Bruce C Nuclear Project

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 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

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 deposit. There are expected to be 5 truckloads per day for 50 years. Wabigoon Lake drains into Rainy River which drains into Lake of the Woods and the Winnipeg River which drains into Lake Winnipeg. There is also a shallow fault line that runs from Wabigoon Lake to Lake Winnipeg. The watersheds are connected. If an accident occurs (a spill or packaging and unpacking or processing for deposit to the DGR, or within the DGR), the contamination at that scale would affect the human, animal, plant and fish populations on the Winnipeg River system and Lake Winnipeg as well as North-west Ontario. I'm deeply concerned that not enough research has been done to assess the health and welfare impacts to human, animal, fish and environmental health ...

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 of the nuclear fuel and the waste facility. The citizens of Ontario would very much benefit from the IAAC considering alternatives such as a combination of renewable, efficiency and conservation in supplying future electricity needs. The current government of Ontario may be very interested in developing nuclear power but a different government may not. This decision commits taxpayers for decades to the cost of developing and constructing new nuclear power plants along with the risk and the cost of managing nuclear waste which much be isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. It is generally considered that nuclear energy is associated with high costs and the proponent should show how this project is ...

Report

Attachment Angel Hamilton Public Comment on Bruce Power Expansion

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Angel Hamilton
• Reference number: 223
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 7:53 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
• Public Comment by Angel Hamilton Friday July 11, 2025 I am writing today to discuss my concerns about the expansion of of Bruce Power by creating potential to add up to 4,800 MW of new nuclear capacity at their existing site in the municipality of Kincardine on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, Canada. Yes it does offer low carbon electricity that could contribute to climate change goals however I feel there is a lot of risks of expansion of nuclear reactors in the Great Lakes in close proximity to where the most fresh water in the planet  that is located ie Elmvale, Ontario and humans only have access to 1% of the fresh water that we need and once it is contaminated, there will be no more of this important non-renewable resource. Ontario, Canada, is known for its abundant freshwater resources, particularly its lakes. Specifically, Manitoulin Island is recognized as the world's largest freshwater island which is across from Bruce Power. The province also contains a significant portion ie (one fifth) of the world's fresh surface water through the Great Lakes and I am concerned that if there was an accident, the water would be permanently contaminated and be unusable for not only humans but also for animals as well for generations to come.  Yes it does offer full time job security for professionally trained people and adds to the economic health of the province and the country as a whole as the electricity can be exported as an export to the USA and around the world. However,  My first concern is the high costs. There will be costs of refurbishing and expanding plants that require significant upfront capital investments. This will lead to higher ...

Report

Attachment Bruce C Nuclear Project - comments on Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Public Participation Plan

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Township of Huron-Kinloss
• Reference number: 222
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 5:08 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
• Comments included within the attachment. 
• Attachment included
• The Corporation of the Township of Huron-Kinloss 21 Queen Street 519-395-3735 P.O. Box 130 Fax: 519-395-4107 Ripley, Ontario info@huronkinloss.com N0G 2R0 www.huronkinloss.com Page 1 of 4 Township of Huron-Kinloss Submission July 11, 2025 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca The Township of Huron-Kinloss comments to IAAC & CNSC on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Public Participation Plan for the Bruce C New Nuclear Project Greetings, The Township of Huron-Kinloss welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) and the Draft Public Participation Plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. The proposed project site is located less than 30km from the Township of Huron- Kinloss and anticipated to have direct impacts to our community and our residents. These comments are intended to support community well-being and readily position the municipality to support the Bruce C Nuclear Project. Overview of the Township of Huron-Kinloss and impact of the Project on the community Huron-Kinloss is a lower-tier municipal government within the two-tier system, with the County of Bruce as the upper-tier government. The Township of Huron-Kinloss’s economy is largely agriculturally based, with agri-food related tourism and agricultural services being developed to support existing tourism activities. It is estimated that 400-500 of the Township’s approximately 7700 residents are employed directly by Bruce Power. Bruce Power is the largest employer in the region and has been an important supporter of the regional and ...

Report

Attachment Comment on Bruce C Nuclear Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Sara Williamson
• Reference number: 236
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 5:08 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: Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 5:08 PM To: Bruce C Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Bruce C Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) Subject: Comment on Bruce C Nuclear Project My comments regarding the present draft guidelines are as follows I agree with the comments of NorthWatch that state their opposition to developing further use of nuclear power. I too am opposed to this project on the basis of nuclear power production being a high-cost and high-risk option for the generation of electricity and which produces a range of radioactive wastes, some of which must be contained and kept separate from the environment into perpetuity. The technology produces adverse effects along the nuclear fuel chain – uranium mining, milling, refining, conversion and fuel production – while consuming large amounts of energy and generating greenhouse gasses at each step. All these impacts are prior to operation of the reactors; during operation, nuclear reactors release radioactive and other emissions, carry risks of high-consequence accidents and malfunctions, and create a lasting legacy of radioactive wastes. The electricity needs of the Province of Ontario could be met withlower risk and more cost-effective options which would have a shorter timeline from proposal to actual operation. The scepter of radio-active material has been a part of my life. As children we were entertained in the shoe department by having x-rays of our feet to see how well the shoe fit. A few years later these machines were banned. In 1980 I lived in Elliot Lake and learned from members of the local Cancer Society about the effects of poor safety for uranium miners and mill workers as well as the high rate of cancer in ...

Report

Attachment Comments on Draft Cooperation Plan and Draft Integrated Impact Statement Guidelines

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
• Reference number: 221
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 5:06 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
• Attached are the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) comments on both the draft cooperation plan and draft integrated impact statement guidelines.  Please note that MECP may have additional technical comments to provide.  We appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to comment.  Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss the attached comments. 
• 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 the Environment, Conservation and Parks IA Contact: May Lyn Trudelle Telephone: 437-855-6117 Email: MayLyn.Trudelle@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: This project occurs within the province of Ontario, and therefore the following legislation administered by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks may apply to the Project and/or incidental activities related to the Project: • Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) generally applies. The ESA may not apply to this project under special circumstances because it is also regulated by federal legislation. • Environmental Protection ...

Report

Attachment Comment on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project.

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Susan O'Donnell
• Reference number: 227
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 4:32 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
• The CEDAR Project Sustainability and Environmental Studies St. Thomas University 51 Dineen Drive Fredericton, New Brunswick Canada E3B 5G3 https://cedar-project.org info@cedar-project.org Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Submitted via email: Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca July 11, 2025 Comment on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. Last year we submitted a letter (Oct. 28, 2024) to this IAAC process for the Bruce C Nuclear Project outlining our reasons for insisting that alternatives to the proposed project be considered in the Guidelines document for the Impact Assessment. We are dismayed to see that alternatives to the proposed project are not included in the draft Guidelines document and urge you to include this requirement in the final document. In our earlier letter, we alerted you to an upcoming report on Indigenous perspectives on radioactive waste. We co-published that report November 2024; it is available for download here: https://cedar-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2024-Indigenous-views-on-nuclear-energy- and-waste.pdf We are also dismayed to see that, contrary to the expressed desires of many Indigenous nations, the long-term management of radioactive waste may be excluded from the Guidelines. We urge you to reconsider and require the proponent to address long-term waste management. Sincerely, Susan O'Donnell, PhD Adjunct Research Professor Lead Investigator, the CEDAR Project St. Thomas University <originally signed ...

Report

Attachment Comments on the Draft Cooperation Plan and the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Ministry of Natural Resources
• Reference number: 220
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 4:20 PM
• Updated: 2025-11-07 - 3:18 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
• Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft Cooperation Plan and the draft Integrated Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. Please find MNR's responses in the attached form. We have intentionally left the Table in Section 2 blank. The draft Integrated Guidelines are comprehensive and we do not foresee any information requirements extending outside of these requirements for any potential provincial legislative or regulatory oversight. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
• Attachment included
• CIAR #: 88771 Bruce C Nuclear Project Page 1 of 3 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 Revised by MNR and submitted August 12, 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 Natural Resources (MNR) - Land Use Planning and Strategic Issues Section (LUPSIS) IA Contact: Sarah Bale (Regional Planner) Telephone: (613) 504-2254 Email: Sarah.bale@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: Pending jurisdictional review, MNR has identified several permissions falling under the Ministry’s legislative or proprietary authority that may be required for the Project. Any proposal by MNR to grant such a permission may trigger MNR’s Class EA for Resource, Stewardship and Facility Development (RSFD). Additionally, a proposal to grant ...

Report

Attachment Comments on draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Cooperation Plan on the Bruce C Nuclear Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (Heritage Planning Unit)
• Reference number: 217
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 3:38 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
• Dear IAAC team, Please find attached the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s comments on the draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Cooperation Plan on the Bruce C Nuclear Project. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Best regards, Anastasia Abrazhevich  | Heritage Planner Heritage Planner | Citizenship, Inclusion and Heritage Division Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism  |  Ontario Public Service 437.240.2379 | Anastasia.Abrazhevich@ontario.ca   Submitted by The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculuturalism     
• Attachment included
• CIAR #: 88771 Bruce C Nuclear Project Page 1 of 7 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 Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) IA Contact: Anastasia Abrazhevich, Heritage Planner, Heritage Planning Unit Karla Barboza, Team Lead, Heritage Planning Unit Telephone: 437-240-2379 (Anastasia) 416-660-1027 (Karla) Email: anastasia.abrazhevich@ontario.ca karla.barboza@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: The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) will review any technical cultural heritage studies related to this Project to ensure compliance with the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Under its mandate to conserve Ontario’s cultural heritage, MCM applies the ...

Report

Attachment DFO comments on the draft TISGs for the Bruce C Nuclear Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Reference number: 216
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 3:32 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
• Please find the attached comments from DFO on the draft TISGs for Bruce C Nuclear Project, as requested by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
• Attachment included
• CIAR #: 88771 Bruce C Nuclear Project Page 1 of 6 Unclassified - Non-Classifié Comment Form – Draft Permitting Plan and draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines – Federal 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 Registry1 (the Registry). Documents can be uploaded using this feature. If you have any difficulties submitting this way, please contact the Registry team 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 customize the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. Department/Agency: Department of Fisheries and Oceans IA Contact: William Glass Telephone: (289) 527-1128 Email: William.Glass@afo-mpo.gc.ca Section 1 – Draft Permitting Plan: 1. Confirm that all applicable legislative and regulatory oversight that may apply to the Project, under the authority of your department or agency, is accurately listed in the draft Permitting Plan. Insert response here: Yes, the applicable legislative and regulatory requirements are listed for DFO. 2. Indicate whether your department or agency has identified any power that it will be unable to exercise to allow the Project to proceed, in whole or in part. For more information, please refer to subsection 17(1) of the IAA. Insert response here: 1 https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88771 ...

Report

Attachment Transport Canada Comments on the Draft Permitting Plan and Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Transport Canada
• Reference number: 215
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 3:25 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
• Transport Canada's Comments on the Draft Permitting Plan and Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project are attached.
• Attachment included
• CIAR #: 88771 Bruce C Nuclear Project Page 1 of 3 Comment Form – Draft Permitting Plan and draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines – Federal Review Team Bruce C Nuclear Project All comments should be submitted via the Submit a Comment feature available on the Project’s Canadian Impact Assessment Registry1 (the Registry). Documents can be uploaded using this feature. If you have any difficulties submitting this way, please contact the Registry team 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 customize the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. Department/Agency: Transport Canada IA Contact: Jeremy Craigs Telephone: Email: Jeremy.craigs@tc.gc.ca Section 1 – Draft Permitting Plan: 1. Indicate whether your department or agency has identified any power that it will be unable to exercise to allow the Project to proceed, in whole or in part. For more information, please refer to subsection 17(1) of the IAA. Insert response here: Transport Canada has not identified any power that it will be unable to exercise to allow the Project to proceed, in whole or in part at this time. Transport Canada does not have sufficient information to determine whether or not a CNWA application may be required. 1 https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88771 mailto:registry-registre@iaac-aeic.gc.ca mailto:Jeremy.craigs@tc.gc.ca https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88771 CIAR #: 88771 Bruce C Nuclear Project Page 2 of 3 Section 2 – Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement ...

Report

Attachment Nuclear Waste

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Daryl Gale
• Reference number: 219
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 3:08 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: daryl Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:08 PM To: Bruce C Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Bruce C Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) Subject: Nuclear Waste Please Don't Make the Same Mistakes That California And SoCal Edison Have Made Regarding San Onofre! When our plant was shu ered in 2013 due to steam generator issues, even a er numerous hearings and public comments, our California Coastal Commission told Edison it was OK to just leave 3.6 pounds of high level radioac ve waste in 5/8" inch canisters on the beach next to the shu ered.plant. None of our federal representa ves, our governors, our state senators and assembly made Any Effort to find a be er place for it! No one spoke up to say they didn't want it on their highly popular and lucra ve tourist beach or spoiling their quite expensive beach front property. No federal or state environmental agency offered to look for a storage place or even get us a Hot Cell so we could plan to move it And it S ll needs to be repackaged in thicker monitorable Casks like Europe uses! So it sits on the beach corroding from salty air, seawater, wai ng for an earthquake, tsunami or just a big King Tide to break it open, contaminate our coast and flush it out to sea! Daryl Gale Los Angeles <email address removed>

Report

Attachment Health Canada's Comments on the Draft Permitting Plan and Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Health Canada
• Reference number: 214
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 3:00 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
• Dear Joshua Won,   Thank you for your email on June 12, 2025, requesting Health Canada’s review of the Draft Permitting Plan and Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. Health Canada has completed its review of the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and has provided comments in the attachment.   Should you have any questions related to Health Canada’s comments, please contact the undersigned.    Sincerely,     Impact Assessment Team Health Canada / Government of Canada ia-ei@hc-sc.gc.ca (mailto:ia-ei@hc-sc.gc.ca) L’équipe d’évaluation d’impact Santé Canada / Gouvernement du Canada ia-ei@hc-sc.gc.ca (mailto:ia-ei@hc-sc.gc.ca)
• Attachment included
• 1 Environmental Health Program Regulatory Operations and Enforcement Branch Health Canada 180 Queen Street West, Floor 10 Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L7 July 11, 2025 Joshua Won Integrated Review Team for the Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 55 York St Toronto, ON M5J 1R7 Submitted to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Registry Health Canada’s Comments on the Draft Permitting Plan and Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project Dear Joshua Won, Thank you for your email on June 12, 2025, requesting Health Canada’s review of the Draft Permitting Plan and Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. Health Canada is the federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health. One of the ways this is accomplished is through participation in the review of potential health impacts from federal activities, such as the Bruce C Nuclear Project. As a Federal Authority, Health Canada provides specialist or expert information and knowledge in the Department’s possession (expertise) to support the assessment of potential impacts on human health from projects considered individually and cumulatively under the Impact Assessment Act. Health Canada can provide expertise on human health risks associated with air and water quality, ionizing radiation, electromagnetic fields, noise, and country foods (also knowns as traditional foods). Health Canada can also provide methodological expertise in human health risk assessments and health impact assessments. The Department does not issue any approvals or make any ...
• Attachment included
• CIAR #: 88771 Bruce C Nuclear Project Page 1 of 9 Unclassified / Non classifié Comment Form – Draft Permitting Plan and draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines – Federal 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 Registry1 (the Registry). Documents can be uploaded using this feature. If you have any difficulties submitting this way, please contact the Registry team 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 Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. Department/Agency: Health Canada 180 Queen Street West – 10th Floor Toronto, Ontario IA Contact: Joel Kaushansky Regional Impact Assessment Specialist – Ontario Region Telephone: 343 550 6213 Email: Joel.kaushansky@hc-sc.gc.ca Section 1 – Draft Permitting Plan: 1. Confirm that all applicable legislative and regulatory oversight that may apply to the Project, under the authority of your department or agency, is accurately listed in the draft Permitting Plan. Insert response here: Not applicable 2. Indicate whether your department or agency has identified any power that it will be unable to exercise to allow the Project to proceed, in whole or in part. For more information, please refer to subsection 17(1) of the IAA. Insert response here: Not applicable 1 https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88771 ...

Report

Attachment Municipality of Kincardine - submission on draft documents

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Municipality of Kincardine
• Reference number: 211
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 2:08 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
• Please accept the attached comments from the Municipality of Kincardine on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines, the draft Public Participation Plan, the draft Cooperation Plan and the draft Permittig Plan.
• Attachment included
• The Municipality of Kincardine 1475 Concession 5, R.R. #5, Kincardine, ON N2Z 2X6 Phone: 519-396-3468 | Fax: 519-396-8288 kincardine.ca June 25, 2025 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 RE: Municipality of Kincardine comments on the draft Public Participation Plan To Whom it May Concern: Please accept this submission from the Municipality of Kincardine on the draft Public Participation Plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. This submission was endorsed by the Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine at the July 9, 2025 meeting. The Municipality of Kincardine is the host municipality to Bruce Power, Ontario Power Generations’ Western Waste Management Facility and the Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station. The Municipality, including the former Township of Bruce, has been host to the nuclear industry for almost 60 years. Our Mayor and Council are elected every 4 years by the residents in our community, and as such, the Municipality is a local government that represents the local public. As the host municipality to Bruce Power, our local government leaders and officials are also key community knowledge holders on areas of social, health, economic and environmental items. There are a few key areas of the Public Participation Plan that we wish to raise concerns and suggestions: 1. Section 4 Identification of Participants lacks details on which groups and organizations IAAC and the CNSC are engaging with for this project. In reviewing other Public Participation Plans (such as the Upper Beaver Gold Project Public Participation Plan), including a list of specific groups and ...
• Attachment included
• The Municipality of Kincardine 1475 Concession 5, R.R. #5, Kincardine, ON N2Z 2X6 Phone: 519-396-3468 | Fax: 519-396-8288 kincardine.ca June 25, 2025 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 RE: Municipality of Kincardine comments on the Bruce C draft Permitting Plan To Whom it May Concern: Please accept this submission from the Municipality of Kincardine on the draft Permitting Plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. These comments have been endorsed by the Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine at the July 9, 2025 meeting. We request that these comments be reflected in the final Permitting Plan and if they are not included, we request a written response with the detailed rational. The Municipality of Kincardine is the host community to the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Western Waste Management Facility and the Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station. The Municipality, including the former Township of Bruce, has been host to the nuclear industry for almost 60 years. Over this time, the municipality or the former Township of Bruce, has entered into various agreements, host agreements and Memorandums of Understanding with the industry to deal with a broad range of issues, services, and permitting requirements on the Bruce Nuclear Site. A copy of the two (2) former host agreements are attached for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) awareness: • Township of Bruce and Ontario Hydro Host Agreement • Municipality of Kincardine and Ontario Power Generation Host Community Agreement ...
• Attachment included
• The Municipality of Kincardine 1475 Concession 5, R.R. #5, Kincardine, ON N2Z 2X6 Phone: 519-396-3468 | Fax: 519-396-8288 kincardine.ca July 9, 2025 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 RE: Municipality of Kincardine comments on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and input on the Summary of Potential Federal Incidental Activities To Whom it May Concern: Please accept this submission as initial comments from the Municipality of Kincardine on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (herein referred to as the draft Integrated Guidelines) for the Bruce C Nuclear Project and input on the Summary of Potential Federal Incidental Activities. Please note that with the limited time available for public review, these comments are not comprehensive and there may be items in the future that the host community may wish to bring forward to the proponent for consideration in the Impact Statement. These initial comments were endorsed by the Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine at the July 9, 2025, meeting. The Municipality of Kincardine is the host community to the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station (the Site), which consists of the Bruce Power operated reactors, the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Western Waste Management Facility and the Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station. The Municipality, including the former Township of Bruce which is the location of the Site, has hosted the nuclear industry for almost 60 years. The Municipality anticipates that the process under the Impact Assessment Act will see Bruce Power as the proponent for the Bruce C ...
• Attachment included
• The Municipality of Kincardine 1475 Concession 5, R.R. #5, Kincardine, ON N2Z 2X6 Phone: 519-396-3468 | Fax: 519-396-8288 kincardine.ca June 25, 2025 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 RE: Municipality of Kincardine comments on the Bruce C draft Cooperation Plan To Whom it May Concern: Please accept the comments below from the Municipality of Kincardine on the draft Cooperation Plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project. This submission was endorsed by the Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine at the July 9, 2025, meeting. The Municipality of Kincardine is the host Municipality to Bruce Power, Ontario Power Generation’s Western Waste Management Facility and the Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station. Combined, our Municipality is host to one of the world’s largest nuclear facilities. The Municipality’s expectation is that there will be a multi-ministerial roundtable being led by the Ministry of Energy and Mines for this significant energy infrastructure project. We are hopeful that additional Ontario Provincial Ministries will be participating in the Integrated Assessment as listed in Appendix 1 of the draft Cooperation Plan. Currently there is only one Ministry participating as is identified in Appendix 1, which is disappointing as the issues associated with impacts are expected to include a variety of Ministries and the local impact of not addressing this will be felt acutely by the host community. Energy and specifically nuclear, are a high priority for the current Provincial government as is outlined in the newly released Energy for Generations Ontario’s Integrated Plan to ...

Report

Attachment Bruce County Submission to IAAC and CNSC for the Bruce C Nuclear Project Draft TISG and Public Participation Plan

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Corporation of the County of Bruce
• Reference number: 210
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 1:57 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
• Please find attached the submission for the Bruce C Nuclear Project.
• Attachment included
• Corporation of the County of Bruce 30 Park Street, P.O. Box 70, Walkerton, ON, N0G 2V0 brucecounty.on.ca July 10, 2025 Bruce C Nuclear Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 22nd floor, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Via email: Bruce@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Dear Sir/Madam, Please find attached Bruce County’s formal submission on the Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) and Public Participation Plan for the Bruce C Nuclear Project, as endorsed by County Council on July 10, 2025. As the upper-tier municipality for eight lower-tier (local) municipalities, Bruce County is responsible for delivering a range of infrastructure and services that are expected to be directly impacted by this project— including emergency response, transportation, housing, and workforce development. Our submission reflects support for the need for municipal readiness and community well-being as the Bruce C Nuclear Project moves forward in the Impact Assessment process. We appreciate many of the earlier comments that have been reflected in the draft TISG. Bruce County is committed to ongoing collaboration with IAAC, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Bruce Power, provincial and federal governments, and local municipalities to support a successful, informed, and locally grounded Impact Statement process. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the two draft plans. Regards, Warden Luke Charbonneau Bruce County Attachment: Bruce County Submission to IAAC and CNSC for the Bruce C Nuclear Project Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) http://brucecounty.on.ca/ Page 1 of 8 Bruce County Submission to IAAC and CNSC for the Bruce C Nuclear Project Draft ...

Report

Attachment Comments on the draft guidelines for the Bruce C project impact assessment

• Bruce C Nuclear Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of J. P. Unger
• Reference number: 218
• Submitted: 2025-07-11 - 1:55 PM
• Project phase: Impact Statement
• Participation notice: Public notice - Public comments invited
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment included
• 1 From: J. P. Unger Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 1:55 PM To: Bruce C Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Bruce C Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) Cc: CEO President / PD Président (CNSC/CCSN); ; ; ; ; news@bellmedia.ca; ontariotoday@cbc.ca; city@thestar.ca Subject: Comments on the draft guidelines for the Bruce C project impact assessment - JPU11JUL2025 Dear Madams, Sirs, Please find below comments on the draft guidelines for the Bruce C nuclear power plant project Impact Assessment, being sent before tonight's 11:59 p.m. deadline. The comments below include a need to present a number of things that seem to be absent from these impact assessment guidelines -for example, expected amounts of daily and yearly radioactive particle emissions from reactor operations, possible spread areas, expected accumulation and spread through affected food chains and cancer risks resulting from the spread and absorption of Category 1 carcinogens emitted by the nuclear power plants regular operation. Also missing is a need for independently-validated estimates of possible impacts on people, wildlife, agriculture and economy of worst-case scenarios, including short and long term birth defects, congenital diseases and cancer risks, as well as economic damage from disruption and dislocation, which populated centres and/or how big a region could worst-case-scenario accidents and malfunctions render uninhabitable and/or unsuitable for food production, and for how long? (i.e., in perpetuity?) Here are the specific comments: Section 4 (Purpose, need and alternatives): This section requires a clear (i.e., side by side) comparison of short and long term potential costs, health and safety risks and ...

Report