Local Risks Not Being Considered and Process Being Rushed

I am writing to provide feedback and request clarification on the proposed Wesleyville nuclear plant.
 

I recognize that Ontario needs to increase electricity supply and keep emissions low.

However, nuclear power is widely reported to be roughly three times more expensive than other low‑carbon options such as renewables and efficiency.

Before proceeding, I ask for clear, public evidence that this project is the most cost‑effective way to meet future demand, and how its costs compare on a per‑kWh basis with other low‑carbon alternatives that could be deployed in the same timeframe.

I am deeply concerned about siting a major nuclear facility on one of the largest remaining natural shorelines along the north shore of Lake Ontario, an area that includes sensitive species and coastal wetlands. This is some of the last relatively intact shoreline habitat in the region. I request much clearer information on how these habitats, species at risk, and coastal processes will be protected over the full life of the project, including construction, operation, and decommissioning, and what binding mitigation and monitoring commitments OPG is prepared to make.

While nuclear is low‑carbon, OPG’s past record of management problems, oil spills, and impacts on fish and wildlife raises serious questions about its ability to manage new and complex risks at this site. I ask for a transparent account of OPG’s historical environmental performance (including spills, fish kills, unplanned releases, and enforcement actions), how those issues have been addressed, and what independent oversight will be in place at Wesleyville.

The plant would be surrounded by prime agricultural land. I am very concerned about increased traffic and heavy truck use on rural roads, the risks and routes for transporting nuclear fuel and waste, and how these changes could raise farmers’ costs or push them out of being able to farm. I request a clear, quantitative assessment of: projected traffic volumes and road upgrades; accident and spill scenarios for all hazardous and radioactive materials; potential contamination pathways for soil and groundwater; and how affected farmers would be compensated or protected if land or water were compromised.

Finally, OPG’s approach to climate change appears unclear. There are Impact Assessment guidelines for GHG monitoring, but there seems to be nothing prescriptive or detailed regarding climate‑risk assessment (e.g., lake level change, warming water temperatures, extreme storms, flooding, erosion, and cumulative impacts on Lake Ontario’s already sensitive nearshore environment).

I request a robust, publicly available climate‑risk analysis showing how the plant will perform under high‑impact climate scenarios over its full lifespan, how cooling‑water needs and thermal discharges will affect the lake, and what adaptation measures and shutdown criteria will be in place if conditions exceed design assumptions.

Until these questions are answered with specific, transparent, and enforceable commitments, I do not believe the Wesleyville nuclear project should move forward.