Superfund Site Expansion Ignores Local, State, Congressional opposition

[Bret Bowers <bret@coeurdalenechamber.com>]

EPA Region-10 is currently a partner (with the Dept. of Justice, Federal Resource Trustees, and the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe) in an ongoing, billion-dollar Natural Resources Damages lawsuit (U.S. vs. ASARCO) involving past mining operations at the Bunker Hill Superfund Site in Kellogg, Idaho.  EPA designated BHSS on the National Priorities List in 1983.  In 1998, the EPA announced in a press release that the agency was expanding the Bunker Hill Superfund Site from its traditional 21.sq.mile "Box" boundary - to include the entire Coeur d'Alene River Basin - a 1500-sq.mile region.  The EPA's expansion did not, and still does not sit well with locals living in Idaho's historic Silver Valley, nor the residents of neighboring Kootenai and Spokane Counties.  Federal Judge Edward Lodge ruled in 1998, that essentially, EPA had illegally expanded the "Box" and had not followed the proper procedures for doing so.  The EPA appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who then ruled, basically that Judge Lodge did not have the jurisdiction to keep the boundaries of BHSS confined to the historical boundaries established on the NPL in 1983.  And, the 9th Circuit determined the authority rests with the D.C. Circuit Court.  But, local communities did not have the funds or ability to challenge the 9th Circuit ruling - and the defendents in the U.S. vs. ASARCO reserved their funds/effort for their upcoming trial (now underway)in Boise, ID.  What does all this mean?  Well, the EPA (using the 2000 9th Circuit Court ruling) has now created a new position on site boundaries, stating that the new boundaries of BHSS are now defined by, "anywhere contaminates have come to be located."  The problem is that the agency has initiated a rulemaking (within litigation) WITHOUT formal public notice or involvement for the residents and communities outside of the BHSS "Box" - who are now subject to CERCLA, based on an ongoing RI/FS of the entire river basin. So, to the experts of panelists, I ask - how can the EPA expand and/or create a new Superfund Site - without a formal "listing" based on community invovlement?  And, how can the agency continue their pursuit of site expansion, against the will of the people living and working throughout the Basin, not to mention against the will of the elected leaders at all levels of State and Federal Government, representing the Great State of Idaho?