since 1971. Notwithstanding the fact that the timing of this problem is entirely the result of the Trump Administrations decision making it underscores the delicacy of the choises before us. Clearly significant longterm investment in hydro, wind and solar energy far out weighs the value of any contribution which could be obtained from nuclear which untimately represents a waste problem of enormous significants and potential danger. Our willingness to assume such potential horrors duplicates our current reliance of petro chemicals. Choices must be made employing not only the economics of the day but also the ultimate outcome reasonably expected. Invest in things which will have lasting impact on our energy problems, long term. Think seven generations forward because it makes good sense to do so. Our children will be the winners!

Report

Attachment My Opposition to Building NEW, Publicly Financed, Nuclear Power Facilities

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: D. Herbert Heine
• Reference Number: 272
• Submitted: 2026-04-07 - 1:32 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• Keep EXISTING Nuclear Power infrastructure in workng condition, but DO NOT expend further Public Funds on NEW Nuclear Infrastructure.!!  We can NOW generate and create Renewable Power Infratructure -- Solar, Wind, Geothermal + Battery Storage  -- at a fraction of the cost of New Nuclear Power sources and without the detrimental impact of creating, storing and DISPOSING Nuclerar Waste.  So called "Small Mocular Nuclear Power Plants"  are still theoretical projects that have not been built and that do not solve the issues of creating nuclear fuel and  managing Nuclear Waste.    Starting such  publically financed Projects will  lock in costs and ongoing expenditures for  several decades and  then become publically owned Liabilities which will require further public costs. Let's not allow the "Nuclear Industry Lobby" to become another  "Petrochemical Indusrry Lobby" ...

Report

Attachment Sustainable Energy is Mainstream

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Judy Tyson
• Reference Number: 271
• Submitted: 2026-04-07 - 1:30 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• The metaphor in hockey applies: "Skate to where the puck is going..." In 2025, huge progress was made in sustainable energy as the leading supplier worldwide, using wind, solar, batteries, geothermal to name a few. Let's catch up to innovations of the 21st century. Let's not invest in a stranded asset.   Clean energy is cheaper to build than nuclear.  Clean energy is faster to assemble and operationalize than nuclear. Clean energy provides dual-income streams for farmers, building owners and landowners and better land use than nuclear. Clean energy reduces reliance on disruptive mining and foreign suppliers for raw materials. Clean energy does not require water consumption or disruption of waterways. Clean energy is safer than nuclear.   Nuclear energy provides only short-term employment but long-term waste and risk. Nuclear is a legacy problem, not a ...

Report

Attachment Opposed

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: myself
• Reference Number: 270
• Submitted: 2026-04-07 - 1:04 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• As I stated before, I am opposed to the world's largest nuclear facility in Port Hope.  The citizens have not yet recoverd from having Cameco in their back yard.  I am concerned about the astronomical cost of the facility, the impact it will have on the community and the effect on the environment.  I am also concerned that the more economical and environmentally friendly means like wind and solar have not been considered. This seems like another case of where the people who are most affected by the impact of this project do not have a voice. Also a project of this size makes us a target for any terrorist or menancing entity.

Report

Attachment Bruce Power response to Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s Letter from March 6, 2026

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Bruce Power
• Reference Number: 278
• Submitted: 2026-04-06
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• Bruce Power P.O. Box 1540, Tiverton, ON N0G 2T0, B10 Telephone 519-361-2673 www.brucepower.com Owen Tanner Energy Manager Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office 010129 Highway 6 Georgian Bluffs, ON N0H 2T0 Dear Mr. Tanner, Re: SON’s March 6, 2026 Letter “Work Required for Bruce Power’s Workplan for Bruce C” We write in respect to your letter, dated March 6, 2026, regarding the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) Technical Team’s, including SON’s Subject Matter Experts (Technical Team) concerns regarding the Draft Impact Statement Phase Workplan (draft Workplan) and the Impact Statement Schedule for the proposed Bruce C Project (Project). We wish to clarify the purpose of the draft Workplan shared with SON (provided in Appendix A). The objective of the draft Workplan was to pull together technical information and discussions that had been shared over the past several months by SON and Bruce Power into one document. The draft Workplan was prepared with the ...

Report

Attachment Bruce C Nuclear Project - Bruce Stopper 35

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Chris
• Reference Number: 269
• Submitted: 2026-03-20
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• Bruce C — Bruce Stopper 35 — Three Competing Technologies — March 2026 BRUCE C NUCLEAR PROJECT — IAAC REGISTRY FILE NO. 88771 SUBMISSION BY CHRISTOFFEL GERHARDUS NEL Formal Intervenor — March 2026 BRUCE STOPPER 35 TEMPORAL OVERREACH THREE TECHNOLOGIES THAT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY SOLAR, WIND, AND NUCLEAR WILL BE COMMERCIALLY MATURE BEFORE BRUCE C OPENS IN THE 2040s. IAAC’S TISG DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PROPONENT TO COMPARE BRUCE C AGAINST ANY OF THESE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES. 35.1 The Starting Point: Two Problems That Need Solving To understand why Bruce Stopper 35 matters, a reader needs to understand two technology problems that currently shape Ontario’s electricity options. Every major competing technology described in this stopper exists to solve one or both of these problems. Once the problems are clear, the technologies are easy to understand. 35.1.1 The Problem with Solar and Wind: They Stop Working When You Need Them Most ...

Report

Attachment 34 BRUCE STOPPERS

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Chris Nel
• Reference Number: 268
• Submitted: 2026-03-16 - 8:34 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• These are the 34 Bruce Stoppers that prevent the IAAC from proceeding with the process and from approving the project
• Attachment Included
• Page 1 of 158 IAAC Registry File No. 88771 | Bruce C Nuclear Project — Integrated Impact Assessment FORMAL SUBMISSION THE BRUCE C NUCLEAR PROJECT CANNOT BE APPROVED Thirty-Four Independent Bruce Stoppers Each Bruce Stopper independently bars approval of the Bruce C Nuclear Project. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada does not need to find all thirty-four persuasive — any single one, properly applied to the statutory obligations of the Impact Assessment Act, is sufficient grounds to refuse approval. Together they form a closed logical structure from which there is no exit within the current state of knowledge or the current regulatory architecture. OPENING STATEMENT Purpose and Structure of This Submission This submission is filed by a member of the public with documented technical expertise in the radiological health risk framework applied by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to nuclear facility licensing and environmental assessment in ...

Report

Attachment Posting of Bruce Power’s List of Impact Assessment and Regulatory Documents, Workplan and Impact Statement Schedule

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Northwatch
• Reference Number: 267
• Submitted: 2026-03-10 - 2:35 PM
• Updated: 2026-03-23 - 3:41 PM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• March 10, 2026 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Sent by Email: Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca (mailto:Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca) Re.        Posting of Bruce Power’s List of Impact Assessment and Regulatory Documents, Workplan and Impact Statement Schedule Since the “completion” of the planning phase IAAC has posted a number of documents related to the IA process, including the Notice of Commencement of an Impact Assessment (August 19, 2025), a Notice of the Establishment of Time Limits for the Integrated Impact Assessment for the Bruce C Nuclear Project and a “Project Charter”, On September 9th the Agency sent a letter (Registry #257 (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p88771/163162E.pdf)) to Bruce Power  about the submission of project ...
• Attachment Included
• March 10, 2026 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Sent by Email: Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Re. Posting of Bruce Power’s List of Impact Assessment and Regulatory Documents, Workplan and Impact Statement Schedule Since the “completion” of the planning phase IAAC has posted a number of documents related to the IA process, including the Notice of Commencement of an Impact Assessment (August 19, 2025), a Notice of the Establishment of Time Limits for the Integrated Impact Assessment for the Bruce C Nuclear Project and a “Project Charter”, On September 9th the Agency sent a letter (Registry #257) to Bruce Power about the submission of project information, setting out a requirement that Bruce C provide a preliminary list of all impact assessment and regulatory documents before November 20, 2025 and requesting that Bruce C submit a final list of impact assessment and regulatory ...

Report

Attachment Posting of Bruce Power’s List of Impact Assessment and Regulatory Documents, Workplan and Impact Statement Schedule

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Northwatch
• Reference Number: 267
• Submitted: 2026-03-10 - 2:35 PM
• Updated: 2026-03-23 - 3:29 PM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• March 10, 2026 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Sent by Email: Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca (mailto:Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca) Re.        Posting of Bruce Power’s List of Impact Assessment and Regulatory Documents, Workplan and Impact Statement Schedule Since the “completion” of the planning phase IAAC has posted a number of documents related to the IA process, including the Notice of Commencement of an Impact Assessment (August 19, 2025), a Notice of the Establishment of Time Limits for the Integrated Impact Assessment for the Bruce C Nuclear Project and a “Project Charter”, On September 9th the Agency sent a letter (Registry #257 (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p88771/163162E.pdf)) to Bruce Power  about the submission of project ...
• Attachment Included
• March 10, 2026 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Sent by Email: Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Re. Posting of Bruce Power’s List of Impact Assessment and Regulatory Documents, Workplan and Impact Statement Schedule Since the “completion” of the planning phase IAAC has posted a number of documents related to the IA process, including the Notice of Commencement of an Impact Assessment (August 19, 2025), a Notice of the Establishment of Time Limits for the Integrated Impact Assessment for the Bruce C Nuclear Project and a “Project Charter”, On September 9th the Agency sent a letter (Registry #257) to Bruce Power about the submission of project information, setting out a requirement that Bruce C provide a preliminary list of all impact assessment and regulatory documents before November 20, 2025 and requesting that Bruce C submit a final list of impact assessment and regulatory ...

Report

Attachment From Saugeen Ojibway Nation to Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – Bruce C Assessment

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Saugeen Ojibway Nation
• Reference Number: 266
• Submitted: 2026-03-09 - 11:51 AM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• March 9, 2026 Larry Shuter Senior Policy Analyst, Consultation Operations Division Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Keely McCavitt Policy Officer, Indigenous Consultation and Engagement Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Dear Mr. Shuter and Ms. McCavitt: Re: Impact Assessment Process for the Bruce C Project We write further to the meeting held on February 13, 2026, between our teams concerning the impact assessment process for the Bruce C Project (“Project”). As was made clear during that meeting, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (“SON”) remains deeply concerned about the credibility of the impact assessment process for this Project. Since the Project was first announced, SON has consistently underscored the importance of SON and IAAC working together as true partners on the assessment of Bruce Power’s proposal. SON has been clear that we are willing to consider the proposal with open minds, but that the Project must be studied carefully and ...

Report

Attachment Work Required for Bruce Power’s Workplan for Bruce C

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Saugeen Ojibway Nation
• Reference Number: 265
• Submitted: 2026-03-09 - 10:17 AM
• Updated: 2026-03-10 - 10:03 AM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: N/A
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 010129 Highway 6, Georgian Bluffs, ON N0H 2T0 (519) 534-5507 saugeenojibwaynation.ca March 6, 2026 Kalena Lair, Program Manager, Regulatory Affairs Joanna Moffat, Technical and Administrative Lead, Indigenous Engagement & Partnerships Re. Work Required for Bruce Power’s Workplan for Bruce C Kalena and Joanna, I am writing on behalf of the SON technical team, including SON’s subject matter experts, regarding the SON Impact Statement Phase Workplan (the “Workplan”) and the Impact Statement Schedule Update shared by Bruce Power in February for the Bruce C Project (the “Project”). SON’s team has reviewed the documents. While they provide more information than those shared in December, they still lack the level of detail required to understand how Bruce Power intends to assess the Project’s potential impacts. Given Bruce Power’s stated intention to submit the Impact Statement in August, SON expected a clearer and more comprehensive description ...

Report

Attachment SON Comments on TISG and Expectations for Impact Statement

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Saugeen Ojibway Nation
• Reference Number: 259
• Submitted: 2025-11-03 - 12:55 PM
• Updated: 2025-11-19 - 3:38 PM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• November 3, 2025 Larry Shuter Senior Policy Analyst, Consultation Operations Division Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Marina Martin Policy Officer, Indigenous Consultation and Engagement Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Mike Rinker Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Bruce Power Joanna Moffat Technical Officer, Indigenous Engagement & Partnerships Bruce Power Dear Mr. Shuter, Ms. Martin, Mr. Rinker and Ms. Moffat: Re: Saugeen Ojibway Nation Additional Comments on the Bruce C Project Assessment We have enclosed with this letter additional comments from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) on the information that Bruce Power must produce as part of the assessment of the Bruce C Project (the Project). Since the Bruce C Project was first announced, SON has been clear that we are willing to consider the proposal with open minds, but that the Project and its impacts must be carefully assessed and considered before any decision is reached ...
• Attachment Included
• Information shared on this page is for the integrated assessment of the proposed Bruce C project and has not been approved for use for other purposes. This information is the property of SON and can not be used for other purposes without SON's consent. November 3, 2025 Additional Comment Table from Saugeen Ojibway Nation on "Integrated TISG for Bruce C" Submitted to IAAC, CNSC, and Bruce Power as SON Expectations to shape the Impact Statement This table should be read with the cover letter provided by SON. SON was not provided sufficient time to finalize and submit these comments during the Planning Phase of the Integrated Impact Assessment. SON requested additional time for this, but this request was refused. These comments have been submitted as soon as possible. TISG Section Comment/Concern In response to these additional comments, Bruce Power must provide SON with a concordance table showing how each comment has been addressed, and if not addressed, provide a ...

Report

Attachment SON's Concerns respecting process and substance of the Draft Integrated TISG for Proposed Bruce C Nuclear Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Saugeen Ojibway Nation
• Reference Number: 240
• Submitted: 2025-07-22 - 11:03 AM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office 010129 Highway 6, Georgian Bluffs, ON N0H 2T0 (519) 534-5507 saugeenojibwaynation.ca Addressed To: Larry Shuter Senior Policy Analyst, Consultation Operations Division Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) Kirsten Sellers Senior Policy Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) SON’s Concerns respecting process and substance of the Draft Integrated TISG for Proposed Bruce C Nuclear Project DATE: July 22, 2025 Dear Larry and Kirsten, We write further to the Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s (“SON”) letter of June 18, 2025. As conveyed in that letter to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (“IAAC”) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (“CNSC”), SON was deeply disappointed by the decision to recommence the Planning Phase—a decision which has continued to undermine our ability to engage meaningfully with the federal impact assessment process for the Bruce C Nuclear ...

Report

Attachment Comments from Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and Response-Nuclear, Radiological and Scientific Response Programs F.Tourneur on behalf of Michael Munro

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and Response - Nuclear Radiological and Scientific Response Programs
• Reference Number: 235
• Submitted: 2025-07-15 - 8:53 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• Comments from Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and Response-Nuclear, Radiological and Scientific Response Programs F.Tourneur on behalf of Michael Munro
• Attachment Included
• CIAR #: 88771 Bruce C Nuclear Project Page 1 of 4 Comment Form – Draft Cooperation Plan and Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines – Provincial Review Team Bruce C Nuclear Project Response required by: July 11, 2025 All comments should be submitted via the Submit a Comment feature available on the Project’s Canadian Impact Assessment Registry page (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88771?culture=en-CA). Documents can be uploaded using this feature. If you have any difficulties submitting this way, please contact the Registry directly at registry-registre@iaac-aeic.gc.ca. All comments submitted using this form will be posted on the Registry website for the Project. Please note that this is your opportunity to tailor the draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. Ministry/Office: Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and Response IA Contact: Michael Munro Senior Manager, Nuclear, Radiological and Scientific Response Programs ...

Report

Attachment Bruce C Nuclear Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Jacquelyn Drechsler and Jocelyn DeCrescenzo
• Reference Number: 228
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 10:41 PM
• Updated: 2025-07-14 - 2:18 PM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Bruce C Project. Without having selected a reactor design, Bruce Power has already started an impact assessment, wanting approval without stating what kind of nuclear power plant they would build. Most assuredly and idiotically putting the cart before the horse.Without this information and wanting approval without stating what kind of power plant they will build, it is impossible for a review panel to approve this project, as their impact assessment would be missing critical information. The guidelines are clear.There has not been an examination of the need for this project, nor an examination of environmentally friendlier and less costly alternatives. How is it possible to even consider approval? There is the matter of the creation of massive amounts of radioactive nuclear waste. What kind of reactor? How much more waste? If SMR's are considered, and according to Lindsay Krall and Alison McFarland, we know ...

Report

Attachment Northwatch's Comment on the draft Public Participation Plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Northwatch
• Reference Number: 232
• Submitted: 2025-07-12 - 7:56 AM
• Updated: 2025-07-15 - 3:52 PM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• Bruce C Nuclear Project Brennain Lloyd Comment on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines IAA Reference # 88771 July 11, 2025 Northwatch Comments on Bruce C Nuclear Project draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines 1 Introduction On June 12, 2025 the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission announced a 30 day comment period closing July 11, 2025 and invited comments on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and the draft public participation plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. In total there are four plans – the Draft Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan , Draft Permitting Plan, Draft Cooperation Plan, and a Draft Public Participation Plan – but the invitation for public comment was limited to the draft public participation plan. In response to Northwatch’s request that the Agency confirm that there is also a public comment period on the ...
• Attachment Included
• July 11, 2025 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor. Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 IAA Reference # 88771 Comments on the Public Participation Plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project Review In the Agency’s June 12th announcement of the 30-day comment period on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and the draft Public Participation Plan, the public was invited to comment on those two draft documents. Our comments on the guidelines are provided under separate cover, as are our brief comments on a Draft Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan. Public Participation Plan We have reviewed the draft public participation plan and offer the following comments, suggestions, and / or requests for changes or additions to the final public participation plan: - The revised public participation plan should clearly set out the various steps and public comment opportunities in the ...

Report

Attachment Comments and recommendations on IAA Guidelines for Bruce C project.

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Sunil Nijhawan
• Reference Number: 231
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 11:55 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• Comments and recommendations on IAA Guidelines for Bruce C project. Sunil Nijhawan, PhD P.Eng As a Canadian nuclear safety engineer with over 40 years of hands-on technical safety assessment experience working with all segments of the Canadian nuclear industry (AECL, OPG, CNSC) and a number of reactor designs, I firmly believe that the IAA has a unique opportunity and a legal obligation to ask the proponent the right questions as Canada is sleep-walking towards a nuclear power reactor related disaster of historic proportions with dishonesty in regulation and technical incompetence has taken hold of the power reactor licensing, design evaluation and risk assessment processes. It is alarming that utilities like Bruce Power, the leaser of its reactors - the Ontario Power Generation and the national regulator CNSC have acted in serious collusion for years and almost never solely in public interest. CNSC have not only accepted faulty submissions by the industry, ...

Report

Attachment Comments on Guidelines and Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Ecological Justice Working Group, United Church of Canada East
• Reference Number: 226
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 11:54 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• Concerns about Project and advice on Guidelines
• Attachment Included
• July 11, 2025 Submission via email:Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Submission to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for Bruce C Nuclear Project 88771 Ecojustice Working Group for the United Church of Canada East Contact: Dr. Mary Lou Harley Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for Bruce C Nuclear Project 88771. The United Church of Canada has a long history of policies, documents, and submissions to public calls for input on social, environmental and ethical issues relating to energy issues, including nuclear power issues.1 This submission is grounded in that extensive base of information and experience. Some excerpts of ethical reflections that underpin the work of the United Church of Canada on nuclear power and other energy issues, and bring the Ecological Justice Working Group to address concerns about the impact ...

Report

Attachment Judith Fox Lee Comments on the Bruce C draft guidelines and public participation plan

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Judith Fox Lee
• Reference Number: 230
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 11:21 PM
• Updated: 2025-07-18 - 2:24 PM
• Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 1 From: Judith Fox Lee Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 11:21 PM To: Bruce C Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Bruce C Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) Subject: Judith Fox Lee Comments on the Bruce C draft guidelines and public participation plan Categories: Add to DL To Whom It May Concern, I, Judith Fox Lee of Perth Ontario hereby submit my comments on the draft Integrated Guidelines and the draft Public Participation Plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project, its current expansion proposal. I will appreciate it if my comments are fully tracked, posted and shared with all concerned members of the Proponent's team, the related IAAC and CNSC staff, the Review Panel members, and the Governor in Council, to assist them in making a reasonable determination on this Integrated Assessment process, in deciding whether the project is in the public interest . I also hereby ask to be added to the distribution list at this same email address, . To wit: I fully recommend that ...

Report

Attachment Bruce C Nuclear Project Public Comment

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: N/A
• Reference Number: 225
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 10:21 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• My name is Lydia Schroeder-Hart. I am a resident of south-eastern Manitoba. I am involved as an activist with an anti-nuclear organization but this comment is my own personal response to the proposed Bruce Project. The Bruce Nuclear project is proposed to be doubled to be the largest nuclear generating energy project in the world. it will also generate a correspondingly increased amount of spent highly reactive nuclear waste.  There has been a process in Ontario to plan for a Deep Geological Repository at Revel by Wabigoon Lake in Ontario which would serve as the repository for nuclear waste from across Canada that is a matter of concern for me as a Manitoba resident. I am located within the Winnipeg River watershed. The Deep Geological Repository is untested in practice. The plan is for projects like the proposed Bruce site to transport their nuclear waste to the Revel site, then the waste will be unloaded, processed for depositing into the DGR and then executing the ...

Report

Attachment I think it is premature and irresponsible to apply for a permit before establishing if there is a demonstrated need for more reactors, without specifying what design you wish to build and without a viable solution for the disposal of the radioactive waste that will be produced. This all seems bizar

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Sheila Burr
• Reference Number: 224
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 10:20 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• I think it is premature and irresponsible to be requesting a permit when the need for more reactors has not been demonstrated, when the design has not been specified, and a plan for the disposal of the radioactive waste has not been decided. This is bizarre.

Report

Attachment Comments re "Guidelines" for the Bruce C Impact Assessment

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Kerstin Muth
• Reference Number: 229
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 8:17 PM
• Project Phase: Impact Statement
• Participation Notice: Public notice - Public comments Invited and Information Sessions on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Draft Public Participation Plan
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 1 From: Kerstin Muth Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 8:17 PM To: Bruce C Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Bruce C Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) Subject: Comments re “Guidelines” for the Bruce C Impact Assessment Categories: Add to DL Comments re “Guidelines” for the Bruce C Impact Assessment To whom it may concern: My interest in the project is primarily because of my concern about climate change and also nuclear waste. The proponent states that that one need for the project is for low-carbon emitting electricity supply. The plan to address the climate emergency is to reduce carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050. The next 2-3 decades are critical. Construction of new power plants and mining and refining of the fuel will produce considerable carbon emissions. The proponent should provide detailed accounting of the timeline of carbon emissions that are likely to be produced by particular project including the construction of the plant, the production ...

Report