Comments on Draft Public Participation Plan

The project description assumes the only alternative that will be considered is a nuclear plant and nuclear technologies yet to be determined. Does this mean that no other types of generation will be considered?  If this is the case, I am immediately very disappointed with the IA process. (We have renewable technologies available, less expensive, faster to build, will begin reducing GHG emissions much sooner and don't leave a legacy of waste that will need to be safely stored for thousands of years.)

It is not clear to a person not familiar with all the names for steps in your process how long these various phases may last (weeks, months, years?)

It seems that in Phase 1 and 2, a lot of time is spent educating people about the IAAC/CNSC process which is definitely important. But what  efforts will be made to educate surrounding communities about the project itself over it's full lifecycle (100+ years by the time decomm and dismantling occur) and how their communities will be affected throughout that time span.  We hear all about the benefits of the early stages of the project (construction jobs, GDP $) and it is inevitably presented as if every stage will go according to plan, no glitches, OPG's great refurbishment track record is lauded, etc. However, past projects have not always proceeded smoothly and it seems likely this one will involve newer types of reactors that have not been built often. Are community members and councils being educated about the project management risks associated with the project such as:

• the project does not proceed according to schedule leaving the site in limbo or partially constructed, 
• costs rise so the full fleet of reactors is not built or is built over a much longer period,
• no willing host is found for the DGR for the high level waste so it can't be removed,
• political winds turn against nuclear and facility is shut down). 

How and when is that type of information being conveyed to the community?  Is the community aware of how many property tax dollars and other fees will be paid annually to the community compared to what the Province and Feds will collect? Is the project a net benefit at the local level or does it just raise the cost of housing for everyone?

Engagement of the "public" and First Nations is specified.  Nowhere in the plan are host and neighbouring municipalities identified as stakeholders with very specific responsibilities, undoubted impacts and definite interests in the project impacts and outcomes.  Many citizens, who do not have the time or capability to participate in this very demanding process, are counting on their muncipalities to represent them and protect their health, safety, economic and environmental best interests.  Municipalities need to be formally and specifically recognized in this process as key participants and likely partners if the project proceeds. Their costs to participate in this process cannot be ignored and there should be funding to support them.  Should the project proceed their ongoing costs of monitoring and participation in regulatory processes (which are unique to nuclear communities) must also be built into the conditions of approval so that they are equipped to do so and their taxpayers are not carrying an extra burden to support a "nation-building project".

As proposed, this nuclear project is much grander in scale and cost than the proposed Ignace DGR? Has a comparable community education effort and duration been carried out? The text implies that lots of information will be "available", notices will be sent, social  media postings will happen but "training opportunities" have to be requested. There is a lot of one way flow of information but not much "communication" or discussion. In addition to the public information sessions and webinars, will there be any focus groups with  neighbours, youth, elders, health care workers, volunteer groups, service clubs, rate payers associations, emergency responders, local planners, muncipal councillors, along with those mandated for First Nations?  How can public participation be meaningful if folks don't have a clear understanding of what this project looks like in their community in all its different phases over the next 150 years?

Is there a neutral, trusted organization to which ordinary citizens can submit questions and get an answer? Contacting the proponent is not neutral. 

After the education effort will polling/referendum be conducted to test whether the affected municipalities/counties/regions and Indigenous nations are in favour of the project?

Have the local Councils held community information sessions to outline the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding they have signed with the Proponent? Will this project or that agreement be an election issue in October 2026? This is the kind of transparency and accountability that should be built into the public participation elements of a project of this scale and longevity.

Finally, you encourage commenting from the public at all phases of the process, but it seems like those comments go into a kind of black hole - described as information to help the panel make their decisions.  The Summary of Issues published in February following the first consultation step was vague to the point of useless and the response of the proponent was equally unsatisfactory. (Maybe written by AI?)I read a great many of the submissions on the registry and legitimate points and questions were raised.  If people spend time preparing and submitting comments and questions there should be a substantive and sincere effort to reflect and respond to those submissions. I am not suggesting every comment gets a response but it should be possible to sort, group and analyze the input and then say how that category of inputs will be addressed in the project assessment. 

True public engagement requires two-way communication by and with a trusted source. The information can't all be coming from OPG. My suggestion is to actively reach out to community groups, not just "notify" them on Facebook then wait around for them to show up at your info booth.  Go to the schools and arenas and soccer fields. Have assemblies with students, ask to make a presentation with Q& A at a Rotary Club. Run some neighbourhood focus groups, ask people how they want to be involved.  Be willing to have a discussion with them, answer questions where possible and admit it if you don't know the answer, commit to getting back to them. Honest dialogue is how you will build trust in your IA process.  And try to minimize the jargon/acronyms!