                          Summary of May 11, 2011, Meeting  

Wells McComas Community Improvement Association 

Key Yacht Club; Dundalk, MD

EPA was invited to attend this meeting to address the current status of
the Sauer Dump Site which was recently proposed to the National
Priorities List (NPL).  

EPA Attendees:  Carrie Deitzel

Community Involvement Coordinator

                                Richard Rupert

			OnScene Coordinator

                                Nick Tymchenko

			Remedial Project Manager

                                Linda Miller

			State and Congressional Liaison

                                Alex Mandell 

			Community Involvement Coordinator

Minutes: 7:02 P.M. – 8:28 P.M.  

Attendance: 

 (  The meeting began at 7:02 p.m.  

(  Approximately 25 community members were in attendance. 

(  Russell Donnelley from environmental group SECAP present.

(  Delegate John Olszewski present.

Meeting Overview: 

Part I. 

Fred Theiss, the community group president, began the meeting by
thanking the EPA for coming a long way to be part of the day’s
discussion. Mr. Theiss addressed those in attendance and provided a
brief background of Sauer Dump, including the fact that many of the
members’ children had grown up playing and dirt biking at the site. 
He mentioned a public meeting, held by EPA in 2009, at the Sparrows
Point Middle School.  The meeting was held during a public comment
period on an EPA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) report
that described four potential options to deal with the contamination at
Sauer Dump.  Mr. Thiess recalled that Option 4 was the most thorough
option and the one attendees of the meeting at the school seemed to
favor. He also reminded those present at the yacht club that the Sauer
Dump Site had been proposed for listing on the NPL. He mentioned that a
comment period was open and told everyone that they could submit
comments until the comment period closes.  He stated that the comment
period was scheduled to close on May 9th, and that a request from
Senator Mikulski to extend the comment period to May 16th was granted. 
In the conclusion of Mr. Theiss’s opening remarks he introduced Carrie
Deitzel to further clarify and provide more information on the EPA’s
involvement with the Site. 

Part II. 

Carrie introduced herself as the site EPA Community Involvement
Coordinator and gave a brief site history of Sauer Dump emphasizing,
very briefly, activities by the state and the EPA since the mid 1990s. 
She distributed a fact sheet that gave instructions for submitting
comments on the proposal to list Sauer Dump on the NPL and provided the
new comment period closing date.  She also distributed a chart of the
generic Superfund process. 

Carrie explained what the National Priorities List is and spoke about
the comment period, and the importance of submitting comments to the HQ
Docket Coordinator.  She explained that while EPA was taking notes of
the evening’s meeting which would be placed in the docket file, the
notes would not count as individual comments.  Those wishing to make
official comments would need to follow the comment instructions provided
on the handout.  She explained how it is desirable for individuals to
submit comments and that their comments can influence the outcome of the
comment period, just as the comments received during the comment period
for the 2009 EE/CA had affected the outcome then. Carrie explained that
being listed on the NPL can ensure that a thorough investigation is
conducted and that the eventual remedy may result in a more stringent
resolution of the site problems. Carrie touched on the fact that the
Superfund law requires that community members be provided opportunities
to be involved in site activities throughout the Superfund process.  She
spoke about different opportunities to get involved and mentioned how
services are provided under the different options, including: Community
Advisory Groups (CAGs), Technical Assistance Services for Communities
(TASC), and Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs).  She encouraged people
to contact her if they are interested in obtaining technical assistance
services in the future.

Carrie introduced Richard Rupert, Linda Miller, and Nick Tymchenko, and
described their responsibilities. Rich discussed the history of the
site, briefly, and identified the contaminants of concern at the site. 
He explained EPA’s involvement at the site since he became involved in
2005 and discussed the 2009 EE/CA which was performed by contractors
under his oversight.  He mentioned that the alternative that EPA was
considering was not the alternative preferred by the public or the
state.  The EE/CA did not include an ecological risk assessment and
focused mainly on the human health threat posed by the site.  Rich and
Carrie explained that the current comment period concerns whether the
site should be placed on the NPL and stated that the past EE/CA remedy
options are no longer under consideration.  

Part III. 

Questions and comments were made, informally, throughout the meeting and
presentation.  (In the following list, CM refers to a community member.
The questions are not actual quotations)

CM: Does public response really mean anything during a comment period?

EPA:  Comments must be considered before a final decision is made. The
comments received can be seen on the Internet in the docket (web address
was provided in a fact sheet distributed in March.  Copies were
available at this meeting.) and EPA will prepare a summary of responses
at the end of the period which will also be made available online.
Comments are very important and can be influential. 

CM: Are the comments made in the past (2009) reviewed? 

EPA:  Comments made then cannot be expected to be transferred and
considered as comments for this comment period.  If you want to comment
on the proposal to list this site on the NPL, you must submit comments
before this comment period closes by the means described on the handout
you got tonight. 

CM:  The instructions for commenting say you must send 3 copies of your
comment.  Does that mean if I comment by e-mail, I have to send 3
e-mails?

EPA: No, the 3 copies refer only to the method where that statement
appears on the instruction sheet.

CM: When I submit comments on the proposal, should I also say which
cleanup option I prefer?

EPA:  No.  This comment period only pertains to you want to see the site
placed on the NPL or not.  The cleanup options presented in the EE/CA
are no longer on the table.  If the site is listed on the NPL, when the
RI and the Feasibility Study(FS) are released, new cleanup options will
be presented and the community will have an opportunity to comment on
them at that time.

CM: What happens next?

EPA:   Currently, the Remedial Program is reviewing the data collected,
to date, to identify any data gaps that need to be addressed during the
RI. During the RI, EPA will conduct a Human Health Assessment and an
Ecological Risk Assessment and gather additional date.  When the RI and
FS are completed, a Proposed Plan will be developed to describe
available cleanup options and a public comment period will be held
before a remedy is selected.  But be aware the remedial process is not a
fast process. The first opportunity for the site to be placed on the NPL
will be in September or October, but depending on the number and
complexity of comments, a decision may not be made at that time.

CM: If the PRP’s do not agree to do the clean up, could the EPA take
action? 

EPA:  EPA could order the PRPs to do the work or EPA can do the work and
then sue the PRPs for up to three times the cost of cleanup.  That is
usually incentive for the PRPs to comply with an order to do the
cleanup.  The EPA oversees the work and it must achieve the cleanup
goals established by EPA for the site.

CM:  What if the site does not get on the NPL?

EPA:  Generally, responsibility for the site, then, goes back to the
State and local government authorities.

CM: I remember the Kane & Lombard Street Drum Site. That got cleaned up
pretty well. It even has a golf course on it. Is that what we are to
expect here?

EPA:  Our goal at EPA is to see beneficial reuse of a site when the
cleanup is done. EPA doesn’t fund site redevelopment but we do support
it and make it known when a site is ready for reuse.  From EPA’s
perspective, beneficial reuse could be light industry or residential
development, but it can also be open space and habitat restoration,
which may be a good fit for this site. 

CM:  At some point, will the community have a clear timeline for the
site cleanup?

EPA:  It is very difficult to provide a specific timeline for a remedial
investigation and cleanup.  There are many things that affect the
schedule.  Sometimes, negotiations with PRPs cause delays.  When we need
access to private properties to do work, that can cause delays, as can
severe weather, and many other things.  The remedial process is slow. 
But as the process unfolds, there will be project schedule projections,
and we will hold a public meeting after the site is listed to discuss
the RI process.

Conclusion: 

Mr. Theiss thanked the EPA representatives for attending the meeting. 
Carrie reminded them to contact her if they were interested in
discussing community involvement support services.

