### 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 propos ed 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.

 Appr oximately 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, beg a n the meeting by thanking the E PA for coming a long way to be part of the day’ s discussion. Mr. Theiss addresse d 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 o n 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 fo r listing on the NPL. He mentioned th at 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 9 th, a nd that a request from Senator Mikul ski to extend th e comment period to May 16 th 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. C arrie introduced h erself 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 com ments on the proposal to list Sauer Dump on the NPL and provided the new commentperiod closing date. She also distributed a chart of the generic

Superfund process. C arrie explained what the National Priorities List i s 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 m ake 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 o f 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 differe nt opportunities to get involved and mentioned how services are provided under the different options, including : C ommunity Advisory Groups (CAGs) , Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC) , and Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) . She encouraged people to contact her if they ar e interested in obtaining technical assistance services in the future. Carrie introduce d Richard Rupert, Linda Miller, and Nick Tymchenko , and described their responsibilities. Rich discussed the history of the site, briefly, and identified the contamina nt s 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 bycontractors 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 th e 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. Question s and c omments were made, informally, throughout the meeting and presentation. (In the following list, CM refers to a c o mmunity m ember

. 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 i s 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 b e 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

. I f 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

- m ails? 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 wan t 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 com munity will have an opportunity to comment on them at that time. CM: What happe ns 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. C M: I f 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 ofcleanup. 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 gol

f course on it. Is that what we are to expect here? EPA : Our goal at EPA is to see beneficial re use of a site when the clean up 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 thank ed the EPA representatives for attending the meeting

. Carrie reminded them to contact her if they were interested in discussing community involvement support services.