Officials with PolyMet Mining hailed the official release of the draft environmental impact statement on their proposed NorthMet mining project this week as a major milestone for the company.

Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental groups issued a statement on Tuesday that calls the draft document “wholly inadequate” and urges an extension in the period for public comment.

The dueling press releases were not surprising, given the starkly differing views that many Minnesotans hold on the question of copper-nickel mining. The release of the draft EIS marks the start of what is likely to be intense debate on the issue. That debate will get underway in earnest at two public meetings announced this week. The first is set to for Wednesday, Dec. 9, at the Mesabi East School in Aurora, with a second meeting to follow on Dec. 10, at the Schwan National Sports Center, in Blaine. Both meetings are set to begin at 7 p.m.

Additional public comments will be taken for at least 90 days, or twice as long as the 45-day minimum set in federal law. Both lead agencies on the project, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers agreed to the longer comment period, based on the extensive nature of the project.

Environmental groups had pushed for a longer comment period, and indicated they were pleased with the decision to extend the period for at least 90 days. That would push completion of the comment period to Feb. 3, 2010.

PolyMet officials made clear that they see a relatively quick end to the environmental review process, and indicated that they now expect to wrap up both the environmental work and permitting within six to nine months.

Environmental groups were critical of the environmental review to date. “The good news is that members of the public will have at least 90 days to comment on the EIS,” said Paula Maccabee, an attorney for the group WaterLegacy. “The bad news is that the proposed strip mine is likely to result in thousands of years of acid mine drainage, increase mercury contamination of fish, destroy wetlands, and put Minnesota taxpayers at risk for hundreds of millions of dollars in Superfund liabilities.”

In particular, the group cites a “fatally-flawed” water quality analysis, perpetual water pollution inconsistent with state mining laws, and financial assurance questions as the biggest problems with the EIS. The group also criticized the lack of environmental review on a proposed federal land exchange necessary for the mining operation to begin.

PolyMet officials largely dismissed the concerns. “PolyMet is confident the draft EIS is thorough and accurate and provides regulatory agencies with information needed to develop and issue operating permits,” stated a company release, issued Monday. “Most of us who work for PolyMet grew up, live and have spent our careers working in this community. We take our responsibility to the environment very seriously,” said Joe Scipioni, President and CEO of PolyMet. “We welcome comments from the public on the draft EIS and we will work with the agencies to address any legitimate concerns people may have.”

PolyMet officials argue that the mining operation will have less overall environmental impact than a mine in other locations, since it is essentially a brownfield development, being located in a mining area that already has infrastructure and processing facilities in place.

Scipioni also stressed the economic impact of the proposed mine. “The project is expected to require approximately 1.5 million hours of construction labor. Once complete, PolyMet expects to employ approximately 400 people,” noted the company statement. “The University of Minnesota has independently estimated the total economic impact to be approximately $250 million a year,” stated Scipioni.