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.