New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

Attachment Green energy over nuclear

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Marcel de Koning
• Reference Number: 166
• Submitted: 2026-01-26 - 10:12 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 1 From: Marcel de koning Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:12 PM To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) Subject: Green energy over nuclear Hello For the future of Ontario and my kids, please get OPG to evaluate whether energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage are lower-cost, faster, safer, and more secure ways to meet Ontario’s electricity needs than building a massive new nuclear station at Port Hope. We have the space for wind and solar. We have the lakes for turbines and hydro electric. Let's make Canada and Ontario the leaders in renewable energy. Marcel de Koning An engineer and concerned parents. <contact information removed>

Report

Attachment We Say NO to Nuclear Reactors

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Donna and Verne Deneault
• Reference Number: 395
• Submitted: 2026-01-06 - 11:02 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• From: donna deneault Sent Date: Mon Jan 26 11:02:22 2026 To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) CC: donna deneault Subject: We Say NO to Nuclear Reactors Nuclear reactors are the highest cost option to meet Ontario’s electricity needs up to 10 times higher than energy efficiency, and 2 to 8 times higher than new wind and solar energy. They are also far too slow. We understand that these new nuclear reactors would not come online until 2040 2048. That means more than 20 years of construction, cost overruns, and continued reliance on polluting gas. By contrast, new wind and solar projects can be built in 6 months 2 years, reducing emissions and lowering bills quickly. OPG is considering purchasing American-designed reactors from GE-Hitachi or Westinghouse. These reactors would require Ontario to import enriched uranium from the United States to fuel them. Does that seem like a good idea given the current political ...

Report

Attachment Concerns for my family and home

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Carly Graham
• Reference Number: 756
• Submitted: 2026-03-03 - 1:44 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• I am a resident who lives approximately 12 kms from the proposed Nuclear Power Generation plant with young children. While I understand the importance of developing reliable and low-carbon sources of energy, I have concerns about the potential impacts this facility may have on the the health of my family and my children. We have recently built a home where I hoped would be a safe haven for generations to come. I now have concerns of whether we are safe to live here.  I would like to request the following (in no particular order):  Clear communication to local residents regarding safety and emergency preparedness regarding safety protocols, emergency response measures, and evacuation plans is essential for all nearby residents. I would like assurances that comprehensive emergency infrastructure will be in place before construction begins. Can you have various locations with radiation monitors that we can access live data online? Or ...

Report

Attachment Provincial Authority Advice Record - Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
• Reference Number: 757
• Submitted: 2026-03-03
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 1 UNCLASSIFIED - NON CLASSIFIÉ Enclosure 1: Provincial Authority Advice Record – New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Registry No. 89802 Please submit the completed form by February 11, 2026, via email to wesleyville@iaac- aeic.gc.ca.1 Department/Agency Contact Information Submission Date March 3, 2026 Department/Agency Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Lead Contact, Title, Work Unit May Lyn Trudelle, Senior Program Support Coordinator, Environmental Assessment Branch Email, Phone MayLyn.Trudelle@ontario.ca Alternate Contact, Title, Work Unit Nick Colella, Supervisor, Environmental Assessment Branch Email, Phone Nick.Colella@ontario.ca Review the draft Initial Project Description and answer the following questions: 1. Will your department or agency exercise a power, perform a duty or function, or provide financial assistance, related to the project to enable it to be carried out in whole or in part? As ...

Report

Attachment YES TO NUCLEAR, NO TO FEAR

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Abdul Bille
• Reference Number: 755
• Submitted: 2026-02-25 - 5:25 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• I am a 26-year-old Canadian citizen who represents a generation that has nearly given up. After reading this comment section, almost every problem we face as young people was explained to me today: we have a loud minority, ignorant of the cost their actions will have against future generations. They are driven by fear and use their voices and votes to shut down things they clearly have no understanding of. Nuclear energy is not the 'scary unknown science' it was when your generation was introduced to it. We have come a long way since the days of nuclear test sites and pop-culture tropes of mushroom clouds. Nuclear energy is not free of risk—no technology is—but its risks are known and measured. To put it in perspective, the mortality rate per terawatt-hour of electricity produced is roughly 24.6 for coal, while nuclear sits at a mere 0.03. Here in Ontario, facilities like Darlington and Bruce ...

Report

Attachment Regional Municipality of Durham submission to the IAA for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Regional Municipality of Durham
• Reference Number: 707
• Submitted: 2026-02-18 - 1:42 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• The Regional Municipality of Durham Office of the Regional Chair 605 Rossland Rd. E. Level 5 PO Box 623 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Canada 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 john.henry@durham.ca durham.ca John Henry Regional Chair and CEO Sent by Email February 11, 2026 New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Telephone: 343-596-8128 Email: wesleyville@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Re: Initial Project Description for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Dear Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, The Regional Municipality of Durham (‘Durham Region’) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Project Description for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) proposed New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. We support Ontario’s efforts to expand clean, reliable electricity generation capacity and we recognize the important role that new nuclear development will play in meeting the province’s ...

Report

Attachment Anne Hanson RE: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Anne Hanson
• Reference Number: 670
• Submitted: 2026-02-18
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• From: Anne Hanson Sent Date: Sat Feb 7 10:40:34 2026 To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) CC: Subject: Do not go nuclear--solar and wind are the way to go. Think of future generations. Nuclear is dangerous, expensive and stupid.

Report

Attachment Make Better Choices

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Teresa van Neste
• Reference Number: 614
• Submitted: 2026-02-16 - 4:17 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed nuclear reactor development at Wesleyville in Port Hope. I am a Port Hope resident. Ontario does not facae an energy shortage that necessittates new nuclear construction. Instead, the province faces a choice about how to meet future demand responsibly, affordably, and sustainably. That choice should prioritize renewables, conservation, and grid modernization - not expensive, high risk nuclear expansion. 1. Ontario's energy future should prioritize renewables: Ontario has abundant potential for wind, solar, energy storage, and conservation based demand reduction. Renewable technologies continue to decline in cost globally, while instalation timelines are far shorter than those of nuclear projects. Energy efficiency and distributed generation can be deployed incrementally, creating jobs and reducing emisions without locking ratepayers into multi-decade mega project debt. An effective energy strategy ...

Report

Attachment Good for Ontario

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Christopher Saric
• Reference Number: 597
• Submitted: 2026-02-13 - 5:49 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• Congratulations. Very excited for redevelopment of the Wesleyville site. This is good for Ontario, the power supply, the environment, opportunities for young engineers, and jobs.  Please just make sure there is a bullet-proof, long-term waste management plan in place. Is this the CANDU MONARK that will be used?  I met an engineer working on this and I got a really good feeling from them about it.  All the best. Thanks for doing this hard and necessary work.

Report

Attachment Consideration of those families living nearby

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Dawn Rosnak, Lakeshore Rd
• Reference Number: 545
• Submitted: 2026-02-12 - 11:05 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• I am writing as a local resident of Port Hope, living approximately 2 km from the proposed Nuclear Project. My family, including young children,  and I are deeply concerned about how this project may affect our health, safety, property, and overall well-being. Although I understand that public comments are currently invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description, we are alarmed that there is no mention of compensation, mitigation, or protections for households like ours located so close to this facility.  Below are the key concerns I respectfully request be seriously considered and addressed: Lack of Local Resident Impact Analysis There is no clear assessment of how construction, operations, and waste from a large nuclear facility could directly affect families living nearby. We are concerned about noise, environmental emissions, traffic, and long-term health effects, especially given the proximity (2 ...

Report

Attachment Tritium and Carbon-14 issues

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Robert Del Tredici
• Reference Number: 591
• Submitted: 2026-02-12 - 8:28 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• From: Robert Del Tredici Sent Date: Thu Feb 12 00:08:28 2026 To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) CC: Subject: Tritium and Carbon-14 issues I write to the Nuclear Assessment Agency of Canada to express my concern for two radioactive elements released into the environment around CANDU reactors at Pickering, Darlington, and Bruce -- and by the future Wesleyville nuclear complex should a CANDU reactor chosen to power this new site, which, at its 10,000 MW output, will double the combined MW production of Pickering, Darlington, and Bruce and the inevitable radioactive releases its operations produce. Tritium (with a half life of 12.3 years) and Carbon-14 (with a half-life of 5.7 thousand years) are not released from nuclear fuel bundles but from heavy water, thus both these elements have a greater likelihood of escaping reactor containment to impact nearby populations and the environment. Ongoing releases of tritium and ...

Report

Attachment NTP comments on initial project description - Wesleyville new nuclear

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Nuclear Transparency Project
• Reference Number: 543
• Submitted: 2026-02-12 - 5:52 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: N/A
• Please find NTP comments attached relating to the above mentioned matter. WIth thanks,
• Attachment Included
• Submitted via email February 11, 2026 To the Impact Assessment Agency decision-makers, Re: Project proposal for new nuclear generating station at Wesleyville in Port Hope These comments relate to the initial project description by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to construct (an as yet unspecified number of) new nuclear reactors, along with supporting infrastructure, in Port Hope. Reactor technologies, site layout, cooling water system designs, and other major aspects of this proposal have yet to be determined. Without these specifics, our comments remain very high-level. We have limited them to address some broad areas where a more robust evidentiary record should be required of the project proponent. We also make several recommendations relating to the current regulatory process for public interventions. But first, we will briefly describe our organization and our interest in the current comment opportunity. About NTP The Nuclear Transparency ...

Report

Attachment A Diversified and Responsible Energy Approach

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Robert Taylor
• Reference Number: 542
• Submitted: 2026-02-12 - 1:22 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• I support exploring nuclear power as part of a lower-carbon energy future. However, a project of this scale on the shores of Lake Ontario requires careful review and long-term accountability. Countries such as Sweden have demonstrated the value of a diversified system .. combining nuclear, hydro, and wind to reduce emissions while maintaining stability. A balanced energy mix strengthens resilience and reduces over-reliance on any single large-scale facility. Lake Ontario is a living system, not just a cooling source. Any shoreline work, dredging, intake and discharge structures, or thermal effects must be thoroughly assessed and transparently monitored, with enforceable protections for water quality and fish habitat. Modern infrastructure requires continuous maintenance and oversight. When it fails, the environmental and financial costs can be significant. That reality should guide this assessment toward strong safeguards, credible waste management planning, ...

Report

Attachment No to Nuclear Power - too risky - too many unknowns

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Cathy Carpenter
• Reference Number: 541
• Submitted: 2026-02-12 - 12:18 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• Invest in green renewable energy. Nuclear energy has long term consequences. The science has not been proven, the process is not transparent and the risks are too high. Follow China's lead...wind and solar!

Report

Attachment Submission from Blue Dot Northumberland organization

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Blue Dot Northumberland
• Reference Number: 540
• Submitted: 2026-02-12 - 12:06 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See our brief on Wesleyville New Nuclear attached
• Attachment Included
• Wesleyville/Port Hope Nuclear Plan 26-02-03 1 Proposed Wesleyville/ Port Hope Nuclear Plan Missing Information in the OPG Project Description Required Under Section 22 of the Impact Assessment Act February 3, 2026 Blue Dot Northumberland 1 Summary Recommendations Recommendation 1 That the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada direct OPG to come back with a properly scoped project description that provides a detailed analysis of the need and the alternatives to the project as required by Section 22 (1)(d) and (f) of the Impact Assessment Act [IAA]. Recommendation 2 That more time be provided for public comment so that adequate public education can be provided on the missing components in the OPG Project Description with regard to financial cost, risks to health, safety, accidents, security and sustainability of the nuclear option under Section (1)(a) IAA. 1. Introduction The Ontario government is proposing to build the world’s ...

Report

Attachment Too costly, too risky, most negative impact

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Rosemary Tayler
• Reference Number: 539
• Submitted: 2026-02-12 - 12:01 AM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• I strongly agree with Mark S. Winfield's submission - Reference Number 175.  I quote one passage in his submission:  The proposed project would have major implications for the sustainability of the Ontario's electricity system and economy. The proposed project potentialy represents the highest-cost, -risk, and negative-impact option for meeting the province's future electricity needs. There are just too many negative long-term implications with this proposal to warrant its existance. Why go down the road of nuclear when there are lower cost, less risky, least negative-impact options?  

Report

Attachment Comments on Ref. Number 89802

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Mary Lou Harley
• Reference Number: 593
• Submitted: 2026-02-12
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 1 Comments on New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project in Port Hope (89802) Summary Initial Project Description To The Impact Assessment Agency Canada By The Ecological Justice Working Group of the Justice, Mission and Outreach Committee, Regions East, United Church of Canada February 11, 2026 Contact: Mary Lou Harley, Ph.D. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Project Description of reference number 89802, New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project, in Port Hope. It is perturbing that yet another nuclear project is proposed for this area and its communities that have suffered since the 1940’s from impacts of radioactive emissions and nuclear wastes. The matter of environmental injustice is relevant to this Project. 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 and climate change. This submission is grounded ...

Report

Attachment Provincial Authority Advice Record - Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
• Reference Number: 748
• Submitted: 2026-02-12
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 1 UNCLASSIFIED - NON CLASSIFIÉ Enclosure 1: Provincial Authority Advice Record – New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Registry No. 89802 Please submit the completed form by February 11, 2026, via email to wesleyville@iaac- aeic.gc.ca.1 Department/Agency Contact Information Submission Date February 12, 2026 Department/Agency Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) Lead Contact, Title, Work Unit Mariana Nito, Heritage Advisor, Heritage Planning Unit Email, Phone mariana.nito@ontario.ca, 437-876-9980 Alternate Contact, Title, Work Unit Karla Barboza, Team Lead, Heritage Planning Unit James Hamilton, Manager, Heritage Planning Unit Email, Phone karla.barboza@ontario.ca, 416-660-1027 james.hamilton@ontario.ca, 416-995-8404 Review the draft Initial Project Description and answer the following questions: 1. Will your department or agency exercise a power, perform a duty or function, or provide financial assistance, ...

Report

Attachment Comments on the Initial Project Description on the proposed NNW

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Christine Drimmie
• Reference Number: 538
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:58 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• Say NO to New Nuclear at Wesleyville, build renewables instead. My comments are made based on my lived experience a resident of Durham Region which houses about half of the used nuclear fuel in Ontario and significant quantities of low and intermediate level radioactive (RA) waste. I have followed the activities of Ontario Power Generation and its proposals to expand both nuclear generation and to build/expand nuclear waste management operations for 25 years. I also worked on energy and nuclear policy as it affects host municipalities for over 20 years. In that role, I observed how the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) largely ignores local concerns about financial, and social impacts of their operations on the local communities.  In Durham, they have brushed off concerns about the ongoing, growing, so-called “interim” storage of used fuel and other RA wastes at the two nuclear generating sites at Pickering and Darlington. Environmental assessment ...

Report

Attachment Stop nuclear

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Beaconsfield Animal Services
• Reference Number: 537
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:57 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• Building a new nuclear plant is very harmful to the environment.  The spent fuel is toxic for years, and the water around the area is tested on animals.  Please do not continue to pollute.  ?I noticed a lot of wildlife live here.  ?????Please preserve the trees at this location. Please do not harm animals with this project. Please do not use animal testing for pollution and effluent monitoring. https://www.change.org/p/stop-testing-sewer-water-on-laboratory-fish ?Please work with the Canadian Centre for the Alternatives to Animal Methods. https://www.uwindsor.ca/ccaam/ Please only use non lethal ways to live with geese, beavers, and other wildlife. Develop a Living With Coyotes program with the animal welfare organization Coyote Watch Canada. www.coyotewatchcanada.com Please only use non lethal ways to manage wildlife. There are humane, non lethal ways to deal with beavers. Here's a great ...

Report

Attachment The Impact Assessment Agency must require that OPG fully address the need for and alternatives to the project

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Judy Smith
• Reference Number: 536
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:53 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• As a resident of Cobourg, living next to Victoria Park Beach on the shore of Lake Ontario, the aspect of having the largest nuclear plant in the world just 17 km away and visible from my yard is a shock. I join the coalition of the horrified at the prospect along with many other residents and tourists that flock to the beach in the summertime. Like Homer Simpson who lives in the mythical town of ‘Springfield’, Wesleyville will be omnipresent for more than a century until that fossilized plant is taken down like Gentilly 1. Our community and most of Northumberland’s population will live in fear of any future accident that occurs as the prevailing winds blow east towards us year-round. Accidents and poor management must be addressed as the past history of Ontario Hydro/ OPG and Westinghouse attest and is required under Section 22 (1)(a). Risk is completely reduced if we build offshore wind and solar instead. Are you going to insist that OPG present ...

Report

Attachment Opposed to new nuclear - comments attached

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Diane Swiatlowski
• Reference Number: 535
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:50 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• Opposed to new nuclear - comments attached
• Attachment Included
• Comments to IAAC re Project 89802 - New Nuclear at Wesleyville I’m opposed to this project for building more nuclear power plants in Ontario and Canada. 30-day Comment Period 30 days is too short a time for the public to provide comments - this is a huge project that requires research and understanding, which takes more time than was granted in this IAA process. Alternatives don’t appear to be fully explored with detailed cost estimates that review the entire life cycle of nuclear or alternative solutions: ● Canada’s adoption of nuclear power is terribly wasteful. The use of uranium in our current fleet of Candu reactors is wasteful - the spent fuel is only 3% expended and has the potential to be harnessed for re-use, with the right technology. Instead of continuing this cycle of using mined uranium and “disposing” of the waste, we should be looking at recycling the waste that has been generated over the past 50 years. France has committed to recycling their ...

Report

Attachment Nuclear Station In Port Hope

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Keegan Wharram
• Reference Number: 594
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:49 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• From: keegan wharram Sent Date: Wed Feb 11 23:49:58 2026 To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) CC: Subject: Nuclear Station In Port Hope Good Evening IAAC, I am writing this email to you as a submission of my comments in regards to OLG plans to build worlds largest nuclear station in Port Hope on the shore of Lake Ontario. I don’t believe this is correct decision to have something of this scale in this location on the banks of Lake Ontario. There are too many risks involved in a project like this. Have you required OLG to fully evaluate whether: - Energy efficiency would be a better idea overall and less risks involved ? - Renewable Energy would have a positive effect and faster outcome ? - New technology advances in Energy Storage that store the energy for a certain ...

Report

Attachment Comments for the proposed nuclear plant at Port Hope Ontario

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Karen Templin
• Reference Number: 599
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:49 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• From: Karen Templin Sent Date: Wed Feb 11 23:49:12 2026 To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) CC: Subject: Comments for the proposed nuclear plant at Port Hope Ontario Good evening Federal Decision Makers, Thank you for receiving my comments on the plan to build a large nuclear plant in Ontario in Wesleyville in Port Hope. I believe as many others do, that we could best meet Ontario’s electricity needs, as many other countries in the world are now doing, faster, at lower cost and with less risk than building another large nuclear plant. First, I submit that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada needs to order a full impact assessment and hold public hearings with respect to Ontario Power Generation’s proposal to build a new nuclear station in Port Hope and secondly consider the lower cost, lower risk, safer and more secure and faster to build energy alternatives to new nuclear projects. The cost of electricity ...

Report

Attachment Cart Before Horse

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Frank Erschen
• Reference Number: 534
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:48 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• Two questions come to mind when reading the IPD: The proposal defers the long-term management of high-level radioactive waste to a long-term storage facility.  While NMWO proposes to bury and abandon high-level nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario, the technology is not proven, transportation is not considered, and the facility does not exist.  How can a proposal punt long-term storage to a facility that does not exist?   Why are we purposefully adding to Canada's inventory of high-level radioactive waste before a long-term solution is in place?  More on this below. This proposal conveniently punts long-term storage.  Doing so lets the proposal ignore the risks, impacts, and costs of long-term storage. Total cost of ownership is a bedrock concept used in business.  It should also apply to a nuclear plant proposal.   Include all risks, impacts, and costs so that decisions are made ...

Report

Attachment NUCLEAR IS OBSOLETE......ADVANCED WIND AND SOLAR AND ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL ARE THE FUTURE

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Janice Wilton
• Reference Number: 533
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:23 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• In an article in the Deseret News on February 1, 2026, Dr. Brian Moench, President of the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment stated:  "There is no safe level of radiation exposure.  Any exposure to to radiation increases the risk of damage to key biologic infrastructure - the capability of causing genetic mutations, cancer, leukemia, birth defects, impaired brain development and reproduction, cardiovascular and immune system disorders."   He added: "Water vapor vented from the plant and the cooling water discharged to nearby water bodies contaminate air, water, soil and the food chain." The proposed new Wesleyville nuclear generating station is 10 kilometres from the town of Port Hope and situated on Lake Ontario.  The Great Lakes contain 21% of the world's surface fresh water and the Province of Ontario has the great good fortune of being on four of these.  Lake Ontario is the source of drinking water for 9 ...

Report

Attachment Comments on New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project from Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
• Reference Number: 602
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:14 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment Included
• 1 To: Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) From: Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) Re: Initial comments on the Summary of the Project Description for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville project (NNW) Date: February 11 2026 CCNR and Nuclear Reactor Licensing The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) is a federally incorporated not-for profit organization, dedicated to education and research on a wide range of nuclear issues, both civilian and military – including non-nuclear alternatives – especially those issues pertaining to Canada. CCNR has been actively intervening in reactor licensing decisions for more than five decades. In the early years, CCNR provided expert testimony on nuclear reactor safety, and cross-examined nuclear experts from Ontario Hydro, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and the Atomic Energy Control Board over a period of three months, during public hearings of the Royal Commission on Electric Power ...

Report

Attachment Option study required

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Paul Thomson
• Reference Number: 532
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:13 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• I write as a longtime supporter of the role played by nuclear in our electricity generation mix. However, technologies have advanced since the days when Ontario's nuclear plants were inaugurated and other less costly, low carbon alternative generation alternatives now exist.  My main point is that no options study appears to have been carried out by the Ontario government. For years I made investment recommendations in a government environment based on thorough evaluations and costings of alternatives. There is no evidence that such an evaluation has taken place in this case.  A nuclear plant may well turn out to be the best option after thorough evaluation. However given Ontario's failure in recent years to keep up with comparable jurisdictions in using wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal and similar technologies in its energy mix, this seems rather doubtful. In any case, the public will remain unconvinced.

Report

Attachment OPG must consider alternatives to world’s largest nuclear plant at Wesleyville

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Ontario Climate Emergency Campaign
• Reference Number: 531
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 11:06 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• February 11, 2026 SUBMISSION FROM THE ONTARIO CLIMATE EMERGENCY CAMPAIGN Re:  Impact Assessment Process #89802  OPG MUST CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO WORLD’S LARGEST NUCLEAR PLANT We urge the IAAC to direct OPG to look at the cleaner, safer and lower cost options (e.g., offshore wind, solar, storage) to building the world’s largest nuclear station. We are asking the IAAC to require OPG to fully evaluate whether: Energy efficiency could reduce the need for new generation Renewable energy (like wind and solar) could be deployed faster Energy storage could improve reliability without new nuclear risks The alternatives would cost less and reduce financial risks for ratepayers Recommendation 1    That the Impact Assessment ...
• Attachment Included
• February 11, 2026 SUBMISSION FROM THE ONTARIO CLIMATE EMERGENCY CAMPAIGN Re: Impact Assessment Process #89802 OPG MUST CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO WORLD’S LARGEST NUCLEAR PLANT We urge the IAAC to direct OPG to look at the cleaner, safer and lower cost options (e.g., offshore wind, solar, storage) to building the world’s largest nuclear station. We are asking the IAAC to require OPG to fully evaluate whether: • Energy efficiency could reduce the need for new generation • Renewable energy (like wind and solar) could be deployed faster • Energy storage could improve reliability without new nuclear risks • The alternatives would cost less and reduce financial risks for ratepayers Recommendation 1 That the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada direct OPG to come back with a properly scoped project description that provides a detailed analysis of the need and the alternatives to the project as required by Section 22 (1)(d) and (f) of the Impact Assessment ...

Report

Attachment Flexibility, Not Nuclear, Can Secure Ontario’s Electricity Future

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa
• Reference Number: 530
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 10:42 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• Please see attached document 
• Attachment Included
• Flexibility, Not Nuclear, Can Secure Ontario’s Electricity Future Kenneth C Johnson PhD School of Epidemiology and Public Health Department of Medicine University of Ottawa Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Wesleyville nuclear reactor. 1. My first concern was the very short window for comments - one month is too rushed for pubic comments. 2. A project of this magnitude, cost and legacy needs a full independent, impartial, impact assessment by an independent public body (not the CNSC), with public written and in-person oral hearings where people’s views and concerns can be heard by everyone. 3. The grid world is changing quickly and the impact assessment must include comparison to alternative ways of meeting grid demand. It is clear that solar, wind and storage have become a far more efficient and effective way to provide clean, dependable 24/7 electricity in 2026. Not only would the cost be much lower for Ontarians —already ...

Report

Attachment Why invest in nuclear when it can be incredibly unsafe, polluting, and there are such safer, healthier, and lower cost options?

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Cheryl Rainfield
• Reference Number: 529
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 10:42 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• I am incredibly concerned about Ontario even considering creating yet another nuclear power plant when we know they can have such a huge impact on the health of people, and there are far safer, healthier, and lower cost options available such as solar and wind. AND if a nuclear power plant ever has a major problem it will affect people for generations.  Please require the OPG to research the impact of nuclear waste on the health of citizens, whether renewable energy which would be healthier could also be more energy efficent and instaled faster, and would have less cost and less risk for Ontarioians.    Thank you, Cheryl  

Report

Attachment Wesleyville New Nuclear Project - Suggested Enhancements and Clarity to the Initial Project Description

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Engineers Beyond Borders Global
• Reference Number: 528
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 10:35 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
•   Engineers Beyond Borders Global (EBB Global) respectfully submits the attached comments regarding the Initial Project Description for the Wesleyville New Nuclear Project. EBB Global is an independent, non-governmental organization that contributes engineering and systems-based perspectives to public-interest infrastructure planning processes. The attached submission is provided for informational purposes only and is intended to support the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s Planning Phase review by identifying areas where additional information and clarification may assist in meeting the information requirements of the Impact Assessment Act. The submission neither supports nor opposes the proposed project and is offered to assist the Agency, Indigenous communities, and the public in understanding the project context at this stage of the assessment process. Respectfully submitted, Engineers Beyond ...
• Attachment Included
• Wesleyville New Nuclear Project — Suggested Enhancements and Clarity to the Initial Project Description Submitted by: Engineers Beyond Borders Global (EBB Global) (This submission is provided by Engineers Beyond Borders Global in a professional, non-advocacy capacity to support informed decision-making. It does not constitute support for or opposition to the proposed project.) Executive Summary Engineers Beyond Borders Global (EBB Global) provides this submission to support the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s Planning Phase review of the Wesleyville New Nuclear Project Initial Project Description (IPD). The IPD provides a high-level overview of the proposed undertaking, including its location, general purpose, and anticipated role within Ontario’s electricity system. The purpose of this submission is to identify areas where additional information and clarification would enhance the completeness, transparency, and usefulness of the Planning Phase record. In ...

Report

Attachment What is WRONG with Canada?

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Wendy O'Connor
• Reference Number: 527
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 10:34 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• I oppose the proposed nuclear power generating project at the Wesleyville site. What is WRONG with Canada? It is not the world it was when large-scale nuclear energy production in Canada was first considered and debated. Then, we were told that nuclear would avert an expected energy deficit caused by anticipated sharp increases in demand. Those increases never came. Because of faulty predictions and other follies, we were stuck with expensive and dangerous nuclear power generation facilities. However, once the facilities were present, many who understood the truth were willing - in the interests of being reasonable - to tolerate nuclear energy production until the facilities reached end of life. Some of us have been counting the days! But, end of life has turned out to be a moving target, with seemingly endless “refurbishments” to old reactors which become increasingly risky to ...

Report

Attachment Why Only Nuclear?

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Melanie Browne
• Reference Number: 526
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 10:12 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• As a resident of Port Hope I strongly oppose the way that this project is being pushed upon us without even a discussion of wind and solar power generation.  When these alternative energy sources are being successfully used all over the world why is the Ontario government failing to support these effective, less expensive and more immediately realized alternatives?  

Report

Attachment Concerns About Proposed ‘New Nuclear At Wesleyville Project’

• New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
• Author: Elizabeth Deakin
• Reference Number: 525
• Submitted: 2026-02-11 - 10:06 PM
• Project Phase: Planning
• Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
• Concerns About Proposed ‘New Nuclear At Wesleyville Project’: I would like to comment on the proposed ‘New Nuclear At Wesleyville Project’. I have several deep concerns about such a project: the huge expense to build, thereby increasing Ontarian’s electricity bills dramatically  the long term build for nuclear compared to renewables and other current technologies (as well as some waiting in the wings, e.g., storage possibilities) although renewable energies and other technologies are mentioned as alternative sources of electricity in the report, there is no firm suggestion that these technologies will be used to build Ontario’s reliable energy production/network using wind, solar, batteries and other storage methods, along with geothermal (proven reliability, although not mentioned directly in the report), for homes, and larger scale for businesses, factories, AI facilities, ...

Report