1996 ABEAB 17 Appeal No. 96-010
|
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD
Discontinuance of Proceedings
|
Date of Withdrawal: July 18, 1996
IN THE MATTER OF Sections 84, 85, 86 and 87 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (S.A. 1992, ch. E-13.3 as amended);
-and-
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal filed by Alberta Power Ltd. with respect to Approval No.’s 18260-01-00 and 18261-01-00 issued by the Director of Chemical Assessment and Management Division, Alberta Environmental Protection to Alberta Power Ltd. and the letter of withdrawal from Shawn H.T. Denstedt of Bennett Jones Verchere on behalf of Alberta Power Ltd. dated September 11, 1996, the Board hereby discontinues its proceedings in this matter and will be closing its file pursuant to section 87(7) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.
Cite as: Alberta Power Ltd. v. Director of Chemical Assessment and Management Division, Alberta Environmental Protection
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 1996, Alberta Power Ltd. filed a Notice of Appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board with respect to Approval No.’s 18260-01-00 and 18261-01-00 issued by the Director of Chemical Assessment and Management Division to Alberta Power Ltd. Specifically, the respect to Part 5, Section 5.1.1 to 5.1.3 of each of the Approvals dealing with the reporting of contraventions. Approval 18261-01-00 is for the construction, operation and reclamation of a hazardous waste storage facility in Vegreville. Approval 18260-01-00 is for the construction, operation and reclamation of a hazardous waste storage facility in Grande Prairie.
On April 26, 1996, the Board wrote to the Department of Environmental Protection requesting all related correspondence, documents and materials. On April 26, 1996, the Board wrote to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) and the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) requesting both advise wether the matter was the subject of a public hearing or review under either of their Boards. On May 14, 1996, the AEUB and on May 16, 1996, the NRCB both advised that this appeal did not deal with a matter that had been the subject of any hearing or review under their Boards.
On May 24, 1996 Alberta Power Ltd., in consultation with Alberta Environmental Protection, requested the appeal be held in abeyance for two weeks and on June 10, 1996, the Board requested a status on the appeal. On June 21, 1996, a copy of the Department’s information was forwarded to Alberta Power Ltd. and requested comments on the following:
1. In the event that the Board decides to proceed with this appeal, do you wish to have a pre-hearing meeting under section 11 of the Environmental Appeal Board Regulation? If so, what would you contemplate to be the agenda for that meeting?
2. In your opinion, are there any other persons who have an interest in this matter?
Also on June 21, 1996, the Department of Environmental Protection was requested to comment on the following:
1. In the event that the Board decides to proceed with this appeal, do you wish to have a pre-hearing meeting under section 11 of the Environmental Appeal Board Regulation? If so, what would you contemplate to be the agenda for that meeting? Also, please note that a pre-hearing is not the hearing of the appeal as contemplated under the Act.
2. In your opinion, are there any other persons who have an interest in this matter?
Written representations were requested and due by June 28, 1996. On June 21, 1996, Alberta Power Ltd. requested an extension on the due date for written representations to July 8, 1996. The Board granted this request and written representations were now due on July 8, 1996.
On June 27, 1996, the Department of Environmental Protection responded to the Board’s questions as follows:
1. A pre-hearing meeting with respect to this matter could be beneficial. The issue involved relates to the terminology utilized in one of the standard terms and conditions contained in approvals issued by Alberta Environmental Protection. Discussion facilitated by the Board, with respect to mediation, could be of assistance with respect to determining the matter. This is a matter of interpretation that the views of a third party may be of assistance upon.
In the event that mediation, as contemplated under the Environmental Appeal Board Regulation is not successful, an agreed statement of facts could be discussed to facilitate the hearing of the appeal.
2 This is a standard term and condition that is contained in approvals issued by Alberta Environmental Protection. Anyone who has been issued an approval within the last three years would likely be interested as the interpretation of the language and determination of the appeal will no doubt have an effect upon them.
On July 5, 1996, the Board decided to conduct a pre-hearing meeting to be held on July 11, 1996 at the Board’s office.
On July 8, 1996, Mr. Shawn H.T. Denstedt, of Bennett Jones Verchere, representing Alberta Power, responded to the Board’s letter of June 21, 1996 enclosing a submission with repsect to the appeal for circulation and stating:
1. That a pre-hearing meeting would be beneficial for the parties to clearly understand the position of the other parties and to potentially resolve the matter.
2. That the directors and officers of Alberta Power Ltd. also have an interest in this matter as the decision of the Board may impact their obligations and responsibilities to report under the legislation and be potentially exposed to jail sentences for a failure to comply. In addition, the directors and officers will have an interest in the outcome of this matter pursuant to section 218 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, which imposes liability on directors and officers where a company commits an offence.
The Board, in preparation for the pre-hearing of July 11, 1996, forwarded copies of the written representations to the parties on July 9, 1996.
A letter dated July 15, 1996, was received from Mr. Shawn Denstedt of Bennett Jones and Verchere, and a letter dated July 12, 1996, was received from William McDonald, Department of Justice, stating further to the pre-hearing meeting of July 11, 1996, the appeal be held in abeyance pending further discussions between the parties. The Board responded on July 16, 1996, advising that the Board has granted the request and will hold the appeal in abeyance, including the waiving of dates for written submissions until August 19, 1996. A further request was received from the Department of Justice requesting an extension and the Board granted this request and advised that the responses would now be required on September 6, 1996. The Department of Justice on September 4, 1996, and Bennett Jones Verchere on September 6, 1996 advised that there was progress in the discussions and would be able to conclude the matter by September 30, 1996. The Board advised the parties on September 6, 1996, that this was agreeable and a status was required by September 30, 1996.
On September 11, 1996, the Board received written notification from Mr. Shawn Denstedt on behalf of Alberta Power Ltd., that stated:
“Alberta power Limited (“Alberta Power”) and Alberta Environmental Protection (“AEP”) have agreed to a solution to this matter. As this matter is now resolved, Alberta Power withdraws its appeal to the Environmental Appeal board; please confirm this withdrawal at your earliest convenience.”
The Board then reviewed this correspondence and advised the parties on September 13, 1996, that pursuant to section 87(7) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Board hereby discontinues its proceedings in this matter and will be closing its file.
DECISION
The appeal is therefore withdrawn.
Dated on September 13, 1996, at Edmonton, Alberta.
______________________________
William A. Tilleman, Chair