About the results

Information provided by external sources may not be subject to the Official Languages Act and is made available in the language(s) provided. This may result in content being displayed in a language different than that of the web page display.

The result count may differ from the number of unique comments. Similar comments by various authors may be grouped as a single comment; while each comment and attachment count as distinct results. Where applicable, please click on the alternate formats link to view additional versions available.

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

Comment Search Mobile

Sort by: Best match Most recent Submitted by

1358 results

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>

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 craziness unfolding south of the border The OPG proposal fails to examine crucial alternatives. Ontario can meet its electricity needs more cheaply, more quickly, and more safely by investing in energy efficiency, wind power, solar energy and energy storage (such as batteries and compressed air storage). This is a question that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) must examine during its mandatory review. That will only happen if the public demands it. We say NO to Nuclear. Thank you for reading our letter. Sincerely, Donna and Verne Deneault <personal information removed>

Attachment New Nuclear at Wesleyville - Public Participation Plan - OSPE Response

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE)
Reference number: 950
Submitted: 2026-07-22 - 1:43 PM
Project phase: Impact Statement
The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Public Participation Plan (the Plan) for the integrated assessment of the New Nuclear at Wesleyville (NNW) Project. OSPE is the province’s only independent, not-for-profit membership organization representing the engineering profession, with a distribution network reaching over 40,000 engineers across Ontario. Our mandate is to advance the public interest through evidence-based advocacy on matters of engineering, energy, public safety, and environmental stewardship. OSPE has been actively engaged in the NNW Project assessment process since the Initial Project Description stage. Our comments on the Plan are informed by that ongoing engagement and by the engineering profession’s commitment to transparent, technically rigorous, and publicly accountable infrastructure decision-making. The Plan is procedurally sound and reflects IAAC’s established approach to public participation under the Impact Assessment Act. OSPE’s observations focus on areas where the Plan, as currently drafted, could be strengthened to better serve the objectives it sets for itself: meaningful, early, and informed participation across all five phases of the integrated assessment. Our comments are offered constructively and in recognition that the Plan is explicitly designed to be flexible and adaptive. OSPE respectfully requests that IAAC consider the observations set out in this submission. We remain available to discuss any aspect of our feedback and to provide further input as the ...
Attachment included
Response to Public Participation Plan — NNW Project July 2026 Internal Use Only PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN OSPE RESPONSE New Nuclear at Wesleyville (NNW) Project | July 2026 OPENING STATEMENT The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Public Participation Plan (the Plan) for the integrated assessment of the New Nuclear at Wesleyville (NNW) Project. OSPE is the province’s only independent, not-for-profit membership organization representing the engineering profession, with a distribution network reaching over 40,000 engineers across Ontario. Our mandate is to advance the public interest through evidence-based advocacy on matters of engineering, energy, public safety, and environmental stewardship. OSPE has been actively engaged in the NNW Project assessment process since the Initial Project Description stage. Our comments on the Plan are informed by that ongoing engagement and by the engineering profession’s commitment to transparent, technically rigorous, and publicly accountable infrastructure decision- making. The Plan is procedurally sound and reflects IAAC’s established approach to public participation under the Impact Assessment Act. OSPE’s observations focus on areas where the Plan, as currently drafted, could be strengthened to better serve the objectives it sets for itself: meaningful, early, and informed participation across all five phases of the integrated assessment. Our comments are offered constructively and in recognition that the Plan is explicitly designed to be flexible and adaptive. OSPE respectfully requests that IAAC consider the observations set out in this submission. We ...

Attachment New Nuclear at Wesleyville - DRAFT INTEGRATED TAILORED IMPACT STATEMENT GUIDELINES - OSPE Response

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE)
Reference number: 948
Submitted: 2026-07-13 - 3:28 PM
Project phase: Impact Statement
The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville (NNW) Project. OSPE is the province's only independent, not-for-profit membership organization representing the engineering profession, with a distribution network reaching over 40,000 engineers across Ontario. Our mandate is to advance the public interest through evidence-based advocacy on matters of engineering, energy, public safety, and environmental stewardship. Nuclear energy is central to Ontario's long-term energy future. The NNW Project, at a proposed capacity of approximately 10,000 MW, represents one of the most consequential infrastructure decisions in Ontario's history. OSPE supports the federal impact assessment process as the appropriate mechanism for evaluating a project of this scale and complexity, and we are committed to contributing technical expertise that strengthens the rigour and completeness of that process. OSPE's comments on these draft Integrated Guidelines are informed by the engineering profession's responsibility to protect public safety, the environment, and the long-term interests of the communities affected by this project. They are also informed by OSPE's ongoing engagement with the NNW Project, including our response to the Initial Project Description submitted earlier this year. Our feedback focuses on areas where the Integrated Guidelines, as currently drafted, miss opportunities to ensure that the full value of the project, including its potential as a thermal energy asset and not only an electricity generator, is properly ...
Attachment included
DRAFT INTEGRATED TAILORED IMPACT STATEMENT GUIDELINES OSPE RESPONSE New Nuclear at Wesleyville (NNW) Project | July 2026 OPENING STATEMENT The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville (NNW) Project. OSPE is the province's only independent, not-for-profit membership organization representing the engineering profession, with a distribution network reaching over 40,000 engineers across Ontario. Our mandate is to advance the public interest through evidence-based advocacy on matters of engineering, energy, public safety, and environmental stewardship. Nuclear energy is central to Ontario's long-term energy future. The NNW Project, at a proposed capacity of approximately 10,000 MW, represents one of the most consequential infrastructure decisions in Ontario's history. OSPE supports the federal impact assessment process as the appropriate mechanism for evaluating a project of this scale and complexity, and we are committed to contributing technical expertise that strengthens the rigour and completeness of that process. OSPE's comments on these draft Integrated Guidelines are informed by the engineering profession's responsibility to protect public safety, the environment, and the long-term interests of the communities affected by this project. They are also informed by OSPE's ongoing engagement with the NNW Project, including our response to the Initial Project Description submitted earlier this year. Our feedback focuses on areas where the Integrated Guidelines, as currently drafted, miss opportunities ...

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

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Reference number: 947
Submitted: 2026-07-01
Updated: 2026-07-10 - 2:02 PM
Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - 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
CIAR #: 89802 New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Page 1 of 4 Provincial Review Team – Comment Form – draft Cooperation Plan and draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Response required by: May 7, 2026 Please submit the completed form no later than May 7, 2026, via email to wesleyville@iaac-aeic.gc.ca. Ministry/Office: Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks IA Contact: May Lyn Trudelle, Senior Program Support Coordinator Telephone: 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. a. In particular, identify any anticipated provincial Comprehensive or Class Environmental Assessments related to the proposed project. Include, where applicable, any proposed harmonization or streamlining between the federal Integrated Assessment and provincial processes. If a provincial Comprehensive or Class Environmental Assessment is not anticipated for the proposed project, please indicate this here. b. Provide any other comments related to the content of the draft Cooperation Plan, including the Approach to Cooperation and Information Sharing Opportunities sections. Please see the information provided in the Provincial Authority Advice Record (PAAR) form submitted to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) on March 3, 2026 for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) initial project description, and reattached to this submission. The PAAR includes Ministry of the ...

Attachment No more nuclear power plants in Canada

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Joo Hwan Jang
Reference number: 936
Submitted: 2026-05-23 - 11:50 AM
Project phase: Planning
It is time to change for our future. We can have natural & sustainable energy not nuclear. Doug Ford’s plan to build up to 4 GE-Hitachi nuclear reactors in the Greater Toronto Area doesn’t make sense – from a cost perspective, a radioactive waste perspective and a safety perspective. Every new nuclear project in Ontario’s history has gone massively over budget. Wind and solar energy and Quebec waterpower are now our lowest cost sources of new electricity supply. It makes absolutely no sense to push up our electricity rates by wasting money on high-cost, new nuclear reactors when we have proven, safe and effective solutions that can keep our lights on at less than half the cost. Ontario needs to start investing in wind and solar energy NOW – not high-cost, new nuclear reactors which will raise our electricity rates. Ontarians will be much better served with a combination of deep energy efficiency, renewable energy and cooperation with our green power-rich neighbours in Quebec.

Attachment No more Nuclear power plant in Ontario

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Philip Jung
Reference number: 935
Submitted: 2026-05-23 - 11:22 AM
Project phase: Planning
No NNW in Ontario!!! Doug Ford’s plan to build up to 4 GE-Hitachi nuclear reactors in the Greater Toronto Area doesn’t make sense – from a cost perspective, a radioactive waste perspective and a safety perspective. Every new nuclear project in Ontario’s history has gone massively over budget. Wind and solar energy and Quebec waterpower are now our lowest cost sources of new electricity supply. It makes absolutely no sense to push up our electricity rates by wasting money on high-cost, new nuclear reactors when we have proven, safe and effective solutions that can keep our lights on at less than half the cost. Ontario needs to start investing in wind and solar energy NOW – not high-cost, new nuclear reactors which will raise our electricity rates. Ontarians will be much better served with a combination of deep energy efficiency, renewable energy and cooperation with our green power-rich neighbours in Quebec.

Attachment Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg Nations of the Williams Treaties First Nations’ Consolidated Review of the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines, Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan, and Summary of Issues for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg Nations of the Williams Treaties First Nations
Reference number: 932
Submitted: 2026-05-07
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
To respect the knowledge sharing memorandum of understanding with Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg Nations of the Williams Treaties First Nations (MS-WTFNs), the information shared on this page is for the purposes of the integrated assessment for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project and has not been approved for use for other purposes. Any reproduction, distribution, or use of information about or provided by MS-WTFNs, for purposes other than those originally intended, requires prior permission from MS-WTFNs. To request permission please contact IAAC at wesleyville@iaac-aeic.gc.ca (mailto:wesleyville@iaac-aeic.gc.ca). See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
Attachment included
1 Larry Shuter Senior Policy Analyst, Consultation Operations Division Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Larry.Shuter@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Analise Saely Manager, Review Panels Division Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Analise.Saely@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Emily Janzen Senior Policy OHicer, Indigenous Consultation and Engagement Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission emily.janzen@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Date: 7 May 2026 Subject: Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg Nations of the Williams Treaties First Nations’ Consolidated Review of the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines, Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan, and Summary of Issues for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Introduction The Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg Nations of the Williams Treaties First Nations (the MS-WTFNs) – including Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation – are pleased to provide this submission to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) on the current draft of the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISGs), the Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan (IEPP), and Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG, the “Proponent”) Response to the Summary of Issues (SOI) for the proposed New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (the “Project”). The MS-WTFNs have assessed IAAC and CNSC’s responses to our initial TISGs comments through the concordance table provided by IAAC and determined which comments remain outstanding; reviewed the current draft of the TISGs to evaluate how these issues have been carried forward; ...

Attachment Local Risks Not Being Considered and Process Being Rushed

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Local Resident
Reference number: 931
Submitted: 2026-05-14 - 3:35 PM
Project phase: Planning
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 ...

Attachment New Nuclear Plant at Wesleyville

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: resident
Reference number: 912
Submitted: 2026-05-08 - 10:49 AM
Project phase: Planning
The new nuclear plant, its size and location in Wesleyville is a travesty to Lake Ontario and to our countryside and residential development. This project could cost BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and will not be completed until the 2040’s! This is untenable. And the costs will inflate much more over the next 15 years. Current scientific reports, some published after the proponent's proposal, indicate that renewable, sustainable alternate electricity generation of wind, both onshore and offshore, solar power, storage batteries, and conservation can provide the electricity we need for our transportation electrification, building heating and cooling, industrial electrification, and AI data centres at a fraction of the cost of new nuclear, not only in terms of construction and ongoing maintenance of a nuclear power plant, but also for the cost of electricity for all Ontarians. Why is this being ignored? Alternative electricity generation can be spread out where it is needed, is not a terrorist threat, doesn’t leak radiation, can abut farmland without harming it and is quicker, easier and less costly to install and maintain. We have viable economic alternatives OPG is ignoring and the IACC is not considering, notwithstanding its legal obligation to do so. There should be a full environmental assessment that details disclosure of the total land footprint not just the reactor site, water sourcing and discharge, agricultural and ...

Attachment Comments on the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (89802) Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Ecological Justice Working Group of the Justice, Mission and Outreach Committee, Regions East, United Church of Canada
Reference number: 913
Submitted: 2026-05-08 - 1:03 AM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - 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 on the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (89802) Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines By Ecological Justice Working Group of the Justice, Mission and Outreach Committee, Regions East, United Church of Canada Submitted to The Impact Assessment Agency Canada (IAAC) May 7, 2026 Contact: Mary Lou Harley, Ph.D. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines of the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project, in Port Hope. 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 in that extensive base of information including the foundational policy, Energy in the One Earth Community- Current Challenges and Future Options for Energy Use in Canadian and Global Contexts (2000)1. The United Church has acknowledged the harmful role that past false assumptions of human separation from and superiority over the natural world has had in the commodification of nature and environmental destruction. In its policies supporting this submission, the United Church has articulated humanity’s fundamental integration with the rest of creation along with a call towards responsibility for the care of creation. Further, the United Church notes that such crucial understandings are at the root of the richness and wisdom of Indigenous worldviews and draws your attention to the importance of that wisdom in this assessment process. A Way that is Ethical and Respectful In Section 1. of the Summary Draft Integrated Impact Guidelines, IAAC notes that ...

Attachment Comment on Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for Ontario Power Generation’s New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Blue Dot Northumberland
Reference number: 911
Submitted: 2026-05-08 - 12:18 AM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
You web site did not seem to be available when I first tried to file.
Attachment included
Page 1 of 7 May 7, 2026 Blue Dot Northumberland Submission to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Re: Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for Ontario Power Generation’s New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Submitted: May 7, 2026 Project: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project, Reference No. 89802 Proponent: Ontario Power Generation Inc. Subject: Need for and alternatives to the project; definition of affected/host communities 1. Summary of requested changes The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada should revise the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines to require Ontario Power Generation to provide a full, evidence-based assessment of: 1. The need for the project; 2. Alternatives to the project, including non-nuclear and demand-side alternatives capable of meeting the stated need; and 3. The socio-economic, infrastructure, public-health, emergency-planning and psychosocial effects on a broad regional host community, not only the Municipality of Port Hope. The current draft guidelines recognize that the proponent must identify the project’s purpose and need, but then state that IAAC will rely on OPG’s Initial Project Description as having demonstrated that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives to the project, and that no further information on alternatives is required. (IAAC) That approach is inconsistent with both the Impact Assessment Act and the foundational role of alternatives analysis in environmental assessment. https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p89802/165939E.pdf Blue Dot Northumberland Submission re New Nuclear at Wesleyville Page 2 of 7 May 7, 2026 2. Need for and alternatives to ...

Attachment From the Nuclear Transparency Project To the Impact Assessment Agency decision-makers re: draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Nuclear Transparency Project
Reference number: 915
Submitted: 2026-05-08
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - 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 Submitted via email May 7, 2026 To the Impact Assessment Agency decision-makers, Re: draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project These comments relate to the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. This project involves a proposal by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to construct (an as yet unspecified number of) new nuclear reactors, along with supporting infrastructure, in Port Hope. While the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines are fairly comprehensive, we identify some areas where additional factors would ensure a more comprehensive project assessment. These comments also include some concrete suggestions for improving public engagement plans. Finally, 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 Project (NTP) is a Canadian-registered not-for-profit organization dedicated to supporting open, informed, and equitable public discourse on nuclear technologies. NTP advocates for robust public access to data and other types of information and helps to produce accessible analysis of publicly available information, all with a view to supporting greater transparency in the Canadian nuclear sector. NTP is comprised of a multi-disciplinary group of experts who work to examine the economic, ecological, and social facets and impacts of Canadian nuclear energy production. We are ...

Attachment Impact of New Nuclear Power Plants

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of James Houston
Reference number: 917
Submitted: 2026-05-08
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - 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
From: J Houston Sent Date: Thu May 7 13:16:44 2026 To: Ontario Region / Region d'Ontario (IAAC/AEIC) CC: Subject: Impact of New Nuclear Power Plants To Whom It may concern, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed new reactors to be installed in Ontario. Nothing about this plan makes sense to me. Firstly as an OPG customer this will adversely affect my hydro rates. Why has this plan been given priority over alternative energy, an option that would be up and running in half the time at 1/4 of the cost to ratepayers. Then there is the environmental factor. We have the issue of shipping the waste to a largely unwilling host on a highway that has already been deemed unsafe for public use due to the present load of transport traffic and the inadequacies of the highway to handle it. I would ask the government to at least consider the options to this expensive risky option. James Houston <personal information removed>

Attachment Comments on Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Christine Drimmie
Reference number: 910
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:59 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
The most disheartening sentences in this document occur in Section 2.8.3 Alternatives to the project: IAAC will rely on the proponent’s Initial Project Description demonstrating that there are no alternatives to the project that are technically and economically feasible to meet the need for the project and achieve its purpose. The selection of electricity generation technologies and the broader energy supply mix in Ontario are matters determined through provincial energy planning and policy processes, including Ontario’s Integrated Energy Plan. It will not reassess provincial energy policy or determine the appropriate electricity generation mix for the province. On this basis, the information provided in the Initial Project Description is considered sufficient to address alternatives to the project for the purposes of these Integrated Guidelines, and no additional information is required. This is an absolute abdication of the purpose of the IAAC process. If we are not using facts and science to consider the potential alternatives then truly, what is the point? The IESO study did not show that nuclear was the only way for Ontario to proceed and certainly not the fastest or most cost-effective way to meet our energy needs. This decision reveals the IAAC process as a sham. Instead of demanding an even-handed analysis of alternatives, you are enabling a purely political decision by an Ontario government with a record of running rough-shod over environmental protections. Is putting virtually all of Ontario’s energy eggs (investments) in the very expensive nuclear basket really the best approach? Furthermore, so far, Canada only has “a plan” to ...

Attachment New Nuclear at Wesleyville

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Cameron McFarlane
Reference number: 909
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:57 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I live in Northumberland County and am surprised by the number of people I talk to who haven't heard about this megaproject, notwithstanding all the OPG and government publicity . One reason could be residents are not aware of the tiny hamlet of Wesleyville, nor the history 50 years ago of an abandoned gas plant that ultimately wasn't needed. Instead of Wesleyville, what should the proponent or the IAAC call this project? Port Hope? The biggest nuclear power plant in the world will impact at least the 50 km radius of its emergency preparation zone. Anyone who knows this area will know the impacts of this project, should it be approved and actually proceed, will be profound throughout Northumberland County and beyond. The factors highlighted in OPG's promotional material mention most of them. Therefore the host community, which is more than merely a label, should be at least Northumberland County. That OPG has only interacted with Port Hope, calling it the host community, may have more to do with keeping their generous initial payments to a minimal to maintain their cooperation. New Nuclear in Northumberland County is most accurate. Unfortunately and unfairly OPG is not telling us the whole story about this project, not the technology in order to ascertain the various impacts of the choices, such as do we want to be dependent on American enriched uranium? How much is this going to cost to be able to compare it to alternative renewable electricity generation options. Before Darlington was built about 40 years ago, why was Wesleyville not chosen instead and would the factors rejecting it be relevent today? OPG tells us after construction 1620 jobs ...

Attachment Northwatch Comments on Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the impact assessment of Ontario Power Generation’s proposed “New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Northwatch
Reference number: 908
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:56 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Northwatch is providing comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the impact assessment of Ontario Power Generation’s proposed “New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. Northwatch has previously commented on the OPG’s Initial Project Description and described Northwatch and Northwatch’s areas of interest in that document, and will not repeat those introductions in this submission, given that our earlier comments are available on the public registry. As a first step in our review of the draft guidelines, we created a list of the issues we had identified during the comment period on the IPD as one lens through which we will evaluate the efficacy of the draft guidelines. In general, our review of the Initial Project Description determined that OPG had not provided a sufficient description of their project or its components, activities, and anticipated and potential adverse effects. While problematic in an Initial Project Description, the same approach is wholly unacceptable in the impact statement and supporting documents. The Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines must provide the OPG with direction that is sufficiently detailed to result in a detailed impact statement which must support an evidence-based assessment of OPG’s proposal and its potential effects. The Agency must ensure that the guidelines are sufficiently thorough and comprehensive in order to achieve a credible and scientifically and socially rigorous review process. Our overarching observations were: the comment period was too short, and limited public opportunities for analysis and comment the draft guidelines ...
Attachment included
IAA Reference # 89802 Comments by Northwatch on IAAC’S Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines May 7, 2026 WESLEYVILLE (PORT HOPE) NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT Northwatch Comments on the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Draft Integrated Impact Statement Guidelines 1 Introduction Northwatch is providing comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the impact assessment of Ontario Power Generation’s proposed “New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. Northwatch has previously commented on the OPG’s Initial Project Description and described Northwatch and Northwatch’s areas of interest in that document, and will not repeat those introductions in this submission, given that our earlier comments are available on the public registry. As a first step in our review of the draft guidelines, we created a list of the issues we had identified during the comment period on the IPD as one lens through which we will evaluate the efficacy of the draft guidelines. In general, our review of the Initial Project Description determined that OPG had not provided a sufficient description of their project or its components, activities, and anticipated and potential adverse effects. While problematic in an Initial Project Description, the same approach is wholly unacceptable in the impact statement and supporting documents. The Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines must provide the OPG with direction that is sufficiently detailed to result in a detailed impact statement which must support an evidence- based assessment of OPG’s proposal and its potential effects. The Agency must ensure that the guidelines are sufficiently thorough ...

Attachment why not renewables as an alternative to nuclear, the assessment actstates IAAC Must assess alternatives

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Terrance Chilibeck
Reference number: 907
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:54 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
In the attached document It is identified that the Federal government has an obligation to take all risks into account through the Assessment Act. I have illustrated 19 examples that the current Ontario Government is not acting in the Public Interest. The proposed Nuclear plant application indicates there is no alternative to this project, which is false. When coupled with the 19 items of concern this government has shown these statements cannot be taken seriously as "truth" and the Assessment Act needs to be complied with, that is, an assessment of the renewable energy sources must be considered as part of the Assessment.
Attachment included
1 Assessment on nuclear It is with dismay that I am writing with the knowledge that something is wrong in the IAAC where a proponents statement has been accepted as “truth” when it comes to a nuclear power plant costing $230 billion CAD. I read the statement that the IAAC “will rely on the proponent’s Initial Project Description demonstrating that there are no alternatives to the project that are technically and economically feasible to meet the need for the project and achieve its purpose.” “The federal impact assessment will focus on the potential effects of the designated project and the proponent’s rationale for the selected technology and site. It will not reassess provincial energy policy or determine the appropriate electricity generation mix for the province. On this basis, the information provided in the Initial Project Description is considered sufficient to address alternatives to the project for the purposes of these Integrated Guidelines, and no additional information is required” IAAC’s Draft Guidelines state: 2.8.2 Need for the project The Impact Statement must describe the underlying opportunity or issue that the project intends to seize or solve from the perspective of the proponent, such as demand for a resource or support for a federal or provincial government objective, provide a rationale that the project is a warranted response In order to understand the situation simply: Problem: electricity is needed Rationale: Nuclear is the only solution. Is nuclear a reasonable reaction? Key sustainability challenges include radioactive waste management, high capital costs, and long construction times. Renewables are not considered. This is purely political ...

Attachment Please no nuclear!

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Nicole Corrado
Reference number: 906
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:54 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I grew up near the nuclear dump and a nuclear plant. I worry what it did to my health. Use renewable instead. Mining should NOT be done near fish frequented waters. Destroys a forest and river. Please do NOT put a mine here. It will kill the fish and any humans and animals who eat the fish. It will pollute the water, also affecting humans and other animals. ?There is a need to replace animal testing and it can be done. Ireland uses alternatives to acute lethality testing on fishes and bans the fish tests. Please do not use animal testing for environmental monitoring. Acute lethality tests are no longer allowed nor used in Ireland. Examples of media that can be collected and analyzed during PM include ...

Attachment New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Nicole Corrado
Reference number: 916
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:46 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - 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
From: Nicole Corrado To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) Subject: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026 11:56:37 PM Nuclear should NOT be done near fish frequented waters. Destroys a forest and river. Please do NOT put a mine here. It will kill the fish and any humans and animals who eat the fish. It will pollute the water, also affecting humans and other animals. There is a need to replace animal testing and it can be done. Ireland uses alternatives to acute lethality testing on fishes and bans the fish tests. Please do not use animal testing for environmental monitoring. Acute lethality tests are no longer allowed nor used in Ireland. Examples of media that can be collected and analyzed during PM include a) foodstuffs (consumed by humans); b) air; c) surface water; d) groundwater (see CSA N288.7); e) soil and sediment; f) vegetation consumed by herbivorous receptors; and g) tissues of prey animals consumed by carnivorous receptors Animals should not be killed and cut up for monitoring. Animals are not “foodstuffs”. Please do not examine animal tissue unless it is from naturally or accidentally deceased animals, or from samples taken during veterinary care (biopsies), and stool samples. Examples of BEM include a) fish surveys conducted by collecting fish in both the exposure area and a reference area and comparing measurements of length, weight, gonad size, liver size, fecundity, and egg size; and b) benthic invertebrate community surveys conducted by collecting benthic invertebrates in both the exposure area and a reference area and comparing benthic invertebrate ...

Attachment Environment Risk

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Keegan Wharram
Reference number: 905
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:31 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Hello, I am opposed to New Nuclear development happening at Wesleyville. With the high risk to the enovironment and surronding area. I don't think this project should proceed. There is too many important factor's to take into account. Sustainable Design is one method that should be looked at.

Attachment CCNR Comments on Draft Guidelines for the Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Reference number: 918
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:21 PM
Updated: 2026-05-08 - 12:05 PM
Rationale: Comment updated for administrative purposes
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - 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 To: Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) From: Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) Re: Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. Date: May 7 2026 The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) has reviewed the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project, and offer the following comments on those Draft Guidelines. It is expected that these comments will be posted on the IAAC web site. Federal Authority On page 45 of OPG’s Summary Project Description (SPD) the proponent states that “ “The NNW Project is not anticipated to affect federal lands. The NNW site is not located on nor adjacent to federal lands.” However, the Agency (IAAC) correctly points out on page 2 of the Draft Guidelines that “The IAA requires the assessment of non-negligible adverse effects of a ‘federal work or undertaking.’ As the production of nuclear energy is declared to be to the general advantage of Canada in the Nuclear Energy Act, this project is considered to be a federal work or undertaking as defined under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999). Therefore, adverse federal effects within federal jurisdiction, as defined under the IAA, also include changes to the environment or to health, social and economic conditions and the positive and negative consequences of those changes that are likely to be caused by the carrying out of the project.” CCNR is pleased to see the Agency clarifying its authority on the matter of federal jurisdiction. Because the government of Canada has carved out by law a special federal ...

Attachment Need for project is unclear, no alternatives examined

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Louis Bertrand
Reference number: 904
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:20 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Please see attached PDF file.
Attachment included
Bertrand – NNW Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines May 7, 2026 Comments submitted in response to the invitation to comment on the Draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville (NNW) project (IAAC Ref 89802) Louis Bertrand P.Eng(Retired) Scugog, Ontario I wish to make it clear that these comments are made on my own behalf, and not on behalf of the Safecast.org radiation and environmental monitoring organization for which I volunteer my time and efforts. Although I intervened on behalf of Safecast in the Darlington Re-Licencing Hearing (June 2025) the following comments are my own. Need for project is unclear The Impact Assessment Act 22(1) requires the proponent’s impact assessment statement to consider: (d) the purpose of and need for the designated project; The Initial Project Description (IPD) does not make an adequate case for the need for the designated project. Who needs the power? Data centres? US States bordering Ontario? Or is there a genuine desire to actually decarbonize Ontario’s energy supply. (e) alternative means of carrying out the designated project that are technically and economically feasible, including through the use of best available technologies, and the effects of those means; The IPD jumps directly to building a nuclear generating station of pharaonic proportions without considering the impacts and relative costs of the project itself compared to renewables, power sharing with Hydro Québec (and possibly with Manitoba) and efficiency savings (a.k.a. generating nega-watts). (f) any alternatives to the designated project that are technically and economically feasible and are directly related to the designated project; This section ...

Attachment No to Wesleyville nuclear power plant proposal

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Caitlin Grandison
Reference number: 903
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:11 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Wesleyville nuclear power plant. Ontario deserves and has so much capacity for safer, cleaner energy alternatives to nuclear. Placing this plant on the edge of Lake Ontario, connecting to the Great Lakes, which is the largest freshwater system the planet has. For the sake of us all, and our grandchildren, and countless generations and slecies who may be harmed, please do not go forward with this plan. Thank you.

Attachment Clarification required in Public Participation Plan

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Julia Grandison
Reference number: 902
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:11 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I am deeply concerned about Ontario Power Generation’s proposed Wesleyville Project nuclear power plant, but at this time, I will focus only on describing my concerns about the Draft Public Participation Plan. The Draft Public Participation Plan states that public participation “is meaningful” (page 6), but it does not define what meaningful participation might be. Does “meaningful” participation mean only that community members are free to say what they want and that they are provided with opportunities for doing so? Or does it mean that the concerns of community members will be considered by the IAAC and the Government of Canada and used to decide whether the Wesleyville Project goes ahead? The Draft Public Participation Plan must define what meaningful participation is in order to be a “meaningful” document. Relatedly, the Draft Public Participation Plan how does not identify precisely how the participation of the public will be used other than to revise documents and to “inform decision-making” (page 7). By “inform[ing] decision-making,” does the IAAC mean that the public’s views will help decide on issues relating to the project after it has gone ahead? Or does it give the public a say in whether or not the proposal is accepted? The Draft Public Participation Plan says that the public must have “the information they need to participate” (page 6). This phrasing is also vague. Does this mean simply that the public needs to know when comment periods begin and end? Or does it mean that the Government of Canada is committed to providing certain types of information to the public? For ...

Attachment Cost of Alternatives

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Allyson Booth
Reference number: 901
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 11:01 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for Ontario Power Generation’s New Nuclear Project at Wesleyville. I am concerned that the Guidelines do not provide a cost comparison between nuclear power generation and other options for power generation, including estimates for the lifelong stewardship of the power generation waste products. For reference, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2025 (https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2025-v2.pdf), states: “Two recent authoritative, comparative assessments of the Levelized Costs of Energy (LCOE), i.e., the costs per kilowatt-hour over the lifetime of a facility, show a clear advantage of solar and wind power generation over traditional competitors. In a detailed study for Germany, the Fraunhofer Institute concluded that in 2024, utility-scale PV [photovoltaic] plants in southern Germany could produce at US$c4.5/kWh, whereas small rooftop installations, delivering at the retail level, at US$c6.8/kWh. Compared at the retail level, PV rooftop electricity costs were lower than the costs of PV utility scale if distribution costs were added. Onshore wind power came in at US$c4.7/kWh for good locations. The lowest estimates for natural gas were US$c9.6/kWh, for lignite US$c16.4/kWh, for hard coal US$c18.8/kWh, and for nuclear US$c14.8–53/kWh. In the U.S., according to Lazard, LCOEs for onshore wind are at US$c3.7/kWh, for PV utility US$c3.8/kWh, for offshore wind US$c7/kWh, and for PV residential and commercial US$c8.1/kWh, while the lower end for U.S. nuclear was at US$c14.1/kWh (3.7 times as much as utility solar) and for gas peakers US$c14.9/kWh. With ...

Attachment CNA in support of Wesleyville

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Canadian Nuclear Association
Reference number: 900
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 10:42 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
CNA comments on the drafts of the Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and Public Participation Plan for the Wesleyville New Nuclear Project The Canadian Nuclear Association has over 115 members, representing more than 89,000 Canadians employed directly or indirectly in exploring and mining uranium, generating electricity, advancing nuclear medicine, and promoting Canada’s worldwide leadership in nuclear science and technology innovation. The Canadian nuclear industry acknowledges the importance of rigorous environmental assessment where safety and environmental stewardship are nonnegotiable priorities. The documents currently offer flexibility for proponents to propose alternative or improved assessment and data collection methods, avoiding overly prescriptive requirements that risk limiting innovation. However, where specific guidance documents are referenced, such as SACC and its associated technical guidance, the versions to be applied should be defined and fixed for the duration of the Impact Assessment process. This would provide a stable regulatory baseline without restricting the ability to propose methodological improvements. The purpose of the integrated review process is to achieve “one project, one review”: to align the requirements of the Impact Assessment Act with those of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s licensing process under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The potential to decrease duplication is significant. However, it remains unclear from IAAC’s documents to date how IAAC and the CNSC are collaborating to integrate requirements under this initiative. The drafts do not clearly ...

Attachment More information needs to be disseminated

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Janet Thomas
Reference number: 899
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 10:26 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
From everything I have read to date, building the world's largest nuclear generator at Wesleyville, Ont., needs to be considered by the public BUT WITH MORE INFORMATION. I do not endorse this project.

Attachment Comments on Draft Public Participation Plan

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Christine Drimmie
Reference number: 898
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 9:57 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
The project description assumes the only alternative that will be considered is a nuclear plant and nuclear technologies yet to be determined. Does this mean that no other types of generation will be considered? If this is the case, I am immediately very disappointed with the IA process. (We have renewable technologies available, less expensive, faster to build, will begin reducing GHG emissions much sooner and don't leave a legacy of waste that will need to be safely stored for thousands of years.) It is not clear to a person not familiar with all the names for steps in your process how long these various phases may last (weeks, months, years?) It seems that in Phase 1 and 2, a lot of time is spent educating people about the IAAC/CNSC process which is definitely important. But what efforts will be made to educate surrounding communities about the project itself over it's full lifecycle (100+ years by the time decomm and dismantling occur) and how their communities will be affected throughout that time span. We hear all about the benefits of the early stages of the project (construction jobs, GDP $) and it is inevitably presented as if every stage will go according to plan, no glitches, OPG's great refurbishment track record is lauded, etc. However, past projects have not always proceeded smoothly and it seems likely this one will involve newer types of reactors that have not been built often. Are community members and councils being educated about the project management risks associated with the project such as: the project does not proceed according to schedule leaving the site in limbo or partially constructed, costs rise ...

Attachment Power Workers’ Union Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines - New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (Reference No. 89802)

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: The Power Workers' Union
Reference number: 897
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 9:45 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Please find attached the comments of the Power Workers' Union on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines - New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (Reference No. 89802). For your convenience, we will send a Word document version of the Comments via email. Best regards, Brigid Rowan on behalf of the Power Workers' Union
Attachment included
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1000, C.L.C. 244 EGLINTON AVE. E. TORONTO, ONTARIO M4P 1K2 TEL.: (416) 481-4491 FAX: (416) 481-7115 PRESIDENT Andrew Clunis VICE PRESIDENTS Chris Reid Mike Hambly Darren Nesbitt James Middleton May 7, 2026 New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Via online submission Re: Power Workers’ Union Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines - New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (Reference No. 89802) The Power Workers’ Union (PWU) is pleased to submit comments to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on the April 7, 2026 Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines – New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. The PWU is a strong supporter and advocate for the prudent and rational reform of Ontario’s electricity sector and recognizes the importance of planning for low-cost, low- carbon energy solutions to enhance the competitiveness of Ontario’s – and Canada’s – economy. The PWU represents the majority of the skilled workers that operate and maintain Ontario’s electricity generation, transmission, and distribution systems. As a union deeply invested in Ontario's safe, reliable, and sustainable energy infrastructure, we recognize the critical importance of developing new large-scale nuclear generation in Ontario, including the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. The PWU supports the development of Wesleyville as soon as possible. Any accelerated schedule should not compromise safety, constitutional rights or undermine the objectives of government regulatory or environmental consultative ...

Attachment Assess the costs of nuclear vs. alternatives

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Resident of Port Hope
Reference number: 896
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 8:59 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Since the potential adverse effects of nuclear can be mitigated by considering alternatives (solar, wind) it is hard for me to understand how the impact assessment can be conducted in a 'nuclear echo chamber'. The costs of nuclear - both from an economic and health perspective - are too high. Solar and/or wind generation (with storage) will cost Ontarians less and solar and/or wind will cost fewer lives. Having spent the day reading on the economics of nuclear vs. alternatives, and the health impacts of nuclear vs. alternatives, it is clear to me why OPG does not want to be required to justify nuclear vs. alternatives. The only benefits of nuclear seem to be: it takes less space, and it will provide jobs, and the waste is small in volume. Balanced against much higher cost, more deaths and illnesses, and the absence of a storage solution for waste that will be deadly for 1000s of years - I can see why OPG doesn't WANT to have to assess nuclear vs. alternatives. What I cannot understand is how the IAAC can justify not requiring OPG to evaluate the alternatives to generate Ontario's power. Reference is made to the Ontario Energy Plan. Well, a policy paper cannot take the place of a proper impact assessment. I ask the IAAC to hold OPG accountable to Ontario residents and require OPG to justify the choice of nuclear vs. solar and/or wind.

Attachment Short sighted

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Tali Salvador
Reference number: 895
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 8:35 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
This project is too costly, too risky and too short sighted. The world's largest nuclear plant does not need to be built. And certainly not in our community, where so many are concerned about the inevitable risks. There are environmentally better options - better for the land, for the water, for the wildlife and for the surrounding communities. By the time this plant is built, nuclear will be irrelevant. Why not think to the future? Why not look to other nations who are creating green energy and follow their lead? I am disappointed and disheartened by the lack of foresight and planning. The damage done will be irreversible. We need our land to remain fertile, our lakes clean and our communities safe. As many have pointed out, young families will leave. Communities will be devastated. We urge you to reconsider and think to a brighter, smarter, cleaner future.

Attachment Nuclear Reactor plant Port Hope

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Sharon Handley
Reference number: 894
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 8:26 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I object to the plan to build a nuclear Power plant that will et up farm land, decimate communities in the neighborhood for over 20 years of construction, and seriously put at risk our Great Lakes water supply for the forceable future. Have we not explored energy options that are not going to ruin our natural resources, which will become clearly less safe in the coming years? This has not been well publicized as well, for all those living anywhere near this would completely adversely affected why has the government not brought this much sooner to the public, and more widely publicized.

Attachment Comments on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Kerstin Muth
Reference number: 893
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 8:19 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Comments are in the attached file.
Attachment included
To the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Email: wesleyville@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Re: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (89802) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for Ontario Power Generation’s New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. First, I would like to state that it was good news that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) decided that more assessment of the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project was required. There are many complex technical, security, economic and environmental justice issues. With the production of highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste, the project has repercussions for generations into the future. An Impact Assessment is the best way for public awareness, scrutiny and input to this project. I have provided comments on some of the sections of the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (the draft guidelines). Section 2.5 Project Overview The draft guidelines state that the proponent will: • describe the project, key project components and ancillary activities (both nuclear and non-nuclear), scheduling details, the timing of each phase of the project, the total lifespan of the project and other key features. If the project is part of a larger sequence of projects, the Impact Statement must outline the larger context; • … • state the estimated project budget, for each project activity, and the amount that is expected to be spent locally over the life of the project; and… We note that in the past budgets for nuclear power plants final costs typically greatly exceeded initial estimates. The long-term management the nuclear waste is a direct ...

Attachment OPG must 1. present case for nuclear vs. alternatives, 2. present more than a 'concept of a plan' for the impact assessment to proceed

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Resident of Port Hope
Reference number: 892
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 7:50 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines Submitted by Deborah Irwin, Resident of Port Hope May 7, 2026 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. I have two requests to the IAAC as the requirements of the Impact Assessment are finalised: Insist OPG present the case for nuclear vs. alternatives (renewables) Insist OPG present a complete project plan, with critical decisions made, before the Impact Assessment begins OPG must present the case for nuclear vs. alternatives, and it is IAAC’s job to make sure they do. The Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines specify that the “IAAC will rely on the proponent’s Initial Project Description demonstrating that there are no alternatives to the project that are technically and economically feasible to meet the need for the project and achieve its purpose.” (2.8.3) However OPG’s Initial Project Description notably did not include an evaluation of alternatives, and this omission was pointed out in the majority of comments received on the initial project plan. Ontario’s Integrated Energy Plan - Energy for Generation is not an Impact Assessment. When Ontario developed this plan, they did not do a thorough assessment of the potential impacts of nuclear, solar, on-shore wind or on-shore wind. By not requiring OPG to present a thorough assessment of the alternatives to nuclear, IAAC is giving a strategy document the weight of an Impact Assessment. In the feedback provided by residents and organisations to OPG’s initial “concept of a ...
Attachment included
Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines Submitted by Deborah Irwin, Resident of Port Hope May 7, 2026 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines. I have two requests to the IAAC as the requirements of the Impact Assessment are finalised: 1. Insist OPG present the case for nuclear vs. alternatives (renewables) 2. Insist OPG present a complete project plan, with critical decisions made, before the Impact Assessment begins OPG must present the case for nuclear vs. alternatives, and it is IAAC’s job to make sure they do. The Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines specify that the “IAAC will rely on the proponent’s Initial Project Description demonstrating that there are no alternatives to the project that are technically and economically feasible to meet the need for the project and achieve its purpose.” (2.8.3) However OPG’s Initial Project Description notably did not include an evaluation of alternatives, and this omission was pointed out in the majority of comments received on the initial project plan. Ontario’s Integrated Energy Plan - Energy for Generation is not an Impact Assessment. When Ontario developed this plan, they did not do a thorough assessment of the potential impacts of nuclear, solar, on-shore wind or on-shore wind. By not requiring OPG to present a thorough assessment of the alternatives to nuclear, IAAC is giving a strategy document the weight of an Impact Assessment. In the feedback provided by residents and organisations to OPG’s initial “concept of a plan” - the demand for a proper assessment of the alternatives to nuclear generation was very clear. In ...

Attachment No to proposed nuclear plant

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Roberta Benson
Reference number: 891
Submitted: 2026-05-07 - 7:19 PM
Project phase: Planning
Participation notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
We already have some solar and wind power which could and should be used as they do in Europe. We need to invest much more heavily in this renewable resource. Prior to the approval of this project, there should be a full environmental assessment that details disclosure of the total land footprint not just the reactor site, water sourcing and discharge, agricultural and environmental impacts, independent studies of the hydrogeological assessments and economic impact on agriculture vs energy jobs. We need to rethink nuclear power as the way to go for the entire planet not just our local corner of the globe.

Report a problem on this page

Date modified:: 2019-03-01