While the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approved the permit in May 2004, the US Office of Surface Mining (OSM) said the 2000-acre underground operation had the potential to pollute nearby waterways with acid mine drainage.

The office’s claims echo the complaints of several environmental groups, including a filed objection by Joe Lovett of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. OSM Charleston field office director Roger Calhoun called the DEP’s reaction to citizens’ complaints “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion”

Historically, OSM has not had a direct involvement in state mining permit review and approval, but concern has mounted that Mettiki’s mine may start a domino affect of reopening the coal seams of north central West Virginia with new mines that may cause acid mine drainage.

“Every previous attempt to do this or something similar has been a failure,” said OSM hydrologist Jay Hawkins.

Mettiki said it would manage the drainage by pumping polluted water from underground before it ever reached waterways, would treat the water with alkaline to reduce acidity, and would eliminate additional acid formation through oxygen removal. The DEP’s legal representation supports Mettiki.

“What we see here is a technology that has promise,” DEP lawyer Tom Clarke said in defence before the Surface Mine Board. “Hopefully, it will be a model for future efforts to mine in the acid-producing seams of northern West Virginia.”

Mettiki and the DEP predicted in their reports that the discharge from the E Mine would need treatment for approximately 17 years, and then would be clean. However, OSM experts have said that, now and for decades to come, the discharge could actually be 30 times the legal limit of iron.

Additionally, the OSM has cited other flaws in the plan, including the fact that neither Mettiki nor the DEP can definitively say how much water would be drained from underground, as reports say both 767gpm and 588gpm. The long-term effects could not be accurately estimated, said OSM experts, regarding water quality without this information.

Additionally, OSM said examples Mettiki and the DEP cited as comparable to the E Mine situation were not comparable at all, including a statement by DEP hydrologist George Jenkins that highlighted alkaline treatment of coal refuse piles as opposed to underground mining operations.

“It doesn’t take a hydrologist to realise that the physical hydrology of the two is vastly different,” said Hawkins. “This is analogous to comparing pineapples and hand grenades. They may look similar, but that is as far as it goes.”

Calhoun said this week that he would establish a detailed OSM investigation of the Mettiki permit. Prior to the commencement of that investigation, the state intends to appeal Calhoun’s decision to the federal Interior Board of Land Appeals, according to DEP mining and reclamation director Randy Huffman.

“I think there is a fundamental disagreement between the technical people and our agencies,” he said.

Mettiki’s previous permit application, submitted in 2003, was rejected by the DEP because it said permanent acid mine drainage could remain. Mettiki then revised and resubmitted the application, which the DEP approved last year.

Despite the appeal by several environmental groups to reverse the decision, the Surface Mine Board deadlocked 3-3 in February and the permit was upheld.

Alliance Resource Partners operates Mettiki Coal through master limited partnership.