Laserfiche WebLink
and Cessation Order CO- 2013 -001 cite Bear for violating the same requirements of the Act, the Rules, <br />and the Permit. The NOV and CO were issued based on two inspections within a 12 -month period. This <br />satisfies the first circumstance for determining that a pattern of violation exists. <br />Second, Bear's violations are not isolated departures from lawful behavior. Bear affirmatively stated in <br />its December 27, 2011 letter that Bear would not seek renewal of the Permit and would not comply with <br />the Permit's reclamation obligations after expiration of the Permit. Its stated intention to not comply <br />with the Act, Rules, and Permit beyond July 2012 has been confirmed by Bear's on -going failure to <br />comply with these provisions, despite multiple demands from the Division in issuing the NOV and CO. <br />Bear's conduct, therefore, is not an isolated departure from lawful conduct, but an intentional disregard <br />for the requirements imposed by the Act, the Rules, and its Permit. This satisfies the second <br />circumstance to determine that a pattern of violations exists. <br />Show Cause Order <br />Section 34 -33- 123(7) states that when the Division determines that a pattern of violations exists, the <br />Division must issue a show cause order to revoke or suspend the permit if the permittee's pattern of <br />violations satisfies either prong of a two -prong test: that the violations (1) are or were caused by the <br />unwarranted failure of the permittee to comply with any requirements of the Act, Rules, or any permit <br />conditions; or (2) are or were willfully caused by the permittee. See also Rule 5.03.03(1). Bear's <br />pattern of violations satisfies both prongs of the test. <br />First, Bear has not provided any justification to the Division regarding its pattern of cited violations, <br />which consist of Bear's failure to renew the Permit and failure complete its reclamation obligations. <br />Therefore, Bear's pattern of violations was not warranted and satisfies the first prong. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Second, Bear's affirmative statement in its December 27, 2011 letter to the Division that Bear would not <br />seek renewal of the Permit or comply with the Permit's reclamation obligations after expiration of the <br />Permit satisfies the willful requirement of the second prong. <br />The Division, therefore, recommends that you issue an order to show cause as to why the now - expired <br />Permit should not be suspended or revoked (Show Cause Order) to Bear Coal Company, Inc., no later <br />than March 1, 2013. A completed form for your signature is attached. See Attachment 2. Nor is <br />issuance of a show cause order to Bear demonstrably unjust in that Bear has effectively abandoned its <br />obligations under the Act, the Rules, and its Permit. <br />Following the issuance of a Show Cause Order, the Mined Land Reclamation Board shall provide an <br />opportunity for a public hearing. Within 30 days after service of the Show Cause Order, Bear may file a <br />written response and request Board review. If Bear does not file a written response and request review, <br />the Board shall make findings of fact and issue a written decision concerning suspension or revocation <br />of the Permit. After the Permit has been revoked, the Board shall declare the performance bonds for the <br />operation as forfeited. <br />The AGO has prepared a memorandum outlining the timeline to forfeit Bear's performance bond and <br />revoke the now - expired Permit based upon these facts. The AGO's memorandum provides the required <br />regulatory requirements necessary to issue the show cause order, revoke the now - expired Permit, and <br />forfeit the performance bond for the Mine. A copy of that memorandum is attached for your reference. <br />See Attachment 3. <br />