Nuclear waste at Chalk River: opponents defeated in court.

By Nelly Albérola, Radio-Canada, ICI Ottawa-Gatineau, March 6, 2025

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2145786/rejet-decision-nucleaire-chalk-river-dechet [en français]

The Federal Court has dismissed an application for judicial review by citizens’ groups and scientists opposed to the Chalk River radioactive waste disposal site in Deep River, Ontario.

The ruling has gone almost unnoticed. In the wake of the Kebaowek First Nation’s victory over Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the Federal Court has handed down another decision concerning the proposed Chalk River nuclear waste disposal site.

Please note: This victory will require the CCNS to have meaningful consultations with the Algonquins on whose traditional lands the radioactive waste dump is intended to be built. Neither the Algonquins nor the citizens of Ontario or Quebec were ever consulted about the choice of site for the dump, located one kilometre from the Ottawa River which borders Quebec and flows into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. – G. Edwards

On February 20, the federal judge dismissed the application for judicial review brought before the court by three citizens’ groups: Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive.

A justified decision, according to the court

These groups include a number of retired scientists. They consider the decision of the

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to be unreasonable. authorize, in January 2024, the construction of a near-surface disposal facility (NSDF) for about one million tons of “low-level” radioactive waste.

“When read as a whole and taking into account the experience and technical expertise of the Commission, the decision is justified, intelligible and transparent. Consequently, the present application will be rejected,” reads the Federal Court’s decision.

“We’re certainly disappointed,” says Ginette Charbonneau, spokesperson for the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive. “We’ve been working for six years and more to tighten up this project, to make it better.”

“Our chances of success were virtually nil,” admits another spokesman for the Ralliement, Gilles Provost. “The judge couldn’t change the Commission’s decision, but had to judge whether the decision was unreasonable: that’s an extremely heavy burden of proof.”

A view shared by the three groups’ lawyer, Nicholas Pope. “In the end, the court did not say that the decision was correct, only that it did not meet the high standard of unreasonableness,” he points out in a written response.

Murky administrative law, say opponents

Beyond their disappointment, the groups deplore the fact that the court took into account only the CNSC’s opinion, without considering the observations of other professionals who are nevertheless recognized in the nuclear industry.

“We rely heavily on scientific experts such as James R. Walker. Unfortunately, both the CNSC and the judge rejected his arguments,” laments Ole Hendrickson, a researcher and member of the Concerned Citizens group. “I was surprised that the judge said that the Commission can choose whatever it wants, rather than paying attention to all the arguments.”

For the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, the legal system is simply not well equipped to deal with these situations.

“Administrative law is murky: magistrates are in a difficult position when they have to judge these cases,” says the former nuclear consultant for governmental and non-governmental agencies. “The law gives the CNSC the power to make decisions on nuclear matters. The judge therefore does not feel empowered to overturn the decision of the agency that has been given the authority to make that decision.”

An unprecedented project

The physicist reminds us that the permanent installation of a nuclear waste disposal site is unprecedented in Canadian history.

“We’ll never take it away again. This is where it will go and stay forever,” he insists.

“That’s why it’s so important to do it right, to make sure that all the safety measures have been taken and that they can be sustained over time,” he adds.

“The waste is going to stay in the landfill until it’s disintegrated. And that can take anywhere from a few years to millions of years, so you see the problem,” worries physicist by training Ginette Charbonneau. “You can [wear] a mask and say that legally, everything’s okay, but when you’re talking about radioactive waste, that’s not good enough.”