Community groups file for judicial review over Chalk River nuclear waste facility

A group of community leaders and non-profits have filed an application for judicial review Wednesday to stop the construction of a radioactive waste disposal site on the Chalk River Laboratories property, about 190 kilometres north-west of Ottawa.

On Jan. 8, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approved Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) proposal to build a "near surface disposal facility" close to Chalk River, Ont.

CNL, a private-sector consortium contracted to manage federal nuclear sites, intends to bury a million cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste in the giant hillside mound.

The Kebaowek First Nation, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and the Sierra Club Canada Foundation filed the legal challenge asking the federal department, Environment and Climate Change Canada, to review the decision to issue the build permit.

The application rests on threats to endangered species in the area, including the Canada warbler, golden-winged warbler, blanding's turtle, and three species of bats. There are also bears and wolves on the land, which are not endangered.

Under the Species at Risk Act, the government must prove that alternatives sites were looked at, and the best possible location was chosen.

The application is on top of different court challenge filed in February concerned with other environmental effects including seismic activity and wastewater leakage into the Ottawa River.

In court filings, CNL said it will do everything in its power to minimize impacts to the environment, including implementing a sustainable forest management plan, avoiding activities with significant noise and habitat disturbance, and establishing buffer areas around wetlands.

"It's dangerous what's happening right now," said Nicholas Pope, the lawyer representing the groups.

"I think if we've learned anything, even from the climate emergency that we're in right now, when we prioritize saving a buck over protecting the environment, it comes back to hurt us," he said.

The government must consider whether mitigation measures are in place, and if the site would jeopardize the survival of the species.

"The evidence before the minister cannot possibly support those conclusions," Pope said.

In a written response, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said it's not able to comment as the matter is now before the federal court.

'The cheapest option'

Lynn Jones, a representative of the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, said CNL had "other priorities" when picking the site.

"They were hired to do it quickly and cheaply, so the site they chose was the one that was most convenient and closest to the waste they wanted to dispose of," she said.

The site is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin nation. While the Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn have given consent and entered into a long-term relationship agreement with CNL and site owner Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 10 Algonquin communities in Quebec oppose the project over environmental concerns.

Lance Haymond, the Chief of the Kebaowek First Nation, says his community was not properly consulted, and the legal challenge is the only course of action.

"Our concerns and issues are being ignored by the government. There's no political solution, there's no other options. We simply have to rely on colonial courts to address our issues."

Starting pre-construction activities

In a letter sent to the lawyers representing Kebaowek First Nation in February, CNL confirmed it's starting pre-construction activities before the judicial reviews are heard, including surveying, fencing, clearing small trees and road improvements.

"We find that pretty arrogant," Haymond said.

"We have a judicial process before the courts questioning the decision to issue permission to build ... and yet they want to go ahead and proceed to do pre-construction work, which will have an impact on those very species at risk."

Despite the lack of consultation, the groups involved remain cautiously optimistic about their case.

"I'm hopeful that the judicial process will bear fruit for us and that at a minimum, the minister's forced to go back and reassess," Haymond said.

Next month, the legal team will be able to look at the documents Environment and Climate Change Canada received when granting the build permit. It is expected to be heard in front of a court in six to eight months, and a decision could be rendered.

"There won't be any evidence that shows they chose the least disruptive option," Pope said. "In fact, the evidence will show that they chose the most expedient option for them and the cheapest option for them."