Bruce C Nuclear Project

Comment Search Mobile

Comment Search

Report comment

Are you sure you want to report this comment for review?
Skip to filters
Sort by: Best match Most recent Submitted by

335 results

Attachment Agree with proceeding

  • Bruce C Nuclear Project
  • Author: Maarten Bokhout
  • Reference number: 288
  • Submitted: 2026-07-22 - 10:50 AM
  • Project phase: Impact Statement
  • I believe that a further expansion of the Bruce Nuclear site is in the public interest.  It is my hope that some of the coolant required to operate the proposed reactors can be used as a heat source for growing food for public use.  As well, I hope that spent fuel can be reprocessed for further medical or industrial use. I write this as a resident of Huron County, a retired medical doctor and formerly, Medical Office of Health for Huron County.

Report

Attachment Bruce Power response to Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s Letter from April 10, 2026

  • Bruce C Nuclear Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Bruce Power
  • Reference number: 287
  • Submitted: 2026-05-19
  • Project phase: Impact Statement
  • 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 May 19, 2026 Owen Tanner Energy Manager Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office 010129 Highway 6 Georgian Bluffs, ON N0H 2T0 Dear Mr. Tanner, Re: SON’s April 10, 2026, Letter regarding the Bruce C Project Impact Assessment We write in response to your letter dated April 10, 2026, regarding your concerns with respect to the proposed Bruce C Project (the “Project”) and the approach to the federal Impact Assessment process. We are appreciative that the weekly SON Environment Office (EO) Impact Assessment touchpoints between SON EO staff and Bruce Power have reconvened. These meetings offer a great opportunity to share updates. Specifically, the last few meetings with the SON EO have been very supportive of Bruce Power’s understanding of SON’s current engagement preferences. We understand that at this time SON EO's preferred basis of engagement is to receive draft materials prepared by Bruce Power using SON’s comments on the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) as a guideline rather than conducting technical meetings or workshops. If SON’s engagement preference changes in the future to include technical meetings or workshops, similar to the helpful technical meetings held in 2025, Bruce Power would be supportive of this and believe they could be productive and provide a collaborative approach to the development of draft materials. We will continue to respect SON’s engagement preferences. With this current engagement preference now understood, we look forward to sharing draft sections of the Impact Statement and Licence to Prepare Site application for SON’s review and feedback. ...
Report

Attachment Opinion

  • Bruce C Nuclear Project
  • Author: Daniel Horner
  • Reference number: 286
  • Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 2:02 PM
  • Project phase: Impact Statement
  • This decision is welcomed and long overdue. The future has always been nuclear, long before we walked on the moon. Our energy needs are expanding and we need serious baseload production and that answer is only nuclear power. NS should take note and join NB & PEI in supporting nuclear expansion of PLGS as a reliable Maritime Power Collaboration to stabilize rates and secure dependable electricity into the future.  Thank you DH

Report

Attachment 21st century solutions

  • Bruce C Nuclear Project
  • Author: Vicki Lucier
  • Reference number: 284
  • Submitted: 2026-05-05 - 1:51 PM
  • Project phase: Impact Statement
  • Conventional nuclear is cumbersome old tech completely unsuitable for 21st century needs. Every 2 days, China is installing SOLAR power which is the energy equivalent to this billion-dollar boondoggle project. Decommission Darlington's old-school uranium reactors. On the same site, build a much safer THORIUM reactor which will run on easily-accessible thorium AND consume/ameliorate problematic waste from old-tech nuclear reactors (which will solve the need to bury waste at Revell Lake near Ignace, ON). Cover the new Darlington thorium project with SOLAR panels to generate additional power in case of grid interruptions. Add multiple small Honeywell WIND generators on the edges of the buildings. In future, the thorium reactors could be repurposed as salt batteries to store solar, wind, and tidal power. Redundancy assures success in nature. My proposed Darlington, Ontario redundant energy plant can be a world's first demonstration of resilient design.

Report

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
  • 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 substantive explanation as to how such impacts can be credibly studied, understood, and assessed within a compressed timeframe measured in months. Bruce Power has asserted that it possesses sufficient information from existing operations at the Bruce site to support the assessment of Project effects. SON does not agree. SON has long raised concerns regarding the reliability, completeness, and applicability of existing data. The recent gizzard shad mortality event—in which approximately five million fish were killed—underscores these concerns. That event, together with the subsequent requirement by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for Bruce Power to revisit conclusions in its environmental risk assessment, confirms SON’s ...
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
  • 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 assertion that the Bruce site has been extensively studied and that sufficient data exists to support an expedited assessment process. SON has consistently raised our concerns to Bruce Power, IAAC, and CNSC that the existing data is incomplete. By way of illustration, SON has identified several fundamental deficiencies in the available information respecting the aquatic environment, as outlined in our letter to Bruce Power dated of April 10, 2026, enclosed. To date, Bruce Power has failed to explain how it intends to generate the information necessary to support a scientifically defensible assessment of the Project’s impacts. Despite SON’s repeated requests, Bruce Power has not provided a detailed, forward-looking workplan ...
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
  • 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
  • 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" which is now causing a global economic  crisis in addition to existing 'fossil fuel' generated global  environmental crisis. 

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
  • 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 solution. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://environmentaldefence.ca/2025/11/26/ontarios-nuclear-announcement-locks-us-into-a-high-cost-high-risk-energy-path/      

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
  • 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 objective of being a consolidated planning tool to support a mutual understanding of key milestones and activities during the Impact Statement phase of the Project. The level of detail SON is requesting is what would typically be developed through collaborative Technical Team meetings as part of the development of the Impact Statement and Licence to Prepare Site (LTPS) application. It is, and has always been, Bruce Power’s intention to further develop the draft Workplan collaboratively with SON and its Technical Team and to use the Workplan as a roadmap to guide the work required to develop the Impact Statement and LTPS application. We would envision meeting regularly with your Technical Team to incorporate SON feedback into 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
  • 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 THE PROBLEM: Solar panels produce electricity only when the sun shines. Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind blows. On a still winter night — exactly when Ontario households need the most heat and light — both produce nothing. This is called the intermittency problem, and it is the single biggest barrier to replacing conventional power stations with renewable energy. Ontario has invested heavily in solar and wind because they are now the cheapest way to generate electricity per kilowatt-hour when they are running. But cheap generation that switches off unpredictably is not the same as reliable supply. A grid that runs entirely on solar and wind Bruce C — Bruce Stopper 35 — Three Competing Technologies — ...
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
  • 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 Canada. It is filed on the public registry of the Bruce C Nuclear Project integrated impact assessment (IAAC Registry File No. 88771) and is intended as a formal public submission for all purposes of that proceeding. The submission identifies thirty-four independent grounds — called Bruce Stoppers — upon which the Bruce C Nuclear Project cannot lawfully be approved. The thirty-four Bruce Stoppers fall into four categories. The first eleven concern the evidence: what the science actually shows about radiological health risk near nuclear facilities, why the models the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission uses fail to predict what is observed in the real world, and why the studies the CNSC cites as proof of safety were structured in ways ...
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
  • 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 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 documents two months before the submission of the Impact Statement. As noted by the Agency in that same letter, “posting to the Registry ensures a transparent process” and the letter goes on to state that “IAAC’s Canadian Impact Assessment Registry (the Registry) will be used to facilitate public access to records related to integrated assessments”. ISSUE: Bruce Power was directed to provide a preliminary list of all impact assessment and ...
  • 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 documents two months before the submission of the Impact Statement. As noted by the Agency in that same letter, “posting to the Registry ensures a transparent process” and the letter goes on to state that “IAAC’s Canadian Impact Assessment Registry (the Registry) will be used to facilitate public access to records related to integrated assessments”. ISSUE: Bruce Power was directed to provide a preliminary list of all impact assessment and regulatory documents before November 20, 2025 but Bruce Power’s response providing this document list has not been posted to the registry. More recently, Registry Posting # 265 indicated that Bruce Power has prepared a Workplan and an Impact Statement Schedule Update. ISSUE: Bruce ...
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
  • 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 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 documents two months before the submission of the Impact Statement. As noted by the Agency in that same letter, “posting to the Registry ensures a transparent process” and the letter goes on to state that “IAAC’s Canadian Impact Assessment Registry (the Registry) will be used to facilitate public access to records related to integrated assessments”. ISSUE: Bruce Power was directed to provide a preliminary list of all impact assessment and ...
  • 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 documents two months before the submission of the Impact Statement. As noted by the Agency in that same letter, “posting to the Registry ensures a transparent process” and the letter goes on to state that “IAAC’s Canadian Impact Assessment Registry (the Registry) will be used to facilitate public access to records related to integrated assessments”. ISSUE: Bruce Power was directed to provide a preliminary list of all impact assessment and regulatory documents before November 20, 2025 but Bruce Power’s response providing this document list has not been posted to the registry. More recently, Registry Posting # 265 indicated that Bruce Power has prepared a Workplan and an Impact Statement Schedule Update. ISSUE: Bruce ...
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
  • 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 comprehensively given the significant impacts that the Bruce facility has already had on our Territory and our People, and our concerns that an expansion of the facility could further intensify those impacts. We stressed the need to collaboratively design a credible and robust assessment process—one that meets both IAAC’s and SON’s requirements. We explained that such a process is critical to generating the information necessary for SON and IAAC, as partners, to make a fair and fully informed decision as to whether the Project’s potential impacts can be adequately addressed and whether SON can ultimately support the Project. Following assurances from IAAC that it had the necessary tools to allow for this partnership, SON worked ...
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
  • 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 of the assessment approach, including how Bruce Power plans to meet the requirements set out in the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and in SON’s previous submissions. Instead, the documents provided set out only at a very high level the steps involved in preparing the Impact Statement and a list of studies and associated timelines. The lack of information provided by Bruce Power so far makes it impossible for SON to assess whether Bruce Power’s work in support of its Impact Statement will be sufficient or credible. We understand that Bruce Power views the Workplan and Impact Statement Schedule Update as a starting point for discussion and that your team wishes to meet in person to advance technical work. However, as ...
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 on whether it should proceed. Through the enclosed comments, we are providing instructions to guide Bruce Power in gathering information on those potential impacts. These instructions add to those articulated by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) through the Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. They set out SON’s requirements, based on SON’s values, laws, teachings and knowledge system. Our comments are extensive, however, we believe the information we have identified is critical to support credible decision-making by SON—as well as Bruce Power and Canada. SON is responsible to protect the SON Territory and the rights and interests of our People, and our ...
  • 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 rationale. Bruce Power must work with SON on an appropriate plan of study for assessing the potential impacts of the Bruce C Project, and strive to come to agreement with SON on which studies will be carried out: i) by Bruce Power, ii) by SON, and iii) collaboratively. For studies conducted by Bruce Power that use SON-data, SON must be allowed to validate the appropriate use, context, and interpretation of SON-data, including any conclusions or determinations made on the significance of potential project-related impacts and how they may or may not affect SON including, but not limited to, social, cultural, or economic well-being elements. SON Knowledge must be included in the assessment where determined to be necessary by SON. SON Knowledge must be ...
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 Project. Our position remains clear—the timelines constraining the current assessment have significantly eroded the value of the process to both support SON’s ability to assess and make decisions respecting the <contact information removed> <contact information removed> http://saugeenojibwaynation.ca proposal, and to be the basis of sufficient and meaningful consultation and free, prior, and informed consent (“FPIC”) processes between SON and the Crown. On July 11, 2025, SON again requested Bruce Power1 to pause the clock and allow more time in the Planning Phase for our work, including meaningfully commenting on the draft (Integrated) Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (“TISG”). Disappointingly, Bruce Power refused this ...
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
  • 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 Telephone: 437-220-7699 Email: Michael.Munro@ontario.ca Section 1 – Draft Cooperation Plan: 1. Indicate whether your Ministry or office has identified any legislative and regulatory oversight that may apply to the Project and/or incidental activities related to the Project, under the authority of your Ministry or office. Insert response here: Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.9 Lieutenant Governor in Council to formulate plan 8 The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall formulate an emergency plan respecting emergencies arising in connection with nuclear facilities, and any provisions of an emergency plan of a municipality respecting such an emergency shall conform to the plan ...
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 that the use of HALUE fuel creates 2-30 times more nuclear waste per unit of energy used and this is even more dangerous high level waste. There must be a cost-benefit analysis. It is clear that the construction and then the operating of a nuclear facility is the costliest form of energy to be produced and sold on earth. The lethal nuclear waste that is produced must be watched over and cared for, for hundreds of thousands of years. The cost-benefits analysis should include this. This analysis must also include the health costs to society. The cancers that are sure to develop in workers and in the surrounding community must be taken into account.The personal financial cost as well as the medical and health insurance costs need to ...
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 Draft Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan, the Draft Permitting Plan and the Draft Cooperation Plan the Agency replied “The public comment period is officially on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and the draft Public Participation Plan. The other draft plans are developed and posted to promote transparency and seek targeted comments from specific participants.”1 Further clarification was requested and a partial explanation received. On July 10th – the day before the comment deadline – the Agency posted “Plain Language Draft Integrated Guidelines” on the registry. Presentation slides from online information sessions held on June 23 and July 8th were also posted on July 10th. Notice was given ...
  • 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 impact statement and impact assessment phases of the review, including the comment period on the Terms of Reference and the comment period on the draft impact statement - We are concerned that the Panel is not appointed and involved early enough to be part of determining whether the impact statement contains all the required information and studies, which the Agency has described as the responsibility of the IAAC and CNSC - We request that the public role in the review of the draft impact statement be clearly set out in the public participation plan, including a description of the purpose of that review (i.e. to determine whether the draft impact statement conforms with and fulfills the direction and requirements set out in ...
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, they have also created and propagated their own lies ( e.g. consequences of a severe core damage are a mere 100 TBq of Cs-137 as opposed to about 30,000 TBq estimate by others). Granting any green signal to Bruce Power by accepting their preliminary environment assessment based on some ill-suited for purpose ‘plant parameter envelope’ to start working towards the construction of a new nuclear station at Bruce C, would be an irresponsible act that certainly will have historic and nation destroying consequences because the juggernaut so created could never be stopped. Without a technically capable designer whose qualifications, history of success in reactor design and capabilities to do honest safety assessments must form part of ...
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 assessment process for the Bruce C Nuclear Project are provided in the Appendix. The United Church has acknowledged the harmful role that past false assumptions 1Foundational publication on the United Church ethical position, history of involvement, and key documents relating to the nuclear power chain from uranium mining to nuclear fuel wastes: Always Changing, Forever Yours: Nuclear Fuel Wastes. (Leader’s Guide) https://generalcouncil.ca/document/always-changing-forever-yours-nuclear-fuel-wastes Foundational policy of United Church of Canada: Energy in the One Earth Community- Current Challenges and Future Options for Energy Use in Canadian and Global Contexts https://generalcouncil.ca/document/energy-one-earth-community ...
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 the Review Panel iand the Governor in Council in its IA decision reject the Proponent's request for licencing to prepare site (LTPS) decision under the NSCA, as well as all further future potential pursuits for subsequent licences to construct, operate, decommission at later stages, should the Project receive a positive IA decision and an LTPS at this stage.. Here are my reasons: This proposal is NOT in the best public interest, nor therefore, in the interest of the CNSC in its highest mandate to regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials in Canada to protect the health, safety, security of Canadians and our environment on behalf of all Canadians. It will be too expensive and put too much further nuclear debt on future ...
Report
Report a problem on this page
Date modified: