United States
Environmental Protection Agency 

# EPA 1200 Pennsy lvaniaAvenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 March 20 12

O ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response



# Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule – Sauer Dump

# Support Document for the
Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule Sauer Dump

March 2012

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Office of Solid Waste and Emergen cy Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

i 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction

................................................................................................................................................ iv

Background of the NPL ........................................................................................................................... iv

Development of the NPL .......................................................................................................................... v

Hazard Ranking System ........................................................................................................................... v

Other Mechanisms for Listing

................................................................................................................. vi

Organization of this Document............................................................................................................... vii

Glossary

.................................................................................................................................................. vii

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence ........................................................................................ 1

2. Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Summary of Comments ..................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non-opposition Comments ........................................................... 6

3.2 Consideration of Action Levels .................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Source Characterization ................................................................................................................ 7

3.3.1 Source Identification

................................ ................................ ........................................................... 8

3.3.2 Extent of Source

................................ ................................ ................................ .................................. 9

3.3.3 Overlap of Source and Wetland

................................ ................................ ........................................ 11

3.4 Waste Quantity ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.5 Description of Watershed/Current Conditions ............................................................................ 15

3.5.1 Continuity of Surface Water Pathway

................................ ............................................................... 15

3 .5.2 Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

................................ ................................ ........................................... 17

3.6 Likelihood of Release ................................................................................................................. 19

3.6.1 Observed Release by Chemical Analysis

................................ .......................................................... 19

3.6.2 Potential to Release

................................ ................................ ........................................................... 22

3.6.3 Lack of Observed Release in the Back River

................................ .................................................... 23

3.7 Human Food Chain Threat Fishery ............................................................................................. 24

3.7.1 Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery

................................ ................................ ................................ . 26Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

ii 3.7.2 HRS Guidance Manual F ishery Description...

................................................................................... 28

3.7.2.1 HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery

.......................................................................... 28

3.7.2.2 Breadth of HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fisher y

........................................................ 30
3.7.2.3 HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery and Risk

........................................................... 31

3.7.2.4 Consistency between HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description and Maryland Law

............... 33

3.7.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets

– Presence of a Fishery Target

.................................................. 34

3.8 Human Food Chain Threa t Targets – Food Chain Individual ..................................................... 38

3.9 Human Food Chain Threat – Waste Characteristics Score ......................................................... 39

3.10 Human Food Chain Threat S core ................................................................................................ 41

3.11 Environmental Threat Targets .................................................................................................... 42

3.11.1 Definition of Wetlands

...................................................................................................................... 42
3.11.2 HRS Guidance Manual

- Suggested Evidence of Wetlands

................................................................ 47

3.11.3 Actually Contaminated Wetlands

...................................................................................................... 48

3.11.4 Envir onmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act

............. 54

3.12 Environmental Threat

– Waste Characteristics Score ................................................................. 57

3.13 Environmental Threat Targets Score .......................................................................................... 59

3.14 Environmental Threat Score ....................................................................................................... 59

4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 60

Attachment 1: Chesapeake Bay Fishery Management Plans Webpage
Attachment 2: 2011 Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Attachment 3 : MDE Information Regarding Fish Advisory in the Back River

Attachment 4 : 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation ManualSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

iii 

## Executive Summary

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contamina nts throughout the United States

. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that the EPA update the list at least annually.

This document provides responses to public comments received o n the Sauer Dump site, proposed on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in March 2012.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

iv 

## I ntroduction

This doc ument explains the rationale for adding the Sauer Dump site in Dundalk, Maryland, to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also provides the responses to public comments received o n this site. The EPA proposed this si te on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in March 2012.



### Background of the NPL

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq . in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza tion Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further revised by the EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under
CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances , pollutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), the EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking remova l
action.

Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long

- term in nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section 101). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were includ ed in the HRS. The EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.

Section 105(a)( 8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.

An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an
HRS score of 28.50 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NP L of at least

400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57662). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57702).Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

v 

### Development of the NPL

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).

The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not i n itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it a ssign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these acti ons will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant furthe r investigation
to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA

- financed remedial action(s ), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites the EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA

- financed remedial action.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs
the EPA to consider certain enumerated and other ap propriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, the EPA has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be

appro priate. Therefore, the EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though

CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.



### Hazard Ranking System

The HRS is the principle mechanism the EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited inv estigations

-- the preliminary assessment and site inspection

-- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to
human health or the environment . HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which the EPA funds remedial response acti ons, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, the EPA relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigatio n/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

The HRS uses a structured value analy sis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, ba sed on conditions at the site. The factors are gro uped into three categories. Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:

• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment;Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

vi • characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); a nd

• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.

Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:

• Ground Water Migration (S gw ) - drinking water

• Surface Water Migration (S

sw ) The following thr eats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migration and ground water to surface water. - drinking water
- human food chain

- sensitive environments

• Soil Exposure (S

s )

- resident population - nearby population

- sensitive env ironments

• Air Migration (S

a ) - population

- sensitive environments

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using the following root- mean

- square equation to determine the overall site scor e (S), which ranges from 0 to 100 :

If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low

. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even
if o nly one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous sites pose thr eats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but

-- if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile

-- not surfac e water or air.



### Other Mechanisms for Listing

There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate on e site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;

• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and 

### 4 S + S + S + S = S 2

a 2

s 2

sw 2

gwSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

• EPA anticipates it will b e more cost-effective to use its remedial authorit y than to us e its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.



### Organization of this Document

The following section contains the EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal of the Sauer Dump site on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). The site discussion begins with a list of commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments and Agency responses to each comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.



### Glossary

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:

1987 Manual U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Alliance Environmental Alliance, Inc.

APA Administrative Procedure Act

APU American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BGE Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

BPFV Bioaccumulation potential factor value

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq ., also known as Superfund

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990

D.C. Cir U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also USEPA

EPIC Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center

ENSAT Environmental Service and Technology Corporation

FMP Fishery Management Plan

FOA Former Operation Area

FR Federal Register

FS Feasibility study

HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP

HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to

100

viiSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

viii HWQ Hazardous waste quantity

JD Jurisdictional Determination

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R.

Part 300

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP

PC B Polychlorinated biphenyl

PPE Probable point of entry

ppm Parts per million

RFMC Regional Fishery Management Councils

RI Remedial i nvestigation

RI/FS Remedial i nvestigation/ f easibility study

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SI Site i nvest igation

SVOC Semi

- volatile organic compounds

TDL Target distance limit

USACE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geologic SurveySauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

1 

## 1. List of Commenters and Correspondence

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0064-0004 Correspondence, dated May 27, 2010, from Governor Martin O’Malley, Maryland.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUN D-2011-0064-0010 Comment, dated May 16, 2011, from Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf of American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU)

Comment attachment, dated May 16, 2011, from Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf of American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU)

. Comment Letter

.

Comment attachment , dated May 16, 2011, from Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf
of American Premier Underw riters, Inc. (APU). Hazard Ranking Systems (HRS) Scoring Comments for Sauer Dump Site. Prepared by Environmental Alliance, Inc., for American Premier Underwriter, Inc.

Comment attachment, dated April 22, 2010 , from Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf of American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU)

. Analytical Results. Prepared by Lancaster Laboratories for Environmental Alliance, Inc. Group Number: 1190143 and Project: 2054

Comment attachment, submitted May 16, 2011 , from Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf of American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU)

. Type I Data Package

- Prepared by Lancaster Laboratories for Environmental Alliance, Inc., Project Number 2054.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0064-0011 Comment, dated May 16, 2011, from Dee Hicks

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0064-0012 Comment, dated May 16, 2011, from Paula K. Palmere, Legal Assistant to Wm. Roger Truitt, DLA Piper LLP on behalf of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE)

Comment attachment, dated May 16, 2011, from Paula
K. Pal mere, Legal Assistant to Wm. Roger Truitt, DLA Piper LLP on behalf of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) . Comment Letter.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0064-0013 Comment, dated May 13, 2011, from Ashley Podolak on behalf of Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr., Sixt h Legislative District, Baltimore County, MarylandSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

2 Comment attachment, dated May 13, 2011, from Ashley Podolak on behalf of Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr., Sixth Legislative District, Baltimore County, Maryland

. Comment Letter.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0064-0014 Comment, dated May 19, 2011, from Russell S. Donnelly, SECAP

Comment attachment, submitted May 19, 2011, from Russell S. Donnelly, SECAP. Comment Letter.



## 2. Site Description

The Sauer Dump site (the Site) as scored in the HRS documentation record at proposal includes an inactive, privately owned, unpermitted, former dump (identified as Source 1 in the HRS documentation record at proposal) and the releases from that source identified in wetlands on its borders. Sauer Dump is located in Dundalk, Maryland. Sauer Dump is bordered by a cove of Back River and tidal wetlands to the south, and non-tidal wetland areas to the southwest, northwest, and southeast. A pond is present in the
non-tidal wetland area on the nor thwest portion of the Sauer Dump property (see Figure 1 of this support document).

While in operation, hazardous substances were improperly stored and disposed of at the Sauer Dump from the 1960s to the 1980s. Sauer Dump is in an area that was originally a marshland (wetland) that was
filled and stabilized between 1954 and 1977 with wastes containing hazardous substances . Aerial photographs reviewed as part of the Sauer Dump remedial investigation (RI) and as part of a 2012 EPA Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) review show th at Sauer Dump and adjacent properties were created by filling marsh areas. Sauer Dump and the adjacent properties were filled during different time periods. The adjacent properties were filled between 1938 and 1954. Sauer Dump was primarily filled between 1966 and 1968 with minor fill activities occurring between 1954 and 1957. Frederick Sauer owned Sauer Dump when primary filling activities occurred

.

Wastes observed at Sauer Dump during site investigations include drums, storage tanks, salvage items (suc h as scrap metal), empty tanks and drums, abandoned trucks, tractor/truck trailers, open roll

- off containers, heavy construction equipment, and junked cars. Charred areas, burned paint waste, a wood chip mound, and sections of large- diameter circular concr ete conduit have also been observed; oil spill areas have been observed on site and in wetland areas adjacent to the property. During operations, hazardous wastes were improperly stored and disposed in this area . Studies conducted at Sauer Dump between 1985 and 1999 indicate that concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB s), and pesticides found in the soil and sediment exceed various riskbased screening levels

.

Sauer Dump initially began on 2.48- acre Parcel 425

-- land that, among adjoining parcels, was previously emergent herbaceous wetlands . However, descriptions of the dump operations indicate that dumping activities extended onto adjacent parcels and the contamination resulting from operations migr ated beyond Parcel 425 ; a nalytical data from samples collected from Sauer Dump indicate that contamination from the dump has spread to adjacent properties via vehicle traffic or other transport mechanisms. Therefore, the dump area is more than 2.48 acres.

The dump, Source 1 , is located in the flood plain of the Back River and is subject to flooding and erosion during severe weather events (hurricanes, tropical storms, heavy rain). A wetland , including hydric soils, wetland hydrology and predominance of hy drophytic vegetation , surrounds Source 1 along its eastern,Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

3 southern and western boundaries, and was identified as Wetland #2 in the HRS documentation record at proposal . The wetland receives surface water runoff from Source 1. Sediment samples collected i n 2007 from the wetland contain PCBs and lead at concentrations meeting the criteria for an observed release to
surface water and actual contamination of a wetland . The wetland discharges to Back River, which in turn flows to the Chesapeake Bay

.

Targets e valuated include Wetland #2 on the eastern, southern , and western boundaries of Source 1;
human food chain fisheries associated wit h the Back River and Chesapeake Bay; and a Resource
Conservation Critical Area under the Critical Area Act identified by the Baltimore County Department of
Permits and Develo pment Management, which overlaps the Site. In responding to comments on the proposed listing, a new wetland delineation was performed in 2012 to verify previous delineations at the Site; the 2012 delineation confirmed previous descriptions of Site wetlands, with slight variations to the wetland boundaries that do not impact the HRS score.



## 3. Summary of Comments

Three commenters submitted comments in support of placing the Sauer Dump site (the Site) on the

Na tional Priorities List (NPL). Among the reasons for this support were concern for ongoing unaddressed contamination, hope that the site will be remediated, and hope that the remediated site could become
available for other uses.

Comments were submitted in opposition to listing by American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (hereafter referred to as APU) and by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company ( hereafter referred to as BGE). The APU comment document included a report prepared for APU by Environmental Alliance, In c. (hereafter referred to as Alliance) attached as Appendix A to the APU comment.

In expressing general opposition to NPL listing of the Site, BGE reasserted the entirety of APU’s comments, and requested “that EPA not finalize the proposal to list the Sauer Dump on the NPL, that EPA remove the Sauer Dump from the list of proposed NPL sites, and that EPA remove the Sauer Dump from any further consideration for listing.”

APU and Alliance opposed NPL listing of the Site and submitted comments on the HRS sco ring of the site. APU and Alliance disagreed with the characterization of Source 1 in the HRS documentation record at proposal. APU and Alliance claimed that the EPA had only evaluated Source 1 as covering the area of Parcel 425, when the filling associate d with Source 1 actually expanded beyond Parcel 425 into neighboring parcels and Wetland #2. APU and Alliance also stated that the EPA has inaccurately portrayed the history of filling in the Site area, and asserted that the Wetland #2 vegetation did not
d evelop until after filling. APU and Alliance also asserted that the Southeast and Southwest Fingers of Wetland #2 are non-tidal and therefore not connected to the tidal portion of Wetland #2 or the Back
River.

Based on these claims, APU and Alliance argu ed that

• Wetland #2 is not separate from Source 1;

• hazardous substances have not migrated from Source 1 to Wetland #2;

• the observed release sediment samples established by the EPA are in fact samples of source material instead;

• the probable point of en try of hazardous substances from Source 1 into surface water is the boundary between Wetland #2 and Back River; and! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

!

( !

(

! (

! (

! ( $ + $ + $ + $ +

$ + 

### ! ( ! (



### !

( ! (

Tidal Wetland Pond

PPE 2

Back River Back River Shoreline DG-SD06-0.5

DG-SD07-0.5 DG-SD03-0.5 Arc 1

Arc 2

Perimeter: 1230-ft

Perimeter: 1041-ft

DG-SD05-0.5 DG-SD04-0.5 PPE 1 

# 3

100 100 0

Feet PGH P:\GIS\SAUER_DUMP_SITE_MD_EPA\MAPDOCS\MXD\REFERENCE34.MXD 2/16/12 KM

Legend



### ! ( ! ( PPE (Probable Point of Entry)

$ + Observed Release Sample

! ( Wetland Location

Delineated Wetland
Based on 2012 Delineation
Surrounding Parcels

Arc
Boundary of wetland
where surface water runoff
can enter the wetland
Parcel 425 Boundary

CONTRACT NUMBER

FIGURE NO. REV

0 1 SAUER DUMP

DUN D ALK, MARYLAND 3033 DATE

AS NOTED SCALE DAT E C HECKED BY DRAWN BY

K. MOORE 2/13/12

A. SHULTZ 2/16/12

DATE REVI SED BY

___ ___ NOTE: Perimeter of the wetlands were measured using the
"Calculate Perimeter" function within ArcMap.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

5 • since no observed release samples are established in the Back River, there is no observed release
to surface water established at the Site.

APU claimed that the “EPA incorrectly determined that both Wetland #2 and the Back River constitute a ‘fishery;’” Alliance made a similar statement. APU challenged the evaluation of a human food chain threat target fishery based on several claims as follows:

• Because the HRS has no definition of the term “fishery,” the EPA should have used the definition provided in the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (hereafter referred to as the Magnuson Act), which eff ectively defines a fishery as a stock of fish for which a Regional Fishery Management Council has developed a fishery management plan. The HRS documentation record at proposal has not documented fishery management plans for the Back River; therefore the Back River cannot constitute a fishery.

• The EPA’s draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final (HRS Guidance Manual) description of “fishery” is inappropriate because it is overly broad; does not consider risk, inconsistent with Maryland Law; and is applied as if it were rule (even though it was not subject to notice and comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act).

• Various fish advisories are in effect limiting or banning fish consumption on the Back River.

APU disagreed with the identification of wetlands at the Site due to multiple issues identified in its comments. APU asserted that the EPA has not correctly delineated the boundaries of the wetlands at the
Site. APU claimed the 2002 wetland delineation cited in the HRS documentation record at proposal was insufficient because it was performed according to the 1987 U.S Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland
Delineation Manual , which uses a different definition for wetlands than the 40 CFR 230.3 definition required by the HRS. APU also asserted that more current supplements to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland Delineation Manual have not been considered by the EPA. Finally, APU argued that
the 2002 delineation is too old and out of date.

APU asserted that the EPA had not provided the evidence for the presence of a wetland suggested by the HRS Guidance Manual, such as U.S. Geologic Survey maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maps, and

re -delineation by an expert.

APU and Alliance additionally challenged the evaluation of Wetland #2 as an actually contaminated
target based on its claim that Wetland #2 is in fact part of Source 1 , and that vegetation associated with
the wetland was established on fill materials after filling operations ceased

. APU asserted that Wetland #2
fits within the HRS definit ion of a “source” because Site contaminants were disposed of in the Wetland

#2 area. In questioning the level of contamination at Wetland #2, APU also pointed to its conclusion that
there is no observed release at the Site.

APU disputed the HRS evaluatio n of a critical area under the Coastal Zone Management Act, making the following claims:

• EPA has provided no support for its incorrect determination that the Maryland Critical Area Act designation for Source 1 constitutes a ‘sensitive environment’
identif ied in the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Plan, as required by HRS regulations, Table 4 -23.

• Maryland's Critical Area designation applies to all land within 1,000 feet of the Chesapeake Bay or its tidal tributaries and does not single out a specific area as a ‘sensitive environment.’Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

6 • [T]he designation of the Site as a ‘Resource Conservation Area’ does not mean that there has been a specific finding that the Site is an area requiring protection because of ecological value.

• [T]he Coastal Zone Management Act is not a ‘plan’ making any reference to the Site as an area with ecological value (as required by Table 4 -23) to yield a scoring value of 100. Rather, it is an approval by NOAA of Maryland's coastal zone management ‘programs.’

APU claimed that the imp roper evaluation results in “the erroneous scoring of several elements of the Surface Water Pathway.” APU and Alliance concluded that if correctly evaluated, the HRS score for the Site would fall below the 28.50 requirement for NPL listing, and therefore A PU requested “that EPA not finalize the proposal to list the Sauer Dump on the NPL, that EPA remove the Sauer Dump from the list of proposed NPL sites, and that EPA remove the Sauer Dump from any further consideration for listing.”

This support document responds to comments submitted on the March 10, 201 1, proposed listing of the Sauer Dump site (76 FR 13113). After consideration of comments, the HRS S ite score remains unchanged and placing the Site on the NPL is warranted.



### 3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non-opposition Comments

Comment : Three commenters ( Dee Hicks ; Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr., Sixth Legislative District, Baltimore County, Maryland; and Russell S. Donnelly, SECAP) submitted comments in support of placing the Sauer Dump site on the N PL

. The reasons for this support included:

• A desire for the S ite to be remediated

.

• Hope that the area will eventually become available for other uses

.

• Concern that the contamination issues at the S ite have remained unaddressed for many years.

Mr. Donn elly expressed doubt that the site assessment will adequately reflect the full scope of the contamination and the extent to which it has migrated from the S ite.

Response : T he Sauer Dump site is being added to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA. The Sauer Dump site will be further investigated during the RI/FS phase of the Superfund process to determine what response, if any, is appropriate. Actual funding may not necessarily be undertaken in the precise order o f HRS scores, however, and upon more detailed investigation may not be necessary at all in some cases. The EPA determines the need for using Superfund monies for remedial activities on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the NPL ranking, State priori ties, further site investigati on, other response alternatives and other factors as appropriate.



### 3.2 Consideration of Action Levels

Comment : Attachment III to the Environmental Alliance (hereafter referred to as Alliance) report, attached as Appendix A to the American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (hereafter referred to as APU) comment document, includes a supplemental characterization activities report generated by Malcom Pirnie, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Malcom Pirnie report) which discusses soil , fill

, and sediment samples collected at the Site in December 2007. In describing the analytical results from these samples, the Malcom Pirnie report sometimes uses site -specific EPA proposed cleanup goal action levels as reference points (100 ppm for PCBs and 1,000 ppm for lead).Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

7 Response : If by inclusion of this information

, the commenter was implying that these action levels must be exceeded before the hazardous substances can be associated with sources or identified as meeting
observed release criter ia, this is not the case.

On July 16, 1982, when responding to public comments on the proposed (original) HRS (47 FR 31188), and again on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40665), the Agency rejected the idea that releases within regulatory limits should not be c onsidered “observed releases” under the HRS. As the Agency noted in

1982:

[E]mission or effluent limits do not necessarily represent levels which cause no harm to public health or the environment. These limitations are frequently established on the
basis of economic impacts or achievability.

Additionally, Site- specific cleanup criteria are developed at a later stage in the Superfund process, after NPL listing. Consistent with CERCLA, the Agency has in place an orderly procedure for identifying sites
wher e releases of substances addressed under CERCLA have occurred or may occur, placing such sites on the NPL, evaluating the nature and extent of the threats at such sit es, responding to those threats, and deleting sites from the NPL. The purpose of the initi al two steps is to develop the NPL, which identifies for the States and the public those sites that appear to warrant remedial action (56 FR 35842, July 29, 1991). The evaluation or RI/FS phase involves onsite testing to assess the nature and extent of the public
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-funded remedial actions, if any, may be appropriate; during this process, site- specific conditions, including determination of exposure scenarios specific to the l ocation, are used to develop site- specific cleanup criteria based on
risk. After a period of public comment, the Agency responds to those threats by issuing a Record of Decision which selects the most appropriate alternative. The selected remedy is impleme nted during the remedial design/remedial action phase. Finally, the site may be deleted from the NPL when the Agency determines that no further response is appropriate.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to p lace the Site on the

NPL.



### 3. 3 Source Characterization

Comment : APU and Alliance claimed that the EPA incorrectly characterized Source 1

, argu ing that Source 1 extends beyond Parcel 425, that it actually overlap s the areas now classified as wetlands , and that Wetland #2 developed after Source 1 filling ended. APU further argued that “Wetland #2 fits within this definition of ‘Source’ [the HRS definition of source] because the alleged contaminants of concern at the Site were disposed of in the Wetland #2 area.”

Response : The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identified and characterized Source 1; however, in response to these comments, the HRS documentation record at promulgation has been revised to estimate the HRS area value of Source 1 as app roximately equivalent to the area of Parcel 425.

The following subsections of this support document address specific assertions regarding this issue:

• 3.3.1 Source Identification

• 3.3.2 Extent of Source

• 3.3.3 Overlap of Source and WetlandSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

8 3.3.1 Source Id entification

Comment : APU generally asserted that the EPA mischaracterized Source 1.

Response : The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly support ed the identification of the dump, Source 1, as an HRS eligible source.

In HRS Section 1.1, Definiti ons , the HRS defines a source as :

[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may
be considered a source.

HRS Section 2.2.1, Identify sources , outlines the requirements when identifying sources at a site, stating “[f]or the three migration pathways, identify the sources at the site that contain hazardous substances. Identify the migration pathway(s) to which each source applies.”

HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source , discusses the HRS requirement used to identify the hazardous substances associated with a source. It inst ructs the scorer “[f]or each of the three migration pathways, consider those hazardous substances documented in a source (for example, by sampling, labels, manifests, oral or written statements) to be associated with that source when evaluating each pathwa y.”

Also, HRS Section 2.2.3, Identify hazardous substances available to a pathway , states:

In evaluating each migration pathway, consider the following hazardous substances available to migrate from the sources at the site to the pathway . . .

• Surface w ater migration

— overland/flood component.

– Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to surface water in the watershed being evaluated.

–All hazardous substances associated with a source with a surface water
containment factor valu e greater than 0 for the watershed.

Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identified Source 1 as “ a landfill created when wastes were filled into marshland (wetland) adjacent to the Back River,” and explained that:

[d] uring investigations c onducted in Source 1, wood, plastic, metal, rubber, brick, sand, black sand/soil, concrete and concrete castings, asphalt, ash, electrical transformer parts, paint/paint containers, batteries, crushed drums, railroad ties, styrofoam, and a white/gray powdery substance were observed in the subsurface soil (Ref. 14, pp. 3, 26, 126 to 149). This waste material is referred to as fill in reference documentation. Test pits in Source 1 identified fill from the surface to below the water table (Ref. 14, pp. 13, 14). Subsurface soil borings in Source 1 revealed the presence of wood, plastic, metal, wire, rubber, brick, sand, rock fragments/gravel, glass, concrete, asphalt, ceramic tile, mattress pieces, and paper in fill found in Source 1.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

9 Pages 20 -37 of the HRS documentation record at proposal provided results from the analysis of many samples collected from Source 1 over the course of several investigations, providing evidence of hazardous substances including lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Page 19 of the HRS documentation record at proposal stated that “ Source 1 is located adjacent to Back River. Tidal and non-tidal wetlands are located along the eastern, southern, western, and northwestern
boundaries of Source 1 .”

Thus, Source 1 was identified as a source

— an area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration

— consistent
with the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the de cision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.3.2 Extent of Source

Comment : APU and Alliance stated that the EPA incorrectly assumed Source 1 consists only of the area of Parcel 425, and that Wetland #2 is separate from Source 1.

APU asserted that “[t]he areas of the Site that EPA characterize as Source 1, Wetland #1 and Wetland #2 were originally a tidal flat as reported by USGS. The vegetation that is now associated with what EPA
calls Wetland #2 did not exist as of 1938.” APU and Alliance stated that fillingin the area began sometime after 1938 and before 1952 with the filling of what is now referred to as Parcels 137 and 209, and the filling process continued for approximately 30 years. They added that the areal extent of filling was completed in 1982, al th ough filling may have continued over this area after that. APU and Alliance claimed this filled area encompassed the entire footprint of the Southeast Finger of Wetland #2, as well as a portion of the rest of Wetland #2. They stated that salvage and waste handling also took place both on parcels neighboring Parcel 425 (portions of Parcels 137, 464, 503 and 574), and on areas associated with
Wetland #2

.

Citing the above statements and an Alliance review of historical aerial photographs (Attachment II of the Alliance comments, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0064-0010.2), APU and Alliance asserted that salvage and waste handling processes were conducted beyond Parcel 425 and that PCB -contaminated waste is located on both the Southeast corner of Parcel 425 and on a portion of Parcel 137 in the area that the EPA now refers to as the Southeast Finger portion of Wetland #2. APU and Alliance concluded that it
is not accurate for the EPA to limit Source 1 to Parcel 425.

Alliance stated that “[t]he contamination at th e Site likely arrived via one or both of two mechanisms.
Either the contamination was in the fill as it was delivered to the Site and/or the contaminants were introduced into the fill as a part of Mr. Sauer’s salvage and waste handling operations.” APU sta ted that “[t]he PCBs and other waste in Wetland # 2 were disposed there. They did not migrate to Wetland #2
from Parcel 425.” APU stated that Source 1 “should extend into the area of known filling activities where Mr. Sauer conducted his operations. This ‘ Former Operation Area’ (‘FOA’) includes the entirety of Parcel 425 and portions of Parcels 137, 295, 464, and 574.” APU stated “[t]he FOA also includes the areas that EPA now refers to as Wetland #2 on Parcels 137, 295, 464 (i.e. the Southeast Finger) and on Parcel 574 (i.e., the Southwest Finger). Based on the Extent of Historic Operational Area Map [included in Attachment II of the Alliance comments, docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0064-0010.2], the source of the alleged contamination at the Site should be th e entire FOA because this area is where Mr. Sauer conducted his salvage and waste handling operations on filled land.”Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

10 Response : T he HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identifie d the extent of Source 1, and did

no t limit Source 1 to Parcel 42 5. T he HRS documentation record at proposal acknowledged that the landfill extends beyond Parcel 425. Parcel 425 was only used as an estimated boundary for the purpose of identifying the general location of Source 1. Additionally, t he HRS does not limit or define a source according to associated facility operations ; the HRS identifies sources to include areas where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration

.

The exte nt of Source 1 in the HRS documentation record at proposal was approximately equated to the area of Parcel 425, while acknowledging that the fill and contamination extended beyond those property
lines.

There is no HRS requirement that the full extent of a source be completely and absolutely delineated at the time a site is listed on the NPL. And, the HRS documentation record at proposal did not limit the extent of Source 1 to Parcel 425. Furthermore, the HRS does not limit or define a source according to

a ssociated facility operations ; as defined above, the HRS identifies sources to include areas where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration

.

The HRS documentation record at proposal, on page 18, stated that “ Source 1 is estimated to cover at
least 2.49 acres, which is the area of Parcel 425 on which the fill is located (Ref. 15; Ref. 31, p. 39). The area of the fill has been estimated from elevations on Sauer Dump a nd is shown in Reference 15. ” [emphasis added] Page 19 of the HRS documentation record at proposal noted that:

[b]ased on figures prepared during on- site surface and subsurface investigations at Sauer Dump, the extent of the Source 1 (landfill) is estimated based on raised elevations indicating that the area has been filled, as shown in Reference 15. The outline of Parcel 425 is provided on Reference 15 showing that the landfill extends beyond the Parcel
425

. [emphasis added]

Page 10 of the HRS documentation record at proposal stated:

Reference documentation identifies Sauer Dump as a 2.48- acre property on land Parcel 425. However, descriptions of the dump operations indicate that dumping activities extended onto adjacent parcels and the contamination re sulting from operations migrated beyond Parcel 425 (Ref. 14, pp. 9, 96; Ref. 21, p. 4; Ref. 31, pp. 8, 23, 28 to 31, 74; Ref. 47, p. 3). Analytical data from samples collected from Sauer Dump indicate that contamination from the dump has spread to adjacent properties via vehicle traffic or other transport mechanisms (Ref. 31, pp. 23, 30). Therefore, the area of the Sauer Dump is more than 2.48 acres. The exact dimension of Sauer Dump cannot be determined from data currently available.

Also, Figure 2 of the HRS documentation record at proposal clearly shows separate boundaries for Parcel 425 and the “[a]pproximate limit of fill material.”

Thus, the HRS documentation record at proposal made it clear that the property boundaries of Parcel 425 were used only for the purpose of identifying the approximate area of Source 1. And, the HRS documentation record at proposal acknowledged that the landfill itself and associated contamination extend beyond the boundaries of Parcel 425.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

11 Regarding the timing of the develo pment of Wetland #2 vegetation, see section 3.11.3, Actually Contaminated Wetlands, of this support document.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.3.3 Overlap of Source and Wetla nd

Comment : As detailed above in section 3.3.2, Extent of Source, of this support document, APU and Alliance asserted that the EPA was incorrect in assuming Source 1 is separate from Wetland #2. APU and Alliance stated that filling activities extended well into the area now identified as Wetland #2, claiming that the fill was deposited prior to development of the Wetland #2. APU asserted that Wetland #2 fits within the HRS definition of a “source” because Site contaminants were disposed of in the Wetland #2

area.

Response : Physical overlap of a source area and a wetland area does not preclude an area’s evaluation both as the location of a source and a wetland under the HRS if a wetland is exposed to hazardous
substances at the source.

Insomuch as these co mments imply that Wetland #2 is actually part of Source 1, the HRS does not
exclude a source area from also being a wetland. As stated, the HRS effectively defines a source as where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plu s those soils that have become contaminated from migration (excluding air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration ). The HRS defines wetlands (in a footnote to HRS Table 4-24)
as those areas meetin g the definition at 40 CFR 230.3:

The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and
similar areas.

Nothing in these HRS definitions restricts a source area from being in a wetland area.

The HRS contains no requirement that geogr aphic areas identified as sources and those identified as wetlands be mutually exclusive

— for HRS purposes, a given area may be evaluated both as a source and
as a wetland. Furthermore, even if the fill material (and hazardous substances) associated with Source 1 forms the base of the wetland, it is not the whole of the wetland; that is, the wetland also includes the water and flora and any other sediments.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3. 4 Waste Quantity

Comment : APU and Alliance questioned the area estimate of the dump (Source 1) used to assign a waste quantity for the dump source and the Site. They asserted that the area of Source 1 as defined by the EPA
is not accurate. Thi s conclusion was based on claims (detailed in section 3. 3.2, Extent of Source , of this support document) that Source 1 should extend beyond Parcel 425 where salvage and waste handling operations and related PCB contamination are known to have occurred— incl uding a portion of Parcel 137 in the area that the EPA now refers to as the Southeast Finger portion of Wetland #2. APU argued thatSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

12 Source 1 should encompass the historical former operations area. Based on th ese assertions , APU and
Alliance stated that the actual area of Source 1 should be approximately 3.08 acres, and based on their
claims that there are no wetlands subject to L evel I or Level II actual contamination and the only potential target of contamination from Source 1 is the Back River, the hazard ous waste quantity factor value for both the environmental threat and human food chain threat should drop from 100 to 10.

Response : The area of Source 1 (and the resulting source waste quantity and surface water pathway waste quantity) were sufficiently identified for HRS purposes to determine an estimate of waste quantity in the HRS documentation record at proposal. However, in response to these comments, in the HRS documentation record at promulgation, the Source 1 area value estimate has been revised t o at least the area of Parcel 425 as explained below. The following discussions address these comments as they apply

to:

• Source waste quantity

• S urface w ater p athway w aste q uantity

.

Source Waste Quantity

HRS Section 2.4.2, Hazardous waste quantity , cont ains the directions used to determine waste quantity for the dump:

Evaluate the hazardous waste quantity factor by first assigning each source (or area of observed contamination) a source hazardous waste quantity value as specified below.
Sum these values to obtain the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway being evaluated.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1, Source hazardous waste quantity , states:

For each of the three migration pathways, assign a source hazardous waste quantity value to each source (including the unallocated source) having a containment factor value greater than 0 for the pathway being evaluated . . .

For all pathways, evaluate source hazardous waste quantity using the following four measures in the following hierarchy:

• Hazardous co nstituent quantity.

• Hazardous wastestream quantity.

• Volume.

• Area.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.4, Area , gives direction on determining the area value for a source:

Evaluate the area measure using the area of the source (or area of the area of the observed

contam ination). Based on this area, designated as A, assign a value to the area measure as
follows:

• For the migration pathways, assign the source a value for area using the appropriate Tier D equation of Table 2 -5. . . .

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.5, Calculation of s ource hazardous waste quantity value , states to:Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

13 Select the highest of the values assigned to the source (or area of observed contamination) for the hazardous constituent quantity, hazardous wastestream quantity, volume, and area measures. Assign this va lue as the source hazardous waste quantity value. Do not round to the nearest integer.

As explained in section 3.3.2, Extent of Source, of this support document:

• the HRS documentation record at proposal did not limit Source 1 to Parcel 425;

• the HRS documentation record at proposal acknowledged that landfill extends beyond Parcel 425; and

• Parcel 425 was used in the documentation record at proposal as an estimated boundary for the purpose of describing the location of Source 1.

The HRS documentation recor d at proposal assigned an area value for Source 1 of greater than zero, which was sufficient for HRS purposes since the area of the landfill is clearly greater than zero. However, in response to these comments, that area value has been further refined in t he HRS documentation record at promulgation as estimated to be at least the area of Parcel 425 (2.48 acres).

Surface Water Pathway Waste Quantity

Regarding the assignment of a hazardous waste factor category value for the surface water pathway (i.e., the pathway waste quantity), HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value

, states to:

Sum the source hazardous waste quantity values assigned to all sources (including the unallocated source) or areas of observed contamination fo r the pathway being evaluated and round this sum to the nearest integer, except: if the sum is greater than 0, but less than 1, round it to 1. Based on this value, select a hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway from table 2–6.

Therefore th e summed and rounded hazardous waste quantity value for the Site at proposal was 1.

HRS Table 2

- 6 specifies a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 1 for a hazardous waste quantity value of 1 to 100. However, footnote b to HRS Table 2- 6 specifies that “ if hazardous cons tituent quantity is not adequately determined, assign a value as s pecified in text; do not assign the value of 1.”Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

14 Table 2 –6— Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Values
Hazardous waste quantity value Assigned value

0 0

1 a to 100 1 b

Greate r than 100 to 10,000 100

Greater than 10,000 to 1,000,000 10,000

Greater than 1,000,000 1,000,000

a If the hazardous waste quantity value is greater than 0, but less than 1, round it to 1 as specified in text.

b For the pathw ay, if hazardous constituen t quantity is not adequately
determined , assign a value as specified in the text; do not assign the
value of 1.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.1, Hazardous constituent quantity , explains that the term “adequately determined” in the context of determining the hazardous constituent quantity means that “ the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source [or in the area of observed contamination] is known or is estimated with reasonable confidence ”

HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculati on of hazardous waste quantity factor value , continues stating:

For a migration pathway, if the hazardous constituent quantity is adequately determined (see section 2.4.2.1.1) for all sources (or all portions of sources and releases remaining after a removal action), assign the value from table 2

– 6 as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway. If the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined for one or more sources (or one or more portions of sources or releases remaining after a removal action) assign a factor value as follows:

• If any target for that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations (see section 2.5), assign either the value from table 2–6 or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for that pathway. . . .

Pages 38, 56, and 63 of the HRS documentation record at proposal present the rationale of assigning the source and surface water pathway waste quantity values for the Site. Page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 2.4.2.1.1, Hazardous Constituent Quantity, note d that “[t]he information available is not sufficient to adequately support the evaluation of the hazardous constituent quantity for

Source No. 1.”

As explained in sec tions 3.11.3 and 3.11.4 (Actually Contaminated Wetlands and Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act, respectively) of this support document, Wetland #2 and the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area w ere correctly evaluat ed at proposal as subject to actual contamination

.

Page 56 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 4.1.3.2.2, Hazardous Waste Quantity , for
the human food chain threat stated:

Because the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately dete rmined and because targets in this pathway are subject to actual contamination, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

15 As indicated on page 63 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, a hazardous waste quantity factor
value of 100 was assigned for the environmental threat for the same reason.

For the HRS documentation record at promulgation, based on the revised Source 1 area value of 2.48 and the same HRS requirements described above:

• the summed and rounded hazardous waste quant ity value for the Site at proposal is 2 ;

• information available is not sufficient to adequately support the evaluation of the hazardous constituent quantity for Source No. 1 ;

• therefore, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 was assigned.

Therefo re, a Source 1 area of 2.48 and a hazardous waste quantity of 2 are correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at promulgation; and an appropriate resulting hazardous waste quantity factor value
of 100 for the human food chain threat and the enviro nmental threat of the surface water migration pathway a re correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at promulgation (unchanged from that assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal).

Even if the scored area of Source 1 were expanded from a value of 2.48 to 3.08 acres (acreage suggested by the commenter) , the waste quantity factor values would not change because 3.08 acres (and the corresponding hazardous waste quantity value of 3) would yield a n HRS Table 2 -6 hazardous waste quantity fac tor value of 1 . Therefore, the minimum hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 would still apply for both the human food chain threat and environmental threats because the hazardo us constituent quantity is not adequately determined and targets within the pathway are subject to Level II
concentrations.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3. 5 Description of Watershed/Current Conditions

Comment : APU and Alliance made challenges t o the description of the watershed at the Site, disputing the connection between wetland areas and the location of the probable point of entry of hazardous substances into the surface water body.

Response : The HRS documentation record at proposal correctl y characterized the watershed at the Site. The following subsections of this support document address specific assertions regarding this issue:

• 3.5.1 Continuity of Surface Water Pathway

• 3.5.2 Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

3. 5 .1 Continuity of Surface Water Pathway

Comment : APU and Alliance commented that the Southeast and Southwest fingers are non- tidal
wetland s , and therefore are not connected with the tidal portions of the Back River . The commenters cited
to statements in the HRS documentation record at proposal identifying tidal and non- tidal wetlands present at the S ite as support for this assertion

.

Response : The various portions of Wetland #2 including the two fingers are continuous and hydraulically
interconnected as identified in the HRS documenta tion record at proposal. In addition, Wetland #2 isSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

16 connected to the Back River. Thus, all three portions of Wetland #2 and the Back River are part of the watershed evaluated in the HRS scoring. (See Figure 1 of this support document.)

HRS Section 4 and its subsections direct how to establish the watershed for a site. HRS Section 4.0.2, Surface water categories , states in relevant part:

For HRS purposes, classify surface water into four categories: rivers, lakes, oceans, and
coastal tidal waters.
Rivers include:

• Perennially flowing waters from point of origin to the ocean or to coastal tidal waters, whichever comes first, and wetlands contiguous to these flowing

waters . [emphasis added] . . .

HRS Section 4.1.1.1, Definition of hazardous substance migration path for overland/flood migration
component , gives direction on when to separate water bodies into different watersheds:

Consider a site to be in two or more watersheds for this component if two or more hazardous substance migration paths from the sour ces at the site do not reach a common point within the target distance limit. If the site is in more than one watershed, define a separate hazardous substance migration path for each watershed.

HRS Section 4.1.1.3, Evaluation of overland/flood migration component , states to :

[e]valuate the drinking water threat, human food chain threat, and environmental threat
for each watershed . . .

If the site is in more than one watershed:

• Calculate a separate overland/flood migration component score for each

wate rshed, using likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets applicable to each watershed.

• Select the highest overland/flood migration component score from the watersheds evaluated and assign it as the overland/flood migration component
score for the site.

P age s 40 and 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describe the watersheds at the S ite; page

40 states:

The 2002 delineation documented the presence of two unconnected parcels of wetlands. .

. . Wetland #1 is a small isolated non

- tida l wetland covering 0.7 acre. Wetland #1 surrounds a pond that is north of Source 1. Wetland #2 is a larger wetland area covering
1.39 acres. Reference documentation divides Wetland #2 into three areas: the Southwest Finger, the Back River Shoreline Area, a nd the Southeast Finger. Wetland #2 is comprised of a tidal wetland area along the shoreline (below the high water mark) and non-tidal wetland areas in the Southwest Finger and the Southeast Finger (above the high water mark) [emphasis added]

Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:

The two wetlands are unconnected (Ref. 14, p. 151) and therefore are within two different watersheds for HRS scoring purposes (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.1.1). The watershedSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

17 associated with Wetland #2 is evaluated as part of this HRS documentation record because the target value for this watershed is higher.

. . .

That is, the “migration pathways ” from the two wetlands “do not reach a common point within the target distance limit.” Therefore, as instructed by HRS S ection 4.1.1.1. (quoted above), the HRS evaluation at proposal consider ed them to be in different watersheds.

Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal further states:

Wetlands that are contiguous to a river (such as Wetland #2) are considered to be surface

water.

The HRS documentation record at proposal identifies Wetland #2 as contiguous to the Back River and therefore part of surface water and the same watershed as the Back River, consistent with the HRS. The HRS documentation record at prop osal also noted that Wetland #2 is composed of a tidal area (the Back
River S horeline A rea) and non

- tidal areas ( the Southwest Finger and Southeast Finger). However, these non-tidal areas of Wetland #2 are part of the same continuous wetland, not isolated water bodies— that is,
water from the non- tidal areas is still free to flow to the tidal areas . That one area of Wetland #2 is tidal
and other areas of Wetland #2 are non- tidal does not mean that these areas are hydraulically disconnected

. (See also Figure 1 of this support document and Reference 34 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation, showing general wetland areas, based on a 2012 re- delineation of the wetlands associated with the Site.) Therefore, while all the wetland areas may not be tidal, c ontamination could migrate from one area to the other during some circumstances such as major rain and flood events resulting from hurricanes. Thus, all three areas of Wetland #2 —the Southwest and Southeast Fingers and the Back River
Shoreline Area— are part of the same surface water body as the Back River for HRS purposes.

Regarding the age of the wetland delineation used to score the S ite at proposal (see also section 3.11.2,
HRS Guidance Manual- Suggested Evidence of Wetlands , of this support document), a new wetland delineation performed at the S ite area in 2012 was generally consistent with and confirmed the results of the 2002 delineation described in the HRS documentation record at proposal , with slight adjustments to
the boundaries of the wetlands. The 2012 wetland delineat or also inspected a fringe of the Wetland #1 wetlands adjacent to the pond to the northwest, identifying that the pond is actually hydrologically connected to the southwest finger of Wetland #2 by a jurisdictional depression/channel ( see also pages 9
and 24 of Reference 62 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation). Therefore, these two wetlands are contiguous and hydraulically connected to some extent.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the de cision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3. 5 .2 Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

Comment : Based on its claim that Source 1 includes Wetland #2, APU asserted that “[t]he target watershed of Source 1 is the Back River itself,” and stated that the HRS documentation record “does not document a release to, or actual contamination of the Back River.” APU concluded that the probable point of entry (PPE) of hazardous substances from Source 1 into surface water is the contact of Source 1 with
the Back River.

Response : Th e PPE was correctly identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal as the border between Wetland #2 and Source 1 (see Figure 1 of this support document).Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

18 HRS Section 4.1, Overland/flood migration component , establishes how to identify a probable p oint of entry for a source. It states to “[u]se the overland/flood migration component to evaluate surface water threats that result from overland migration of hazardous substances from a source at the site to surface

water.”

HRS Section 4.1.1.1, Definiti on of hazardous substance migration path for overland/flood migration
component , states:

The hazardous substance migration path includes both the overland segment and the inwater segment that hazardous substances would take as they migrate away from sources
at the site:

• Begin the overland segment at a source and proceed downgradient to the probable point of entry to surface water.

• Begin the in

- water segment at this probable point of entry. –For rivers, continue the in-water segment in the direction of flow (including any tidal flows) for the distance established by the target distance limit (see section 4.1.1.2)

Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal presents the location of the PPE for Source 1. It

states:

The probable point of entry (PPE) of the hazardous substances from Source 1 into surface waters is Wetland #2, adjacent to the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of Source 1 (Ref. 5, p. 4-5; Ref. 14, p. 96, 99, and Appendix E, p. 150; Ref. 33; Ref. 34). Surface
water runoff from Sou rce 1 follows the contours of the land and flows to Wetland #2. Maps showing the land contours are provided in Reference 14, pages 96 to 99, and 102 to 106 and Reference 15. Wetlands that are contiguous to a river (such as Wetland #2) are
considered to be surface water (Ref. 1, Section 4.0.2). Runoff from Source 1 can enter Wetland #2 at any location. Because Wetland #2 surrounds the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of Source 1, the PPE is the entire boundary of Wetland #2 adjacent to

Source 1.

Th us, the HRS describes the PPE as the point at which hazardous substances migrating overland via
runoff would enter the surface water. A lthough Wetland #2 may partially overlay Source 1, as discussed in section 3.5.1, Continuity of Surface Water Pathway, of this support document, Wetland #2 is part of the surface water, is contiguous to the Back River

, and is part of the same watershed. Because Wetland #2 is part of the surface water, the HRS documentation record was correct in identifying the PPE as the boundary between Source 1 and Wetland #2. As there is no containment feature along this interface preventing migration, hazardous substances can enter surface water from Source 1 along this line.

In responding to comments, a new delineation was performed in 2012 for the wetlands associated with the Site. Based on the data from that study, the wetland boundaries and PPEs have shifted slightly but not significantly (compare Reference 34 in the HRS documentation record at proposal to the revised
Reference 34 in the HRS documentation record at promulgation, which show the wetlands and PPEs on a map of the S ite area). The HRS documentation record at promulgation has been revised to reflect this new information and the resulting minor changes in wetland perimeter s ubject to actual Level II contamination. (Note that as shown in Figure 1 of this support document, the most upstream points of the PPE boundary line in each finger of the wetland were used as center points for an arc radiating from the
most downstream obse rved release sample in each finger, only for the purpose of identifying the portion of the wetlands subject to actual contamination.)Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

19 This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3. 6 Likelihood of Release

Comment : APU challenged the establishment of an observed release at the Site and asserted that a potential to release factor value should have been used instead

.

Response : The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly established an observed release in
Wetland #2 consistent with the HRS.

The following subsections of this support document address specific assertions regarding the observed
release at the Site:

• 3.6.1 Observed Release by Chemical Analysis

• 3.6.2 Potential to Release

• 3 .6.3 Lack of Observed Release in the Back River

3.6.1 Observed Release by Chemical Analysis

Comment : APU challenged the establishment of an observed release at the Site

. APU stated the “EPA
concluded that the Site should receive the maximum score of 550 f or an Observed Release. . . . based on the incorrect assumption that Source 1 is limited to Parcel 425, that Source 1 has an observed release to Wetland #2, and that Wetland #2 is a part of the Back River.” APU and Alliance claimed that Source 1
should be the entire former operation area (FOA)

, and APU also argued that filling and salvage and waste handling activities occurred in the Southeast Finger portion of Wetland #2 prior to development of the current vegetation. APU therefore concluded that the “EPA incorrectly treats the Level II concentrations observed in Wetland #2 as evidence of migration of waste to a wetland when, in fact, those Level II concentrations resulted from waste disposal activities that occurred in that location before any ‘wetlands’

e xisted there.” APU stated

, “The PCBs and other waste in Wetland # 2 were disposed there. They did not migrate to Wetland #2 from Parcel 425.” APU stated that the “EPA cannot use the data for the area now
referred to as Wetland #2 to demonstrate a release f rom Source 1 because Wetland #2 is a part of Source

1.” APU and Alliance asserted that t he target watershed of Source 1 is the Back River itself and noted that
the HRS documentation record does not document a release to or actual contamination of the Back River.

Response : The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identifies an observed release to surface water at the Site based on contaminated sediment samples in Wetland #2 having a significant increase in
contaminant levels attributable to the S ite.

HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of Release , contains general instruction on establishing an observed release, and states in relevant part:

Establish an observed release either by direct observation of the release of a hazardous
substance into the media being evaluated (for example, surface water) or by chemical analysis of samples appropriate to the pathway being evaluated (see sections 3, 4, and 6). The minimum standard to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical
evidence of a ha zardous substance in the media significantly above the background level. Further, some portion of the release must be attributable to the site. Use the criteria in
table 2

– 3 as the standard for determining analytical significance.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

20 HRS Table 2

- 3 provides s pecific criteria for establishing an observed release by chemical analysis:

• If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit.

• If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background concentration.

HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release , detai ls establishment of an observed release for the overland/flood migration component of the surface water migration pathway as follows:

Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the
site has released a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. Base this
demonstration on either:

• Direct observation:

– A material that contains one or more hazardous substances has been seen entering surface water through migration or is known to have entered surface

wate r through direct deposition, or

–A source area has been flooded at a time that hazardous substances were present, and one or more hazardous substances were in contact with the flood
waters, or

– When evidence supports the inference of a release of a materia l that contains one or more hazardous substances by the site to surface water, demonstrated adverse effects associated with that release may also be used to establish an
observed release.

• Chemical analysis:

–Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3). –Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background

concentr ations— for example, compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations. . . . –Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of

conta minated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is required.

If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 550 to that watershed, enter this value in table 4

– 1, and proceed to se ction 4.1.2.1.3[thereby skipping the evaluation of a potential to release factor]. If no observed release can be established for the watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 0 to that watershed, enter this value in table 4 –1, and proceed to se ction 4.1.2.1.2 [ Potential
to release ].

HRS Sections 4.1.3.1, Human food chain threat- likelihood of release , and 4.1.4.1, Environmental threat

likelihood of release , both state to assign the same likelihood of release factor category value for the
watersh ed as would be assigned in section 4.1.2.1.3, Calculation of drinking water threat- likelihood of release factor category value , for the drinking water threat, which instructs “[i]f an observed release is established for the watershed, assign the observed r elease factor value of 550 as the likelihood of releaseSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

21 factor category value for that watershed. Otherwise, assign the potential to release factor value for that watershed as the likelihood of release factor category value for that watershed.”

The HRS documentation record at proposal on pages 43-47, in section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed Release , lists several background samples and observed release samples used to demonstrate that the criteria for observed release by chemical analysis listed in HRS Table 2

- 3 wer e met (this was not challenged by the commenter). Five observed release samples listed were collected from Wetland #2, which borders Source 1 (see Figure 1 of this support document for their locations). Page 43 of the documentation record notes that these samples were:

sediment samples from wetlands surrounding Source 1 and the Back River. . . . Samples were collected within the top 6 inches of sediment . . . Sediment samples were collected from beneath organic build-up or detritus material. Any decompose d organic material present at the sampling locations at time of sampling was included in the sample to accurately represent the potential for this interval to be impacted by deposition and adsorption.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on pages 45 a nd 47 shows the analytical results for background sample DG- SD01 -0.05 and observed release samples DG- SD03 -0.05, DG- SD04 -0.05, DGSD05 -0.05, DG- SD06 -0.05, and DG- SD07 -0.05, providing evidence for observed releases of Aroclor1254 and Aroclor-1260 (PCBs) an d lead.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on pages 52-54 explains why at least some portion of the significant increase in PCBs and lead found in observed release samples is attributable to the Site (also not challenged by the commenter), including noting that:

lead and PCBs detected in Wetland #2 are attributable to Source 1 because (1) Source 1 contains the same hazardous substances as Wetland #2, (2) Source 1 is not contained, (3) surface water runoff from Source 1 flows to Wetland #2, and (4) no other sources of lead
and PCB drain to the wetland.

As established in se ction 3.5.1, Continuity of Surface Water Pathway , of this support document, t he areas that make up Wetland #2 are contiguous to each other and part of the surface water pathway, and Wetland #2 is contiguous to the Back River and part of the Back River for HRS purposes. Also, as established in

s ection 3. 5.2, Probable Point of Entry, of this support document, t he PPE to surface water was correctly identified as the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of Source 1, where hazardous substances migrating from Source 1 via overland flow can enter the surface water.

As detailed in section 3.3.1, Source Identification, of this support document, the HRS defines a source as
an area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration , but excludes surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration . Thus

, the contaminated sediment samples from within Wetland #2 meeting observed release criteria are appropriately considered evidence of an observed release to the surface water
at the S ite (and are not samples of Source 1 source material).

However, even if the observed release sediment sample s from Wetland #2 were considered samples of
source material rather than surface water sediments contaminated by migration as the commenter argues (a point that the EPA does not concede) , the samples would then establish an observed release by direct
observation as described by HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1:Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

22 Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the
site has released a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. Base this
demonstration on either:

• Direct observatio n:

–

A material that contains one or more hazardous substances has been seen entering surface water through migration or is known to have entered surface water through direct deposition, or

–

A source area has been flooded at a time that hazardous substances were present, and one or more hazardous substances were in contact with the flood
waters, or

– When evidence supports the inference of a release of a material that contains one or more hazardous substances by the site to surface water, demonstra ted adverse effects associated with that release may also be used to establish an
observed release. . . .

That is, an observed release by chemical analysis was established in the HRS documentation record at proposal (as demonstrated by sediment samples DG

- SD03 -0.05, DG- SD04 -0.05, DG- SD05 -0.05, DGSD06 -0.05, and DG- SD07 -0.05 ); and an observed release by direct observation was not identified. But if any of these Wetland #2 sediment samples were considered source material instead of surface water sediments, t hey would document hazardous substances in contact with the surface water and constitute a
material that contains one or more hazardous substances that has been seen entering surface water through migration or that is known to have entered surface water through direct deposition

.

In either case

, an observed release would be established in the watershed yielding the same likelihood of release factor category value of 550 assigned at proposal (and unchanged at promulgation). As quoted above, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release , instructs the scorer to assign a 550 for likelihood of release if there is an observed release, regardless of whether the observed release was established by chemical analysis or by direct observation.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.6.2 Potential to Release

Comment : Based on their assertion that there is no observed release established at the Site (as detailed in 3.6.1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis, of this support document), APU and Alliance concluded that the likelihood of release should be based on potential to release, assigning a likelihood of release factor category value of 500 (based on calculation of a potential to release by overland flow value of 260 and a potential to release by flood value of 250).

Response : The assertion that a potential to release factor value should have been assigned is incorrect. As explained in section 3.6.1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis, of this support document, the Wetland #2 sediment samples were appropriately used to establish an observed release by chemical analysis; and even if APU’s and Alliance’s assumption that Wetland #2 samples are actually source samples were true, an observed release by direct observation would be established. If there is an observed release, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release , indicates that the potential to release factor value is not evaluated (the scorer is instructed to skip the HRS section describing potent ial to release, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.2). HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1 states:

If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 550 to that watershed, enter this value in table 4

– 1, and proceed to sectionSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

23 4.1.2.1.3 [thereby skipping the evaluation of a potential to release factor]. If no observed release can be established for the watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 0 to that watershed, enter this value in table 4 –1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.2 [ Potential
to release ].

There would thus be no need to evaluate the potential to release factor value.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.6.3 Lack of Observed Release in the Back River

Comment : Alliance stated that the “EPA relies on the lack of an observed impact to the sediments in the Back River to support its conclusion that Wetlands #2 has been impacted from Source 1,” referring to an
HRS documentation record statemen t on page 44 that “[t]he 2007 sediment data from the Back River do
not document a release to the Back River or actual contamination in the Back River.”

In discussing the human food chain population, Alliance also stated the “EPA agrees that the Back Rive r is not subj ected to Level I of [sic] Level II concentrations of contamination and contamination has not been documented in the within the [sic] zone of contamination.”

Response : T he HRS documentation record text referenced by the commenter is not used to support the observed release, but is rather a separate statement that no observed release was identified in the nonwetland portion of the Back River . That statement does not apply to Wetland #2, a portion of which is subject to Level II actual contamin ation.

The cited HRS documentation record at proposal text on p age 44 stated that “[t]he 2007 sediment data
from the Back River do not document a release to the Back River or actual contamination in the Back
River.” This statement followed a description o f samples taken at the Site and preceded detail of the samples used to establish an observed release in Wetland #2. The statement’s only purpose was to indicate that an observed release by chemical analysis was not found in the non-wetland section of the Back River. And, as discussed in section 3.6.1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis, of this support document, an observed release was indeed established in Wetland #2, which is part of the surface water for HRS purposes.

The Alliance assertion that the “ EPA agrees that the Back River is not subjected to Level I of [sic] Level
II concentrations of contamination and contamination has not been documented in the within the [sic] zone of contamination” is misleading. Contamination has been documented within t he zone of contamination. (The “zone of contamination” is a phrase used in the HRS documentation record at proposal to describe the area between the PPE and the furthest downstream observed release points.)

Alliance may have been referring to the statemen t on page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 4.1.3.3.2, Population, which states that “[n] o fisheries subject to Level I or Level II concentrations have been documented because fishing has not been documented within the zone of contamination.” This text clarifies that although there is contamination within the zone of contamination, there are no fisheries subject to actual contamination within the zone of contamination.

As further explained in sections 3.11.3, Actually Contaminated W etlands , and 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery , of this support document, the HRS treats a target (or portion of a target) in the surface water pathway as subject to actual contamination if the target (or a portion of the target) falls between theSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

24 PPE a nd the furthest downstream sample establishing an observed release. As previously mentioned, the “zone of contamination” is a phrase in the HRS documentation record at proposal that refers to the area
between the PPE and the furthest downstream observed re lease samples in Wetland #2; thus, the zone of contamination is by definition an area where hazardous substances have been established.

Additionally, a length of the Back River is still within the target distance limit (TDL) for the Site (the
TDL is the m aximum distance over which targets for the site are evaluated

— in the surface water pathway, this is fifteen miles from the probable point of entry, or until the farthest observed release sample location, whichever is greater, as described in HRS Section 4. 1.1.2, Target Distance Limit ). See section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, which explains that a fishery in the Back River is appropriately evaluated as subject to potential contamination within the TDL.

This comment result s in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3.7 Human Food Chain Threat Fishery

Comment : APU challenged the scoring of a human food chain fishery associated with the Site. APU
claimed that neither Wetland #2 nor the Back River meet the legal definition of a fishery, stating that the “EPA incorrectly characterized the Back River as a ‘fishery’ for purposes of scoring the Human Food
Chain Threat for the Site.” APU based this conclusion on its assertion that the EPA did no t use the appropriate fishery definition; APU stated that the EPA should use the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (hereafter referred to as the Magnuson Act) definition, and not the description of a fishery supplied in the HRS Guidance Manual, which it claimed is overly broad, does no t consider risk , and was not subject to notice and comment requirements.

Response : The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identifies human food chain fisheries
within the Back Ri ver and Chesapeake Bay, consistent with the HRS. No human food chain fishery was identified specifically in Wetland #2.

HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat- targets , explains how to identify a human food chain threat target fishery and determine w hether it is subject to actual or potential contamination:

Evaluate two target factors for each watershed: food chain individual and population. For both factors, determine whether the target fisheries are subject to actual or potential
human food chain contamination.

Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the watershed to be subject to actual human food chain contamination if any of the following apply:

• A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the watershed or in a surface water or sediment sample from the watershed at a
level that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the
si te, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release (that is, it is located either at the point of direct observation or at or between the probable point of entry and the most distant sampling point establishing the observed release).

• The fishery is closed, and a hazardous substance for which the fishery has been
closed has been documented in an observed release to the watershed from theSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

25 site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the
observ ed release.

• A hazardous substance is present in a tissue sample from an essentially sessile, benthic, human food chain organism from the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release.

For a fishery that meets any of these three criteria, but that is not wholly within the boundaries of the observed release, consider only the portion of the fishery that is
within the b oundaries of the observed release to be subject to actual human food chain contamination. Consider the remainder of the fishery within the target distance limit to be subject to potential food chain contamination.

In addition, consider all other fisheries that are partially or wholly within the target distance limit for the watershed, including fisheries partially or wholly within the boundaries of an observed release for the watershed that do not meet any of the three criteria listed above, to be subject to potential human food chain contamination. If only a portion of the fishery is within the target distance limit for the watershed, include only that portion in evaluating the targets factor category.

Page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal presents the rationale for identifying a human food chain fishery associated with the Si te. It states:

Actual contamination of a human food chain has not been documented.

Back River is a fishery adjacent to wetlands surrounding Source 1 (Ref. 9, pp. 32, 65, 66, 73, 77, 258, 274, 302, 304, and 324). Back River is designated by Maryland Water Quality Standards for surface water (Code of Maryland Regulations [COMAR] 26.08.02.07) for the tidal waters as Use I – water -contact recreation, fishing, and protection of aquatic life and wildlife (Ref. 9, p. 274). Back River is also designated as

Use II area – support of estuarine and marine aquatic life and shellfish harvesting – subcategories 1, 2, and 3, according to Maryland Water Quality Standards. As a subcategor y 1 Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Migratory Area, Back River is a habitat for fish including striped bass, perch, shad, herring, and Shortnose Sturgeon during the late winter/spring spawning and nursery season.

. . . The Chesapeake Bay is located wit hin the 15

- mile TDL and is a major recreational and commercial fishery (Ref. 13; Ref. 44; Ref. 45; Ref. 46).

Further, page 60 of the HRS documentation record at proposal note s that the “ Back River and Chesapeake Bay are both designated fisheries located w ithin the 15

- mile downstream TDL ,” and therefore assigns a

p otential human food c hain contamination f actor v alue to the fisheries as subject to potential
contamination.

Thus, the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies fisheries in the Back River and the Chesapeake Bay subject to potential contamination, consistent with the HRS; these human food chain fisheries downstream of the Site may constitute a threat to people consuming contaminated fish.

The following subsections of this support document a ddress specific assertions regarding the presence of those fisheries and their eligibility for scoring as targets under the HRS:Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

26 • 3.7.1 Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery

• 3.7.2 HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description

• 3.7.3 Huma n Food C hain Threat Targ ets – Presence of a Fishery Target

3.7.1 Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery

Comment : APU noted that CERCLA does not define the term fishery, and concluded that the definition in the Magnuson

- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act), as the principle law designed to protect fishery resources, should have been used by the EPA. APU asserted that the fishery evaluated in the HRS documentation record at proposal is not consistent with the Magnuson Act.

APU stated that its reasoning for th is conclusion is based on the following:

• Congress relied upon the Magnuson Act when defining the scope and authority of

CERCLA.

• EPA relied upon the Magnuson Act when defining the scope and authority of the NCP regulations.

• CERCLA defines ‘environment’ t o include ‘the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, and the ocean waters of which the natural resources are under the exclusive management authority of the United States under the Magnuson

- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.’ 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (8)

• EPA's NCP regulations apply to discharges of oil that may affect ‘natural resources,’ 40 C.F.R. § 300.3(a)(l), which include ‘the resources of the exclusive economic zone defined by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.’

APU stated that the Magnuson Act defines a fishery in terms of a stock of fish and that a stock of fish is defined as a species, subspecies, geographical grouping , or other category of fish capable of management as a unit. APU noted that under the Magnuson Act, the authority to manage a ‘stock of fish’ is given to Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMC s ), which use Fishery Management Plans (FMP s ) to carry out this process. APU asserted that “[i]n effect, a ‘fishery’ under the Magnuson Act is a designated ‘stock of fish’ for which a RFMC has developed an FMP.” APU argue d, therefore, that because the HRS documentation record has not documented FMPs for the Back River, the Back River cannot constitute a fishery under the Magnuson Act.

Response : The identification of human food chain fisheries in the Back River and Chesapeake Bay as described in the HRS documentation record at proposal is consistent with the HRS. The HRS is not limited to fisheries as defined and managed under the Magnuson Act. W hile a fisher y managed under the Magnuson Act may certainly qualify as a fishery eligible for HRS evaluation, the HRS is not restricted to fisheries as defined by the Magnuson A ct. Unlike the HRS, the purpose of the Magnuson Act is to protect and manage f isheries, and it is not meant to address the threat to human health posed by the human consumption of fish. The Magnuson Act definition of the term “fishery” is specific to that a ct ; it serves a different function than the term “fishery” as used in the HRS and is thus not applicable to HRS evaluations. The HRS evaluates any threat to the human food chain posed by any fishery subject to actual or potential contamination from the Site.

While there is no definition of “human food chain fishery” in the HRS, gi ven that the threat under which fisheries are evaluated is the “human food chain threat,” the emphasis of this threat is on the transfer of contamination to humans by the consumption of aqu atic organisms, e.g., a fishery, resulting in humansSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

27 being exposed to released hazardous substances that have been accumulated in aquatic food chain organisms and posing a threat to human health.

The Preamble to the HRS, Section III.M, Surface Water Migration Pathway , explains the intent of this part of the HRS evaluation. It states:

SARA requires that EPA consider ‘ the damage to natural resources which may affect
the human food chain * * * ’ Accordingly, the surface water migration pathway of the proposed rule included evaluation of threats to human health via the aquati c food chain. [emphasis added]

HRS Section 4.1, Overland/flood migration component , states:

Use the overland/flood migration component to evaluate surface water threats that result from overland migration of hazardous substances from a source at the site to surface water. Evaluate three types of threats for this component: drinking water threat, human food chain threat, and environmental threat.

HRS Section 4.1.3, Human food chain threat, instructs the scorer to “[e]valuate the human food chain
threat fo r each watershed based on three factor categories: likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets.” HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat-targets , states to “[e]valuate two target factors for each watershed: food chain individual and popu lation. For both factors, determine whether the target fisheries are subject to actual or potential human food chain contamination.” Thus, the focus of evaluating the human food chain threat under which fisheries are evaluated in the HRS (as SARA required), is on the possible negative effects to humans caused by hazardous substances released from the site, and delivered to humans via fish potentially in contact with those hazardous substances.

The focus on threat to humans is further illustrated in the par ameters used to score waste quantity within the human food chain threat. HRS Section 4.1.3.2, Human food chain threat- waste characteristics

, instructs the scorer to “[e]valuate the waste characteristics factor category for each watershed based on
two facto rs: toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation and hazardous waste quantity.” In discussing the bioaccumulation potentials used in HRS scoring, the Preamble to the HRS states that the EPA “ considers the bioaccumulation potentials of hazardous substances to be among the most important factors determining the degree of human health threat posed by substances via the human food chain. ” The toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation values used in determining the waste characteristics factor category value are center ed on how dangerous the site hazardous substances are to humans, and how likely the hazardous substances are to build up and remain in fish and increase the risk of human

exposure.

HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat- targets , gives general instru ctions on identifying a target fishery and determining whether the fishery is subject to actual or potential contamination. This text simply uses the term “fishery” and at no point in this section, or any other section of the HRS or in CERCLA, are fisheries to be scored as targets under the HRS human food chain threat limited to fisheries as defined by the Magnuson Act.

As explained in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS documentation record at proposal identifi ed fisheries in the Back River and the Chesapeake Bay,
consistent with the HRS meaning of “fishery .”

Additionally, the Chesapeake Bay (a portion of which is within the TDL for the Site, as stated on page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal and shown in the TDL map contained in Reference 13 ofSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

28 the HRS documentation record at proposal) does indeed contain stocks of fish managed under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) 1992 ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management
Plan 1 (FMP) (see Attachment 1, Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans, of this support document,

or http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/commercial/fmp.html ). Therefore, even if the fisheries scored under the HRS were to be limited to the Magnuson Act definition of “fishery,” these Chesapeake Bay fisheries would be used to score the human food chain threat, and there would be no change to the targets factor category value or the S ite score.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.7.2 HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description

3.7.2.1 HR S Guida nce Manual Description of a Fishery

Comment : APU took issue with the use of the EPA’s HRS Guidance manual 2 description of a fishery.
APU asserted that this description is, in effect, applied as rule even though it was not subject to notice and comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

APU stated that the HRS Gui dance Manual was intended “for EPA employees engaged in the scoring of
NPL sites for which little to no data existed.” APU therefore argued that “[i]t is inappropriate to use the HRS Guidance Manual's arbitrary and broad definition of ‘fishery’ to score a site for which a plethora of data exists that permits an accurate and precise characterization,” claiming this was used to inflate the S ite

score.

APU further asserted that the EPA uses the HRS Guidance Manual “not as guidance but as binding
constraint o n the agency's discretion,” and that “[t]he HRS Guidance Manual's definition of ‘fishery’ has the effect of law which ‘affects the rights of those over whom the agency exercises authority.’” APU
concluded that this fishery description was applied as a rule that has not appropriately gone through the notice and comment process required by the APA.

1 The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act and the Magnuson

- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 confer the authority for management of coastal, interjursidictional fisheries to the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC) and t he regional fisheries management Councils. The purpose of these acts is to provide for the preparation and implementation, in accordance with standards contained in the respective Acts, of FMPs that will achieve and maintain the availability of coastal fis hery resources on a long

- term basis (sustainable harvest). The Magnuson

- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act 2006 maintains the establishment of Regional Fishery Management Councils (e.g., South
Atlantic and Mid

- Atlantic Councils) to “exercise sound judgment in the stewardship of fishery resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revision of Fishery Management Plans which will enable the States, the fishing industry, consumer and environmental organizations, and other inte rested persons to participate in, and advise on, the establishment and administration of such plans and which take into account the social and economic needs of the States” (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2 005/ ).

In January 1994, ASMFC became responsible for implementing fishery management requirements for all Atlantic coast interjurisdictional fisheries under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act. The species regulated under this program are: American eel, A merican lobster, American shad and river herring, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic herring, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, bluefish, northern shrimp, red drum, scup and black sea bass, Spanish mackerel, spot, spotted seatrout, striped bass, summer flounde r, tautog, weakfish, and winter flounder (References http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/State

- Federal

- WEB/acfcmafs.htm and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/docs/acfcma.pdf ).

2 The Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

29 APU asserted the Magnuson Act definition should have been used, and “[i]f EPA has any discretion to adopt a different definition, a point that APU does not concede, EPA should be required to define such an important term in the NCP regulations, in formal rulemaking after public notice and comment, with opportunity for interested parties to seek judicial review.” APU stated that “[a]n agency's establishment of
subs tantive requirements to fill in the gaps left by a statutory or regulatory framework must be promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking.”

APU concluded “[c]lassifying the entire Back River as a "fishery" is an invalid application of a rule which should not be given effect until the HRS Guidance Manual's definition of ‘fishery’ is subject to APA notice and comment requirements.”

Response : The human food chain fisheries used in the HRS evaluation of the Sauer Dump site are
consistent with the HRS. The draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992 (HRS Guidance Manual) imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA, was not subjected to APA notice and comment requirements, and is used on a case -by- case basis depending on the facts presented by each
individual site , to guide the application of the HRS. Its suggestions are meant to guide an HRS evaluator, but it is not mandatory at any site.

As explained in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS
documen tation record at proposal identified fisheries in the Back River and the Chesapeake Bay,
consistent with the HRS. These fisheries are identified in accordance with the HRS meaning of “fishery.”

The HRS Guidance Manual states that:

[t]he procedures set forth in this document are intended as guidance to employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), States, and other government agencies. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this directive, or to act at variance with it, based on analysis of specific site circumstances . . . These guidelines do not constitute EPA rulemaking and cannot be relied upon to create rights enforceable by any party In [sic] litigation with the United States.

In evaluating whether a site merits N PL listing, the EPA complies with the HRS and uses the HRS Guidance Manual as just that —guidance to determine how best to perform the HRS evaluation based on the facts or circumstances presented at each site. The HRS Guidance Manual is consistent with the HRS (this was not challenged by APU) and simply provides suggested methods to carry out an HRS
evaluation ; and, as shown in the other sections of this support document, the EPA has followed the HRS in scoring the Site and given appropriate weight to the HR S Guidance Manual based on the facts presented by this site.

Thus, the HRS Guidance Manual was not subject to the rulemaking process and APA -required notice and comment, and is not mandatory or considered a rule to mandatorily be followed.

Regarding the argument that the HRS Guidance Manual was intended for EPA employees scoring NPL sites “for which little to no data existed,” and that it is somehow inappropriate for use at sites where ample data is available, this is incorrect . W hile there is typically less comprehensive investigation data available for a site at the HRS evaluation/NPL listing phase compared to later stages of the Superfund process, the HRS Guidance Manual is intended to assist in the HRS evaluation of any site the EPA is considering for NPL listing.

Regarding the statement that the “EPA should be required to define such an important term in the NCP regulations, in formal rulemaking,” that is not the subject of this rulemaking. Furthermore, w hile there isSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

30 no definition of “human food cha in fishery” in the HRS, given that the threat under which fisheries are evaluated is the “human food chain threat,” the emphasis of this threat is on the transfer of contamination to humans by the consumption of aquatic organisms, as explained in section 3.7.1, Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery, of this support document.

Add itionally, insomuch as the commenter is implying that the EPA should change the HRS to include a
definition

, that goes to the HRS itself, not this listing, and is therefore outside th e scope of this rulemaking.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.7.2.2 Breadth of HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery

Comment : APU asserted that the HRS Guidance Manual description of a fishery is overly broad, claiming “it includes more surface water bodies than it excludes. A farm fishing pond could be categorized as a ‘fishery’ under this definition.”

APU stated that “CERCLA requires EPA to assess ‘the damage to natural resources which may affect the human food chain,’ when determining whether to list a site on the NPL. 42 U.S.C. § 9505(a)(8)(A).” APU argued, though, that the HRS Guidance Manual description of a fishery is “so expansive that a surface water body may qualify as a ‘fishery’ for the sole reason that it contains human food chain organisms with no consideration as to whether these organisms are, or even can be, actually consumed.” APU concluded that, through the HRS Guidance Manual description , the “EPA has given itself the unfettered ability to determine that virtually any surface water body is a ‘fishery’ for the purpose of scoring a site on
the NPL.”

Response : The HRS Guidance Manual description of a fishery is consistent with the HRS and how this
site was evaluated. As explained above, the threat posed by human exposure to contaminants via ingestion of potentially contaminated fish was evaluated consistent with the HRS. Additionally, regardless of the size of the surface water body, a threat to human he alth exists if consumption of fish from the water body results in exposure of the human to contamination.

As explained in section 3.7.2.1, HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery , of this support document, the HRS Guidance Manual imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA. T he HRS Guidance Manual simply provides suggested methods to establish such a fishery for HRS evaluation

purposes.

As explained in section 3.7.1, Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery, of this support document, w hile there
is no def inition of “human food chain fishery” in the HRS, the focus of the HRS threat under which
f isheries are evaluated, the human food chain threat, is on the human consumption of aqu atic organisms

— e.g., a fishery—as a migration route resulting in humans being exposed via ingestion to released hazardous substances that have been accumulated in aquatic food chain organisms . The HRS Guidance
Manual describes a fishery as:

[a]ny area of a surface water body from which human food chain organisms are taken or could be taken for human consumption on a commercial, recreational, or subsistence basis. Food chain organisms include fish, shellfish, crustaceans, amphibians, and amphibious reptiles. Fisheries are delineated by changes in dilution weights, level of contamination, or annual production. To establish a fishery, document that human food chain organisms are present and that people fish in the surface water body.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

31 Thus, the HRS Guidance Manual description is consistent with the HRS emphasis on the threat to humans via ingested fish contaminated with hazardous substances.

Also, as shown in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS
documentation record has followed the HRS in establishing human food chain threat fisheries in the Back River and Chesapeake Bay

.

Regarding the specific comment that a farm fishing pond could be categorized as a fishery, this may be
accurate in some site

- specific situations , and it would be appropriately evaluated under the HRS as a
human food chain f ishery and a threat to human health if the fishery were subject to actual or potential contamination and the fish were consumed by humans.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.7.2.3 HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery and Risk

Comment : APU claimed that the HRS Guidance Manual fishery description is arbitrary because it does
not consider risk. APU stated that this description “does not allow EPA to evaluate the risk posed by different sources that are along the same ‘fishery,’” letting the EPA “violate both CERCLA and the
directive in Mead by permitting EPA to designate a surface water body as a ‘fishery’ without any
consideration of risk.”

Specifically, APU asserted tha t the EPA’s designation of the boundary of Wetland #2 as the beginning of the TDL “in effect incorporates Wetland #2 into the scope of t he alleged Back River ‘fishery.’” APU further stated that “[e]ven if Wetland #2 was a part of the alleged ‘fishery’ as c haracterized by EPA, which APU strongly denies, Wetland #2 presents little to no relative risk to public health or welfare or the environment and does not support an HRS score value above zero . . . In fact, there has been little to no
threat to the Back R iver in general or to a human food chain in particular throughout the history of the
Site.”

APU asserted that the HRS Guidance Manual fishery description “actually constrains EPA's discretion because the definition fails to consider risk by eliminating a ny consideration of whether human consumption is occurring or is even possible,” and that “[a]nswering the question of whether or not a water body contains catchable organisms requires no discretion.” APU claimed that if a water body does
contain catchable organisms, then it is mechanically classified as a fishery regardless of whether those organisms are consumed by humans. APU stated that various fish advisories have been in effect since the 1980's limiting or banning fish consumption on the Back River.

APU commented that “the effect of EPA's classification of the entire Back River, including Wetland #2, as a ‘fishery’ should result in the automatic listing on the NPL for every site that may have contributed a contaminant found in the Back River, regardless of whether the site actually poses a risk to public health or the environment.” APU asserted that the “EPA could aggregate the Sauer Dump with any number of other sites along the Back River that may have contributed the same constituents to the Back River as were found in sediment samples collected in Wetland #2, without considering actual risk;” APU concluded that “[t]his result is neither equitable nor logical, and is a complete violation of both CERCLA
and the mandate in Mead which require EPA to ind ependently consider the actual risk posed by
individual sources.”Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

32 Response : As previously explained in sections 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, and 3.7.2.1, HRS
Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery , of this support document, the HRS Guidance Ma nual imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA . The HRS Guidance Manual only contains general guidelines for performing an HRS evaluation . For this rulemaking, t he HRS requirements were met in establishing the presence of a fishery subject to potential contamination associated with this site and thus posing a risk to
human health.

Further, the HRS is not a site

- specific risk assessment. The HRS is a numerically based screening tool that the Agency uses to assess the relative degree of risk to human hea lth and the environment posed by a site compared to other sites subject to review. The HRS score is used to determine whether a site is eligible for placement on the NPL. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which
sites warrant fur ther investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. See 76 FR 13113 (Proposed Rule, Sauer Dump Site, March 10, 2011); see also 55 FR 51532 (Final Rule, Hazard Ranking System, December 14, 1990).

CERCLA § 105(a)(8)(a) requires the EPA to determine NPL priorities based on the “relative risk or danger to public health or welfare, or the environment.” The criteria the EPA applies to determine this relative risk or danger is codified in the HRS, and is the Agency’s primary tool for deriving a site score based on the factors identified in CERCLA. In this case, the HRS evaluation and score above 28.50 represents the EPA’s determination that the site may pose a relative risk or danger to human health and the environment and warrants further investigation under CERCLA.

In the preamble to the HRS, the EPA stated:

The Agency stresses that the limited data generated at the SI stage are designed to support site screening, and are not intended to provide support for a quantitative risk assessment (55 FR 51541, December 14, 1990).

The EPA performs a comprehensive risk assessment for the site as part of further investigations that typically follow listing . The results of risk assessment activities will be considered during the evaluation
of the need for remedial actions at the site. Neither CERCLA nor th e Mead decision requires the EPA to determine actual risk as part of the HRS evaluation of a prospective NPL site.

Regarding actual risk, although actual risk is not quantified for the HRS evaluation of this site , there is

reason to consider that the Site poses a potential risk to human health with contamination in a fishery

area . It is not at Wetland #2 wh ere this risk may occur; rather, it is the hazardous substances in Source 1 that have been released to the watershed in which fishing takes place (in the Back River and the Chesapeake Bay) that pose the potential risk via the human food chain threat. As ex plained in 3.7 , Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS documentation record at proposal
identifie s fisheries in the Back River and the Chesapeake Bay subject to potential contamination, consistent with the HRS; these human food chain fisheries downstream of the Site may constitute a threat to people consuming contaminated fish.

Regarding APU’s assertions involving the Mead decision:

• As further explained in section 3.7.3, Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Presence of a Fishery

T arget , of this support document, the EPA has not classified Wetland #2 itself as a human food chain fishery. Page 41 of the HRS documentation record stated “the Wetland #2 watershed includes sensitive environments (wetlands) and a human food chain fishery. ” [emphasis added] The watershed at the site includes Wetland #2, the Back River , and the Chesapeake Bay. Th eSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

33 HRS documentation record at proposal on page 41 stated that Wetland #2 is contiguous to the Back River and part of the surface water (and thus par t of the same watershed) ; page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal noted that a human food chain fishery has been
established to exist in the Back River.

• The EPA did not classify the “entire Back River” as a human food chain fishery; this desig nation was made by the State of Maryland in its Maryland Water Quality Standards for surface water. Page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal state s :

Back River is designated by Maryland Water Quality Standards for surface water (Code of Maryla nd Regulations [COMAR] 26.08.02.07) for the tidal waters as

Use I
– water -contact recreation, fishing, and protection of aquatic life and wildlife (Ref. 9, p. 274). Back River is also designated as Use II area – support of estuarine and marine aquatic life and shellfish harvesting – subcategories 1, 2, and 3, according to Maryland Water Quality Standards. As a subcategory 1 Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Migratory Area, Back River is a habitat for fish including striped bass, perch, shad, herring, and Shortnose Sturgeon during the late winter/spring spawning and nursery season.

• The establishment of a human food chain fishery for HRS evaluations only involves documenting a fishery within the TDL; as explained above in this section, there is no requireme nt of further determination of actual risk associated with that fishery.

The Mead decision and the policy at issue in that case do not apply to this NPL listing decision. Mead was an unusual case where the Agency listed three areas as a single site based on the issuance of a health advisory by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and not through the HRS.
Mead addressed the aggregation of noncontiguous sites into a single site without consideration of the risk posed by the sites. Th e present NPL rulemaking involves one contiguous site consisting of a source (the estimated area of the landfill). Contrary to APU’s assertions, the EPA is not in violat ion of CERCLA or
the Mead decision in listing the Sauer Dump site. The Mead decision do es not address aggregation of sources within a single site and does not require determination of risk to identify targets.

The HRS directions on scoring a human food chain fishery do not allow inappropriate aggregation of
sites. HRS direction s on scoring of targets has no bearing on determining the extent of site— the site for HRS purposes is where contamination has come to be located, not the location of targets. (HRS Section 1.1, Definitions , defines site as“[a]rea(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located. Such areas may include multiple sources and may include the area between sources.”) S ites have not been aggregated in the HRS evaluation of Sauer Dump, and the commenter has prov ided no evidence that separate sites were aggregated in th e HRS
evaluation ; therefore, the Mead d ecision is not applicable to this rulemaking.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.7.2.4 Consistency between HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description and Maryland Law

Comment : APU asserted that the HRS Guidance Manual fishery description is inconsistent with Maryland law and therefore should not be used in evaluating a site. As with the Magnuson Act, APU argued that Maryland fishery law requires FMPs to determine the presence of a fishery , and that the HRS documentation record at proposal provides no evidence of an FMP or that a stock of fish consistent with Maryland law is impacted by t he Site.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

34 Response : The determination of the presence o f fisheries associated with the Site is established consistent with the HRS; and Maryland law is not relevant to construing the HR S. As previously explained in sections 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fi shery, and 3.7.2.1, HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery , of this support document, the HRS Guidance Manual imposes no mandatory requirements on the

EPA . The HRS Guidance Manual guidelines are only suggested methods to carry out the identification of a human food chain fishery.

T he presence of a fishery subject to potential contamination was established consistent with the HRS

. HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat- targets , gives general instructions on identifying a target fishery and det ermining whether the fishery is subject to actual or potential contamination based on the location of a fishery in a zone of contamination and the bioacc umulation factor value for the released contaminants, or if the fishery is closed for human consumption . This text simply uses the term “fishery” and at no point in this section, or any other section of the HRS or in CERCLA, are fisheries scored as targets under the HRS human food chain threat limited to fisheries as defined by the Maryland law.

Furthermore, as explained in section 3.7.3, Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Presence of a Fishery Target, of this support document, APU has pointed out that the State of Maryland has issued fish consumption advisories affecting the Back River and Chesapeake Bay (s ee Attachment 2, 2011 Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories, to this support document). Several of the advisories in the Back River and Chesapeake Bay are issued for PCBs contamination, one of the hazardous substances associated with the Sauer Dump site. Th us , the State does consider there to be risk to human health resulting from consumption of fish in these fisheries.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.7.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Presence of a Fishery Target

Comment : APU and Alliance challenged the presence of a fishery target at the S ite.

APU stated that the EPA has classified the entire Back River as a fishery, and asserted that the “EPA incorrectly characterized t he Back River as a ‘fishery’ for purposes of scoring the Human Food Chain
Threat for the Site.” APU further claimed that neither Wetland #2 nor the Back River meet the legal definition of a fishery.

APU stated that the “EPA improperly characterizes the b oundary of Wetland #2 as the beginning of the target distance limit (‘TDL’), which in effect incorporates Wetland #2 into the scope of the alleged Back River ‘fishery.’ It is difficult to understand how EPA can make such a characterization [pointing to its assertion that Wetland #2 is part of the source].”

APU further stated that “[a] simple visual inspection of the Site demonstrates that Wetland #2 does not support fish for human consumption. In fact, EPA provides no evidence that fishing was ever attemp ted at
the Site.” In its argument that there is no risk to the human food chain, APU also noted that “various fish advisories have been in effect since the 1980's that limit or banning [sic] fish consumption on the Back
River.”

Alliance argued that the EPA acknowledges that fishing was not documented within the zone of contamination. Alliance noted the HRS Guidance Manual states that to evaluate a surface water body as a fishery, human food chain organisms must be present in the surface water body and some attempt has been made to catch those human food chain organisms. Alliance asserted that the “EPA considers theSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

35 Back River to be a fishery, but without actual contamination. Thus, to the extent EPA wishes to consider Wetlands #2 to be impacted with actual contamination (even though it is part of Source 1), Wetlands #2 cannot be considered a fishery.” Alliance also stated that the Southeast and Southwest F ingers are non

tidal wetland, and therefore not connected with the tidal portions of the Back River. All iance therefore concludes “it is not reasonable for EPA to assign a score of 20 to Wetlands #2, which clearly isn’t a fishery.”

Response : As explained in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the
HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identified human food chain threat fisheries targets subject to potential contamination at the Site in the open water portions of the Back River and in the Chesapeake Bay within the target distance limit; it did not identify Wetland #2 as a fishery. Additionally, as documented below, even if there were no fishery in the Back River, the food chain individual score and site score would remain unchanged based on the fishery documented in the Chesapeake Bay within the

TDL

.

T he interpreta tion of the HRS is not governed by the Magnuson Act definition or Maryland law. Also, the HRS Guidance Manual description of a fishery was not used as rule (see sections 3.7.1, Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery; 3.7.2.4, Consistency between HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description and Maryland Law ; and 3.7.2.1, HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery , of this support document).

The subsequent parts of this response address the following issues:

• Portion of the Back River Fishery Scored

• Absence of a Fi shery in Wetland #2

• Existing Fish Advisories

Portion of the Back River Fishery Scored

Regarding the comment that the EPA has classified the “entire Back River” as a fishery , this designation was made based on the following information from the State of M aryland as presented in its Maryland Water Quality Standards for surface water. Page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:

Back River is designated by Maryland Water Quality Standards for surface water (Code of Maryland Regulations [COMAR] 26.08.02.07) for the tidal waters as Use I – water

contact recreation, fishing, and protection of aquatic life and wildlife (Ref. 9, p. 274). Back River is also designated as Use II area

– support of estuarine and marine aquatic life
and shellfish harve sting – subcategories 1, 2, and 3, according to Maryland Water Quality Standards. As a subcategory 1 Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Migratory Area, Back River is a habitat for fish including striped bass, perch, shad, herring, and Shortnose Sturgeon d uring the late winter/spring spawning and nursery season.

Also, in response to these comments, a fisheries ecologist with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources was contacted, and confirmed that recreational fishing occurs on the Back River (see
Ref erence 63, MDNR Email Regarding Back River Fishing , of the HRS documentation record at promulgation ).

Further more , only the portion of the Back River fishery within the TDL is scored in the HRS evaluation. HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target distance limit , speci fies identification of a TDL (the portion of the watershed in which targets are evaluated):Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

36 The target distance limit defines the maximum distance over which targets are considered in evaluating the site. Determine a separate target distance limit for eac h watershed as
follows:

. . .

• If there is an observed release from the site to the surface water in the watershed that is based on sampling, begin measuring the target distance limit for the watershed at the probable point of entry; extend the target dis tance limit either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that meets the criteria for an observed release to that watershed, whichever is greater.

In evaluating the site, include only surface water targets (for example, i ntakes, fisheries, sensitive environments) that are within or contiguous to the hazardous substance migration path and located, partially or wholly, at or between the probable point of entry and the target distance limit applicable to the watershed: [emphasis added]

• If flow within the hazardous substance migration path is reversed by tides, evaluate upstream targets only if there is documentation that the tidal run could carry substances from the site as far as those upstream targets.

• Determine whether tar gets within or contiguous to the hazardous substance migration path are subject to actual or potential contamination as follows:

– If a target is located, partially or wholly, either at or between the probable point of entry and any sampling point that meet s the criteria for an observed release to the watershed or at a point that meets the criteria for an observed release by direct observation, evaluate that target as subject to actual contamination, except as otherwise specified for fisheries in section 4.1 .3.3 and for wetlands in section 4.1.4.3.1.1. If the actual contamination is based on direct observation, assign Level II to the actual contamination. However, if the actual contamination is based on samples, determine whether the actual contamination is at Level I or Level II concentrations as specified in sections 4.1.2.3, 4.1.3.3, and 4.1.4.3.1.

– If a target is located, partially or wholly, within the target distance limit for the watershed, but not at or between the probable point of entry and any sampl ing point that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed, nor at a point that meets the criteria for an observed release by direct observation, evaluate it as subject to potential contamination.

As established in section 3.5, Description of Watershed/Current Conditions, of this support document, the PPE (and beginning of the TDL) was correctly established at the boundary of Source 1 and Wetland #2. Regarding the TDL, page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:

The target distance limit (TDL) defines the maximum distance over which targets are
evaluated. The 15

- mile TDL starts at the PPE of hazardous substances to surface water and includes areas 15 miles downstream from the most downstream PPE to surface water, and the distance between the most upstream and downstream PPE (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.1.2). The in

- water segment of the surface water pathway TDL starts at the most upstream PPE from Source 1 to Wetland #2. As stated earlier, surface water runoff from Source 1 can enter Wetland #2 anywhere along the boundary of Source 1 and the wetland; Source 1 and the Wetland #2 are located adjacent to each other. There are two upstream PPEs into Wetland #2: one into the Southwest Finger of Wetland #2, labeled as

PPE

- 1 in Reference 34, and one into the Southeast Finger of Wetland #2, labeled as PPE2 in Reference 34. The distance from both PPE- 1 and PPE

- 2 to the Back River isSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

37 approximately 350 feet. From Wetland #2, the Back River flows about 4.0 miles to the southeast and empties into the Chesapeake Bay. The remaining portion of the 15- mile surface water migration pathway (11 miles) is in the Chesapeake Bay (Ref. 13). The end of Back River is defined by the end the Tidal Back River watershed as shown in Reference 9, page 12, and is show n as [sic] line drawn between two land masses on
Reference 13.

The Back River and Chesapeake Bay are tidally influenced within the TDL (Ref. 9, pp. 12, 32, 302, 324). When defining the TDL of a water body, tides are considered (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.1.2). Data do not exist to document the potential tidal carry of hazardous substances in the Back River; therefore, only targets identified within the downstream portion of the TDL have been scored.

Page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states tha t “[n] o fisheries subject to Level I or Level II concentrations have been documented because fishing has not been documented
within the zone of contamination. ” Therefore, the EPA acknowledged that fishing is not documented within the zone of actual contamination, and appropriately scored the fishery as a target subject to potential contamination. Page 60 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, in scoring potential human food chain contamination, states “ Back River and Chesapeake Bay are both designated fisheries located within the 15

- mile downstream TDL .” Thus, only the part of the Back River fishery within the TDL and subject to potential contamination is scored in the HRS
evaluation , consistent with the HRS.

Additionally, even if there were no fishery in the Back River, a fishery was also identified and documented in the Chesapeake Bay within the TDL—which the commenter has not challenged. If the
human food chain threat were scored based on that fishery alone, neither the human food chain threat

score nor the Site score would change. (That is, the food chain individual factor value of 20 assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal would not change because it is assigned for any fishery within
the TDL if there has been a release of a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation factor value of 500 or greater, as further explained in section 3.8, Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Food Chain Individual, of this support document. And, the potential human food chain contamination factor value of

0.000 00033 would also remain the same, as it was based on a production value for the Back River and Chesapeake Bay of >0, which would not change if the Back River fishery were not scored.)

Absence of a Fishery in Wetland #2

Regarding comments on the existence and scoring of a fishery in Wetland #2, such as that the “ EPA improperly characterizes the boundary of Wetland #2 as the beginning of the target distance limit (‘TDL’), which in effect incorporates Wetland #2 into the scope of the alleged Back River ‘fish ery, ’ ” t he
EPA has not identified or scored a fishery in Wetland #2.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 41 state s “the Wetland #2 watershed includes sensitive environments (wetlands) and a human food chain fishery. ” [emphasis added] The wat ershed at the site includes Wetland #2, Back River , and Chesapeake Bay. Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states that Wetland #2 is contiguous to Back River and part of the surface water (and thus part of the same watershed), and page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal note s that a human food chain fishery has been establi shed to exist in the Back River, stating “Back River is a fishery adjacent to wetlands surrounding Source 1.” [emphasis added]

Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal clearly did not identify or score a fishery within
Wetland #2 itself.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

38 Existing Fish Advisories

Regarding state fish advisories in place for the Back River, some fish consumption advisories are in place for the Back River (and the C hesapeake Bay). However, as shown in Attachment 2, 2011 Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories, of this support document, many of these advisories for fish within the Back River and Chesapeake Bay are limits specifying the maximum number of meals per month that the State recommends include a given species of fish. Additionally, a few species are classified as “avoid” in the Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories. However, the term “avoid” is only an advisory statement, and does not constitute a closed fishery; the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) generated the consumption advisories, but does not have the authority to close a fishery— that power is reserved for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (see Attachment 3, MDE Information Regarding F ish Advisory in the Back River). In these cases, the human population is still potentially exposed to some level of contaminants in the fish by human consumption, and it is therefore consistent with the HRS to evaluate the fisheries as targets under the HR S. There is no HRS provision prohibiting scoring a fishery if consumption advisories are in place.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3.8 Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Food Chain Individual

Comment : APU challenged the food chain individual factor value of 20 assigned by the EPA based on the assertions of a lack of an observed release and lack of a fishery in the Back River

.

Based on their assertions that Source 1 includes Wet land #2, APU and Alliance reasoned that t he receptor associated with Source 1 is the Back River, and stated that the EPA agrees that sediment data from the
Back River does not document a release to or actual contamination in the Back River. APU and Allianc e also claimed that the PPE for Source 1 is therefore where Source 1 meets the Back River.

APU and Alliance in their comments concluded that, at most, the food chain individual factor value should be 1 (based on a fishery in the Back River, the absence o f an observed release , and the dilution weight for the Back River); APU and Alliance further claimed that neither Wetland #2 nor the Back River meet the legal definition of a fishery and, in this case, the food chain individual factor value should be

zero. Alliance generated a third option of 20 for the factor value “[b]ased upon actual contamination of
Wetlands #2 and Wetlands #2 is a fishery. This is the manner in which EPA scored the Site.” Alliance noted the “EPA acknowledges that fishing has not been documented ‘within the zone of contamination.’”

APU and Alliance also claimed that a food chain individual factor value of 20 is not reasonable because Wetland #2 “clearly” is not a fishery; both stated that the EPA considers the Back River a fishery with no actual contamination.

APU and Alliance further stated that the Southeast and Southwest Finger portions of Wetland #2 are nontidal wetlands that are not in contact with the tidal portions of the Back River ; and APU added “[a] simple visual inspection of the Site demonstrates that Wetland #2 does not support fish for human consumption. In fact, EPA provides no evidence that fishing was ever attempted at the Site.”

Response : The food chain individual factor value of 20 was correctly assigned in the HR S documentation record at proposal based on the presence of a human food chain fishery within the TDL and an observed release of a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

39 HRS Section 4.1.3.3.1, Food chain individual , states to:

[e]valuate the food chain individual factor based on the fisheries (or portions of fisheries) within the target distance limit for the watershed. Assign this factor a value as follows:

• If any fishery (or portion of a fishery) is subject to Level I concentrations, assign
a value of 50.

• If not, but if any fishery (or portion of a fishery) is subject to Level II concentrations, assign a value of 45.

• If not, but if there is an observed release of a hazardous substance having a
bioaccumulatio n potential factor value of 500 or greater to surface water in the watershed and there is a fishery (or portion of a fishery) present anywhere within the target distance limit, assign a value of 20.

Page 58 of the HRS documentation record, section 4.1.3.3.1, Food Chain Individual, states:

As noted in Section 4.1.2.1.1 of this HRS documentation record, an observed release of hazardous substances having a bioaccumulation factor value of 500 or greater is documented in wetlands of the Back River and a human food chain fishery is present within the TDL (Ref. 9, pp. 32, 65, 66, 73, 77, 258, 274, 302, 304, 324). The food chain individual factor is assigned a value of 20 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1).

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 58 noted that “[a] ctual contamination of a human food chain has not been documented.” However, as explained in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery , of this support document, a fishery subject to potential contamination has been correctly
established within the TDL at the Site. As explained in section 3.6, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis , of this support document, the contaminated sediment samples from within Wetland #2 meeting observed release criteria are appropriately considered evidence of an observed r elease to the surface water
at the S ite . The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 57 showed that PCBs (Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260) and lead were present in those observed release sediment samples at observed release levels (not challenged by APU or Alliance); and, page 55 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identified the bioaccumulation values for Aroclor 1254, Aroclor 1260, and lead were 50,000, 50,000, and 5,000, respectively (all above 500, and not challenged by APU or Alliance).

Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal was correct in assigning a food chain individual factor value of 20 based on the presence of a human food chain fishery within the TDL and an observed
release of a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater,
consistent with the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3. 9 Human Food Chain Threat – Waste Characteristics Score

Comment : APU disag reed with the EPA’s assignment of a human food chain threat waste characteristics category factor value of 320, stating that “[t]his score is based on the inaccurate assumption that a target has been subject to actual contamination. The target here is the Back River since Wetland #2 is part of Source 1. EPA admits that the Back River is only subject to potential contamination. Therefore, the
correct value for Waste Characteristics is 180.” Alliance calculated the same alternative value. Both
commenters dete rmined the value of 180 based on a claimed incorrect waste quantity factor value of 100,Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

40 which they claimed should have been 10 because of their assertion that no target was subject to actual
contamination at the Site.

Response : The human food chain thre at waste characteristics category factor value of 320 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal based on the identification of a portion of Wetland #2 being subject to actual contamination.

Both commenters’ challenge to this value is based on their conclusion that there were no targets subject to actual contamination. However, as explained in section 3.11.3, Actually Contaminated Wetlands, of this support document, Wetland #2 was correctly evaluated as a surface water target and su bject to actual
contamination. Additionally, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area sensitive environment was also documented as a target subject to actual contamination (see section 3. 11.4 , Environmental Threat Targets:
Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone M anagement Act, of this support document).

Further, as explained in section 3.4, Waste Quantity , of this support document, the appropriate resulting hazardous waste quantity factor value is 100 for the human food chain threat and the environmental threat

o f the surface water migration pathway.

HRS Section 4.1.3.2.3, Calculation of human food chain threat- waste characteristics factor category
value , states:

For the hazardous substance selected for the watershed in section 4.1.3.2.1.4, use its toxicity/per sistence factor value and bioaccumulation potential factor value as follows to assign a value to the waste characteristics factor category. First, multiply the toxicity/persistence factor value and the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the
watershe d, subject to a maximum product of 1×10 8 . Then multiply this product by the bioaccumulation potential factor value for this hazardous substance, subject to a maximum product of 1×10 12 . Based on this second product, assign a value from Table 2– 7 (section 2.4.3.1) to the human food chain threat- waste characteristics factor category
for the watershed.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 57 states:

The waste characteristics factor value for the human food chain threat is calculated below, as spec ified in the HRS Final Rule (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2.3):

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value = 10,000 HWQ Factor Value = 100 Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value (BPFV) = 5x10 4

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value (10,000) × HWQ Value (100) = 1×10 6

1×10 6 × BPFV (5x10 4 ) = Waste Characteristics Product (5x10 10 ) (subject to maximum
value of 1×10 10 )

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value (Ref. 1, Table 2 -7) = 320

Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal correctly assigned 320 as the human food chain threat waste characteristics factor category value, consistent with the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

41 

### 3.10 Human Food Chain Threat Score

Comment : Based on its claims that the likelihood of release factor category value should be 500, the
human food chain threat waste characteristics factor category value should be 180, and assertion that the food chain individual factor value should be 1.09 or 0, APU asserted that this factor category value should either be at most 1.09 or 0. Alliance generated similar numbers, offering a third possible value of 21.82, assuming the food chain individual factor value was 20.

Response : The human food chain threat score of 42.6 6 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal.

HRS Section 4.1.3.3.3, Calculation of human food chain threat- targets factor category value , states to:

[s]um the food chain individual and population factor values for the watershed. Do not round this sum to the nearest integer. Assign it as the human food chain threat- targets factor category value for the watershed. Enter this value in table 4 –1.

HRS Section 4.1.3.4, Calculation of human food chain threat score for a watershed , sta tes to:

[m]ultiply the human food chain threat factor category values for likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets for the watershed, and round the product to the nearest integer. Then divide by 82,500. Assign the resulting value, subject to a maximum of 100,
as the human food chain threat score for the watershed. Enter this score in table 4 –1.

As explained in section 3.9, Human Food Chain Threat – Waste Characteristics Score, of this support document, the human food chain threat waste c haracteristics factor category value of 320 was correctly assigned consistent with the HRS.

As explained in section 3.8, Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Food Chain Individual, of this support document, the food chain individual factor value of 20 was co rrectly assigned consistent with the HRS.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 59 assigned a value of 0 for Level I and II h uman food chain population v alue s. The p otential human food chain c ontamination f actor v alue assigned on page 60 of the HRS documentation record is 0.00000033.

Therefore, the sum of the target values is 20 + 0 + 0.00000033, which equals 20.00000033 . The human food chain threat score for the Back River watershed is then 550 x 320 x 20.00000033, which equals 3,520,000 (rou nded to the nearest integer). This number divided by 82,500 yields 42.66, as correctly assigned on line 21 of the scoresheet on page 3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, consistent with the HRS. (Note that the potential human food chain contamina tion factor value, HRS surface water scoresheet line 19.c [previously left blank], has been corrected on page 3 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation to reflect the scored value of 0.0000003 assigned on page 60 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal.)

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

42 

### 3.11 Environmental Threat Targets

Comment : APU submitted several comments challenging the HRS evaluation of environmental targets o n the following topics:

• The definition of wetlands used in the delineation of the Site wetlands

• The evidence supporting the wetland delineation

• The presence of actually contaminated wetlands

• The documentation of a critical area under the Coastal Zone Mana gement Act

Response : The identification and scoring of environmental targets at the time of proposal was consistent with the HRS. The following subsections document this conclusion.

• 3.11.1 Definition of Wetlands

• 3.11.2 HRS Guidance Manual -Suggested Ev idence of Wetlands

• 3.11.3 Actually Contaminated Wetlands

• 3.11.4 Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act

3.11 .1 Definition of Wetlands

Comment : APU challenged the presence of wetlands eligible to be scored as a target under the HRS, arguing that the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual used to identify wetlands at the Site relies on a definition of wetlands inconsistent with that required by the HRS.
APU also asserted that manual is out of date.

APU stated that Wetland #2 must satisfy the HRS -required definition found in 40 CFR Part 230.3(t).
APU asserted that the EPA can not use other definitions, including that in the 1987 USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual or the Federal Manual f or Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, unless the characterization derived from those sources also satisfies the 40 CFR Part 230.3(t) definition. APU claimed that the EPA “not only fails to provide evidence that Wetland #2 satisfies the 40 C.F.R. Part 230.3(t) definition of ‘wetland,’ EPA fails to even make this assertion.”

APU also claimed that t he January 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual used in the 2002 wetland delineation is out of date because several supplements to that document were published since 2002; APU stated the “EPA has designated the Southwest and Southeast Fingers as wetlands based on a 2002 study that fails to take into account the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region originally published in
2008 and revised in November 2010.” APU continued to assert that the “EPA's failure to conduct a current wetlands delineation of the Sauer Dump which considers the, ‘[r]egion al differences in climate, geology, soils, hydrology, plant and animal communities, and other factors [that] are important to the identification and functioning of wetlands,’ [addressed by the supplements referred to above by APU]
invalidates EPA's wetland s perimeter determination, including the characterization of the Southwest and Southeast Fingers as wetlands. Assigning an HRS score to the Sauer Dump based on such a determination is inaccurate and improper.”

Response : Wetland #2 was correctly identifie d in the HRS documentation record at proposal as an HRS

eligible wetland consistent with the HRS definition of wetlands based on the information available at the time of proposal. Furthermore, the delineation has been updated and the HRS score remains suff icient to qualify the Site for the NPL. Neither of these two delineations relied solely on the 1987 USACE
Wetlands Delineation Manual.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

43 First, the 2002 delineation was not relied upon in isolation to determine if the wetlands met the HRS definition of wetlands. The information used to perform the delineation, the results of the delineation, and the methodology used to perform the evaluation were considered in determining the extent of the HRS eligible wetlands; but only those wetlands that were considered eligible after this evaluation were
included in the HRS wetland evaluation.

The definition of wetlands in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual used to perform the 2002 delineation was examined prior to the HRS evaluation and was determined to be cons istent with that
listed at 40 CFR 230.3 as req uired by the HRS. Furthermore, the supplements to the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual enacted after 2002 were reviewed and found to have no significant affect
on the 2002 wetlands delinea tion or the dete rmination of which delineated wetlands were considered HRS eligible . Finally, in respon ding to these comments, a new wetland delineation was performed in 2012 . The findings of th is re -delineation result in only slight change s to the wetland perimeter as sc ored in the HRS documentation record at proposal. T he wetland perimeter subject to actual Level II contamination is 2,271 feet in the HRS documentation record at promulgation, as compared to 1,613.80 feet in the HRS documentation record at proposal, result ing in no change to HRS scores.

HRS Evaluation of Wetlands

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, directs how wetland frontage scored as subject to Level
II actual contamination is measured for the HRS evaluation. It states:

For those sensit ive environments that are wetlands, assign an additional value from Table

4-24. . . .

Estimate the total length of wetlands along the hazardous substance migration path (that is, wetland frontage) in the area of Level II concentrations and assign a value from table 4-24 based on this total length. Estimate this length as specified in section 4.1.4.3.1.1, except: for an isolated wetland or for a wetland where the probable point of entry to the surface water is in the wetland, use the perimeter of that porti on of the wetland subject to Level II (not Level I) concentrations as the length.

HRS Table 4 -24 identifies not only the rating values, but also cites in a footnote to the definition of wetland to be used for HRS purposes.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

44 Table 4

– 24

— Wetlands Rating Val ues for Surface Water Migration Pathway

Total length of wetlands a (miles) Assigned value

Less than 0.1 0

0.1 to 1 25

Greater than 1 to 2 50

Greater than 2 to 3 75

Greater than 3 to 4 100

Greater than 4 to 8 150

Greater than 8 to 12 250

Greater than 12 to 16 350

Greater than 16 to 20 450

Greater than 20 500

a Wetlands as defined in 40 CFR section 230.3. [emphasis added]

As cited in the footnote to Table 4-24, 40 CFR 230.3 3 provides the following definition:

The term wetlands means those areas th at are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands general ly include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar

areas.

Thus, wetlands meeting this definition are eligible wetlands for HRS purposes.

Scoring of Wetlands in the HRS Documentation Record at Proposal

The HRS documentation record at proposal discussed the identification of wetlands and notes the use of
the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual for this purpose.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 65 describes the wetlands at the Site:

The 2002 wetland delineation identified two wetlands, Wetland #1 and #2. Wetland #2 includes the 1992 Wetland Units 3 through 6. The 2002 wetland delineation identified hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and predominance of hydrophytic vegetation in Wetland #2, including the 1992 Wetland Unit 6 (Ref. 14, pp. 151, 152 ). The locations of the wetlands are shown in Reference 5, Figure 4-1, page 78 and Reference 14, Figure 5, page 99 and page 167.

On page 40, the HRS documentation record at proposal describes both the wetlands at the Site and the method used to identify t hem:

The 2002 delineation documented the presence of two unconnected parcels of wetlands. Figure 5, page 99, of Reference 14 shows the two distinct wetland areas, the 25-foot buffer zone surrounding the non- tidal wetland areas, and the high water marks associated

3 Note that the HRS cites 40 CFR “230.3” and APU cites “230.3(t).” The “(t)” in t his case refers to the specific paragraph with the definition of “wetland.”Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

45 with the pond northwest of Source 1 and Back River located south of Source 1. Wetland
#1 is a small isolated non -tidal wetland covering 0.7 acre. Wetland #1 surrounds a pond that is north of Source 1. Wetland #2 is a larger wetland area covering 1.39 acres. Reference documentation divides Wetland #2 into three areas: the Southwest Finger, the Back River Shoreline Area, and the Southeast Finger. Wetland #2 is comprised of a tidal wetland area along the shoreline (below the high water mark) and non-t idal wetland areas in the Southwest Finger and the Southeast Finger (above the high water mark) (Ref. 14, p. 16 and Appendix E, p. 150).

The 2002 wetland delineation was completed using the methodology contained in the
revised 1987 USACE’s Wetland Deline ation Manual (subsequently referred to as 1987 Manual), and other related guidance documents (Ref. 14, p. 151).

The 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, included as Attachment 4 to this support document,
used to delineate the wetlands at the Site defin es “wetlands” on page A14:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

This definition of wetlands used by USACE is effectively identical to that listed at 40 CFR 230.3 quoted above. Therefore, the wetlands identified at the Site u sing the USACE definition are consistent with the 40 CFR 230.3 definition and eligible for HRS scoring.

USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual Supplements

Regarding the comment that the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual is out of date because several sup plements to that document were published since 2002, none of the changes to the wetland delineation methodology specified by post-2002 supplements would change the results of the 2002 wetlands delineation or the evaluation of this delineation regarding the HRS eligibility of wetlands.

Regional Supplements to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) were developed as part of a nationwide effort to address regional wetland characteristics, as regional differences in climate, soils, plant communities , and other factors are important to the identification and delineation of wetlands. The Regional Supplements are designed for use with the 1987 Manual and subsequent amendments. Where differences between the two documents occur, t he Regional Supplement takes precedence over the 1987 Manual. Replacement guidance includes, but is not inclusive of, adjustments to hydrophytic vegetation indicators, hydric soils indicators, wetland hydrology indicators, and highly disturbed or problem a rea wetland situations.

Upon review of the 2002 Wetland Report, prepared on 14 May 2002 by Versar Inc., it is highly unlikely that significant changes, if any, would occur related to the institution of Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). Methodologies used by Versar Inc., are based on the three -parameter approach promulgated in the 1987 Manual to delineate the wetland boundary. This methodology includes the use of the 50/20 rule to determine the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation; soil test pits to record soil matrix; soil redox concentrations and depletions (soil mottles); and observations of indicators of wetland hydrology.

Differences in vegetation sampling betw een the 1987 Manual and Regional Supplement include the Regional Supplement’s recommended use of five stratum sampling design in contrast to the 1987Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

46 Manual’s four-stratum approach, al though the four

- stratum sampling may still be acceptable upon coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Review of Wetland Determination Data Forms within the 2002 Wetland Delineation Report indicates that use of the five -stratum approach would not be expected to result in any changes in results, as no dominant specie s that were identified as saplings were
recorded. The Regional Supplement also integrates an additional methodology for sampling vegetation, the Prevalence Index, which is not included in the 1987 Manual. However, this difference would not be applicable, a s this method is typically only utilized when the 50/20 dominance test is not met and hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present. Therefore, methodology for vegetation sampling used during the 2002 delineation, as well as results listed in the Versar I nc. Wetland Delineation Report, are consistent between the 1987 Manual and the Regional Supplement.

Differences between the 1987 Manual and Regional Supplement include amendments to hydric soils indicators. Indicators present in the Regional Supplement are a subset of the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States that are commonly found in the coastal region. Soil documentation listed in the 2002 Wetland Delineation Report would meet hydric soils indicators within the Regional Supplement; therefore, no change in results would be expected to occur based on the Regional Supplement.

Observed indicators of wetland hydrology listed in the 2002Wetland Report include a number of primary and secondary indicators under the 1987 Manual. Some amendments have occurred with the institution of the Regional Supplement, which includes additional indicators and shifts between primary and secondary indicators. With the numerous primary indicators documented in the report, no change in results would be expected to occur based on the Regional Supplement.

Often wetland boundaries are reevaluated after a period of time. For example, when the USACE issues a Jurisdictional Determination (JD), the JD is typically valid for a period of 5 years. This expiration is often due to a variety of factors, which include changes to the site, changes within the surrounding watershed (e.g. increases in impervious surfaces that may affect drainage)

, and changes in weather/climate.

Wetl ands Re -de lineation

A new wetland delineation was completed in 2012 to verify the 2002 wetlands delineation (see pages 8

- 10 and 17 of Reference 62, 2012 Wetlands Delineation Report, of the HRS documentation record at promulgation) and the results have bee n reviewed to establish the eligibility of the wetlands for HRS purposes. The main difference between the 2012 delineation and the 2002 delineation is the jurisdictional hydrologic connection between the pond and the Southwest Finger, which is documented i n the 2012
wetland s delineation report (Reference 62 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation). The results
from the 2012 wetland s delineation are shown in Figure 5 of the wetlands delineation report. The entire pond was not delineated as it was not scored as a Level I or II wetland. The eastern boundary of the pond
was delineated. The eastern boundary of the Southeast Finger was not delineated because of property access issues; however, an approximate boundary based on field observations and topography was
included in the delineation , as shown in Figure 5 of the 2012 wetland s delineation. Based on this new delineation, the wetland perimeter scored for HRS purposes does not significantly change (it increases from 1,613.8 feet in the HRS documentation record at proposal to 2,271 feet in the HRS documentation record at promulgation, remaining in the same category of 0.1- 1 mile from HRS Table 4

- 24); and, the resulting sensitive environment value assigned for Wetland #2 does not change.

This comment resul ts in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

47 3.11.2 HRS Guidance Manual

- Suggested Evidence of Wetlands

Comment : APU and Alliance claimed that the 2002 Versar study used to delineate wetlands at the Site was insufficient evidence for the wetlands due to several asserted inadequacies.

APU and Alliance claimed that it was inappropriate to evaluate Wetland #2 because it is not mapped as wetlands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

APU also argued:

Accordin g to the HRS Guidance Manual, EPA may use U.S.G.S. topographical maps or other specialized maps to determine whether an area satisfies the 40 C.F.R. Part 230.3(t) definition. Absent the availability of such maps, EPA must have the area delineated by a

reco gnized wetlands expert. In addition, if the target score for the wetlands area is critical for the NPL listing, delineation by a recognized wetlands expert is required.

APU stated that the EPA has not provided a USGS map. APU further asserted that, because the wetland
characterization is critical to the Site score, the EPA should have used a recognized expert to perform the wetland delineation instead of relying on the 2002 Versar study. APU additionally claimed the 2002 Versar study its elf was not approp riate because i t is out of date since it is more than 5 years old.

Response : The eligibility of Wetland #2 was documented consistent with the HRS. The suggestions in the guidance manual on how to establish the presence of eligible wetlands were not used because another method consistent with the HRS to identify the presence of HRS- eligible wetlands was used. Additionally, the information gathered in a new 2012 wetland delineation (see pages 8-10 and 17 of
Reference 62 , 2012 Wetlands Delineation Report, of the HRS documentation record at promulgation) confirmed the presence of these HRS

- eligible wetlands. Furthermore, as explained below, even if the wetland were not present or not included in the HRS evaluation , the S ite score based solely on the human food chain fishery and critical area targets would not change.

First, as previously explained in section 3.7.2.1, HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery , of this support document, the HRS Guidance Manual imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA and simply provides suggested methods to carry out an HRS evaluation depending on the site- specific
circumstances.

Regarding the claim that Wetland #2 is not eligible for HRS scoring because it is not mapped as wetlands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) or because the EPA has provided no USGS map as evidence, wetlands need not be mapped by the USFWS or USGS to document their eligibility for HRS scoring purposes. The HRS requirement is that the wetlands meet the 40 CFR 230.3 definition, which
Wetlan d #2 does, as explained in section 3.11.1, Definition of Wetlands , of this support document. On page 65, the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies that the Wetland #2 areas are sufficiently wet often enough to have hydric soil and under normal circumstances support hydrophytic wetland species.

Regarding APU’s assertion that wetlands critical to a site score must be delineated by a wetlands expert pursuant to the HRS Guidance Manual, this is inaccurate. The relevant portion of the HRS Guidance

Man ual states:

When wetlands may significantly impact the site score (i.e., result in a site score greater than 28.50), further documentation may be needed to show that the wetlands meet theSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

48 definition in 40 CFR 230.3 (documentation may include contacting a wetlands expert to delineate the wetlands). [emphasis added]

T he contribution of W etland #2 is not critical to the Site score because, even if the wetland were not present, the Site score based solely on the human food chain fishery and critica l area targ ets would not change 4 (and the critical area target would remain as a qualifying actually contaminated target). Also, the HRS Guidance Manual text above makes it clear that the recommendation of an expert delineation is optional.

Concerning the age of th e wetlands delineation, although the 2002 wetlands delineation is greater than 5 years old, there is no HRS requirement that wetland delineations be 5 years old or younger. There is no
evidence that the boundaries of the wetland have significantly changed (in terms of HRS scoring) since the 2002 study; and, the commenter has not asserted that wetland boundaries have changed or provided any evidence to that effect. As explained in section 3.11.1, Definition of Wetlands, of this support document, the new 2012 wetland delineation performed at the Site confirmed the presence of the wetlands, and the resulting shifts in wetland boundaries have insignificant effect on the HRS score based on this new data (see also pages 8 -10 and 17 of Reference 62 of the HRS docum entation record at proposal, containing the 2012 wetland s delineation report; see also Reference 34 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, a map, revised at promulgation to reflect the minor changes in boundary delineation).

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

3.11 .3 Actually Contaminated Wetlands

Comment : APU challenged the HRS scoring of Wetland #2 as actually contaminated, based on its claim that Wetland #2 is part of Sour ce 1 and that vegetation associated with the wetland was established after filling operations.

APU asserted that Wetland #2 fits within the HRS definition of a “source” because Site contaminants were disposed of in the Wetland #2 area.

APU stated that the EPA “incorrectly assumes in the DR [HRS documentation record] that all of the alleged potentially Sensitive Environments contain Level II contamination, including both Wetland #2
and the Back River.” Alliance added that the “EPA assumed all of the pote ntially Sensitive Environments contained Level II contamination, including both Wetlands #2 and the Back River. However, EPA acknowledges elsewhere in the DR [HRS documentation record] that there is no data that demonstrates that the Back River is subjecte d to actual contamination (for instance, EPA did not score the Population threat as part of the Human Food Chain threat analysis for the Back River).” APU claimed the “EPA incorrectly treats the Level II concentrations observed in Wetland #2 as evidence of migration of waste to a wetland when, in fact, those Level II concentrations resulted from waste disposal activities that occurred in that location before any "wetlands" existed there.” APU concluded by asserting that Wetland #2 is not
a target or recepto r of contamination from Source 1, but rather is a part of Source 1.

4 If Wetland #2 were not scored as a target, the only sensitive environment value of 100 for the critical area target would remain, lowering the Environmental Threat Targets (HRS s coresheet line 26d) to 100. However, the environmental threat score (HRS scoresheet line 28) would remain the same at its maximum value of 60, resulting in
no effect on the Site score.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

49 APU and Alliance both made several comments on the timing of wetland development at the Site. APU asserted that “[t]he areas of the Site that EPA characterize as Source 1, Wetland #1 and Wetland #2 were originally a tidal flat as reported by USGS. The vegetation that is now associated with what EPA calls
Wetland #2 did not exist as of 1938.” APU further claimed that “[t]he vegetation associated with what is now referred to as Wetland #2 did not develop until the 1990s, after Mr. Sauer ceased the salvage and waste handling operations, including in the areas now described as Wetland #2.” Alliance added that “[a]fter Mr. Sauer ceased his operations, vegetation established at the Site, including the areas now
described as Wetlands #2.”

APU claimed that because Source 1 includes Wetlands #2, “[t]he only potential target of the alleged contamination from Source 1 is the Back River. EPA agrees that actual contamination of the Back River
has not been documented.” APU also stated “There are no Level 1 or Level 2 contaminants in the nonsource portion of Wetland #2.” APU reasoned that because there is no target subject to actual contamination, the environmental threat hazardous waste quantity factor value should drop to 10, and the resulting environmental threat waste characteristics factor category value should drop to 180

.

Response : Parts of Wetland #2 were correctly evaluated as subject to level II actual contamination in the HRS documentation record at proposal. As explained below, parts of this wetland are exposed to contamination resulting from the release being evaluated, the dumping of materials containing hazardous substances into surface water. Meeting this requirement establishes the part of wetland exposed to hazardous substances as actually contaminated for HRS purposes; the timing of the establishment of the wetlands vs. the filling of the source does not affect this designation or that wetlands today are exposed to
contamination due to the release at the Site.

The subsequent parts of this response address the following issues:

• Evaluation of a Wetland Subject to Actual Contamination

• Timing of Wetlands Development

Evaluation of a Wetland Subject to Actual Contamination

The wetland is an eligible target for purposes of the HRS evaluation. As previously explained in section 3.3.3, Overlap of Source and Wetland, of this support document, Wetland #2 is an eligible HRS target whether or not it is underlain by source material. The HRS does not exclude an area from being evaluated as a target even if it has been designated a source. And, the evaluation of Wetland #2 as a sensitive environment target subject to actual contamination is consistent with the HRS, as it has been established
that co ntamination exists within the wetland. Furthermore, even if the fill material forms the base of the wetland it is not the whole of the wetland; that is, the wetland also includes the water, the sediments, and
the fauna and flora which can be impacted by th e contamination

.

Section 3.5, Description of Watershed/Current Conditions, of this support document explains that Wetland #2 is contiguous to the Back River and part of the surface water, and the border between Source 1 and Wetland #2 was correctly established as the PPE to the surface water pathway.

As established in section 3.6 .1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis , of this support document, the contaminated sediment samples from within Wetland #2 meeting observed release criteria are appropriately c onsidered evidence of an observed release to the surface water at the Site. E ven if the observed release sediment samples from Wetland #2 were considered samples of source material rather than surface water sediments contaminated by hazardous substance migration, as the commenter argues (a point that the EPA does not concede), the samples of source material would then establish an observedSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

50 release by direct observation as described by HRS and the Site score would still be sufficient to qualify
the Site for the NPL.

HRS Section 4.1.1.1, Definition of hazardous substance migration path for overland/flood migration
component , states:

The hazardous substance migration path includes both the overland segment and the inwater segment that hazardous substances would take as they migrate away from the
sources at the site:

. . . Begin the in -water segment at this probably point of entry. For rivers, continue the in

- water segment in the direction of flow (including any tidal flows) for the distance established by the target distance limit (see section 4.1.1.2)

HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit, states:

If a target is located, partially or wholly, either at or between the probable point of entry and any sampling point that mee ts the criteria for an observed release to the watershed or at a point that meets the criteria for an observed release by direct observation, evaluate that target as subject to actual contamination . . .

As directed in HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations , Level II contamination is established in HRS Section 2.5, Targets , which instructs that if the hazardous substance does not exceed the environmental benchmark, then consider the location to be subject to Level II concentrations for that pathway.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 65 noted that “[n] o Level I concentrations of
sensitive environments have been documented wi thin the 15

- mile downstream TDL” and established that Wetland #2 is subject to Level II actual contamination, stating:

Actual environmental c ontamination has been documented in the wetlands of Back River, as discussed in Section 4.1.1.1 of this HRS documentation record. As presented in Table 17 of this HRS documentation record, sediment samples collected from Wetland #2 contained lead and PCBs at concentrations documenting an observed release to the wetland (surface water). The wetland area subject to actual contamination is shown in
Reference 34.

Therefore, Wetland #2 was appropriately evaluated as a target subject to actual contamination, con sistent
with the HRS.

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, directs how wetland frontage scored as subject to Level
II actual contamination is to be measured for HRS purposes. It states:

For those sensitive environments that are wetlands, as sign an additional value from Table

4-24. In assigning a value from table 4

– 24, include only those portions of wetlands located along the hazardous substance migration path in the area of Level II concentrations, as specified in section 4.1.4.3.1.1.

Estim ate the total length of wetlands along the hazardous substance migration path (that is, wetland frontage) in the area of Level II concentrations and assign a value from table 4-24 based on this total length. Estimate this length as specified in section 4.1.4.3.1.1, except: for an isolated wetland or for a wetland where the probable point of entry to theSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

51 surface water is in the wetland, use the perimeter of that portion of the wetland subject to Level II (not Level I) concentrations as the length.

HRS Secti on 4.1.4.3.1.1, Level I concentrations , referred to by HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2 above, states:

Assign value(s) from table 4

– 23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level I
concentrations.

For those sensitive environments that are wetlands, assign an a dditional value from table 4–24. In assigning a value from table 4– 24, include only those portions of wetlands located along the hazardous substance migration path in the area of Level I concentrations. If a wetland is located partially along the area of Level I concentrations and partially along the area of Level II concentrations and/or potential contamination, then solely for purposes of table 4–24, count the portion(s) along the areas of Level II concentrations or potential contamination under the Level II concentrations factor (section 4.1.4.3.1.2) or potential contamination factor (section 4.1.4.3.1.3), as appropriate.

Estimate the total length of wetlands along the hazardous substance migration path (that is, wetland frontage) in the area of Level I concentrations and assign a value from table

4– 24 based on this total length. Estimate this length as follows:

• For an isolated wetland or for a wetland where the probable point of entry to surface water is in the wetland, use the perimeter of that portion of the wetland subject to Level I concentrations as the length.

• For rivers, use the length of the wetlands contiguous to the in- water segment of the hazardous substance migration path (that is, wetland frontage).

• For lakes, oceans, coastal tidal waters, and Great Lakes, use the length of the wetlands along the shoreline within the target distance limit (that is, wetland frontage along the shoreline).

HRS Table 4

- 24 states:

Table 4

– 24 —Wetlands Rating Values for Surface Water Migration Pathway

Total lengt h of wetlands a (miles) Assigned value

Less than 0.1 0

0.1 to 1 25

Greater than 1 to 2 50

Greater than 2 to 3 75

Greater than 3 to 4 100

Greater than 4 to 8 150

Greater than 8 to 12 250

Greater than 12 to 16 350

Greater than 16 to 20 450

Greater t han 20 500

a Wetlands as defined in 40 CFR section 230.3.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

52 On page 67, the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the portion of Wetland #2 within the zone of actual contamination, the wetlands perimeter subject to Level II contamination, and the resulting wetlands assigned value:

Wetlands surround Source 1 (Ref. 15; Ref. 33; Ref. 34). When the PPE to surface water is into a wetland, the wetland perimeter is used to determine the length of the wetland subject to Level II concentrations (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.3.1.2). There are two PPEs from Source 1 into Wetland #2, the Level II wetland. PPE-1 is into the Southwest Finger of Wetland #2 at the north end, as shown in Reference 34. PPE-2 is into the Southeast Finger of Wetland #2 at the north end, as shown is Reference 34. To determine the perimeter of the Level II wetland in the Southwest and Southeast Fingers of Wetland #2, an arc is drawn from each PPE to the furthest downstream sediment sampling location documenting an observed release to the wetlan d. The arc drawn in the Southwest Finger
is labeled Arc 1 on Reference 34. The arc is drawn from PPE -1 to sediment sampling
location DG- SD03

- 0.5. The arc drawn in the southeast finger is labeled Arc 2 on
Reference 34. The Arc 2 is drawn from PPE -2 to sedim ent sampling location DG

- SD07

- 0.5. The perimeter of the Level II Southwest Finger is estimated to be 643.75 feet and the perimeter of the Level II Southeast Finger is estimated to be 970.05 feet. The sum of the two Level II wetlands is 1,613.80 feet. A wet land assigned value of 25 is obtained from Reference 1, Table 4

- 24. Table 27 summarizes Level II sensitive environments in Back
River Wetland #2.

Therefore, the portion of Wetland #2 within the zone of actual contamination documented by observed release samples was evaluated as subject to actual contamination, with an associated perimeter of 1,613.80 feet, and t he wetlands rating value of 25 assigned (for a wetland length of 0-0.1 miles per HRS
Table 4 -24) in the HRS documentation record at proposal was ap propriate. A new 2012 wetlands delineation performed at the Site confirmed the presence of the wetlands, and shifts in boundaries were insignificant based on this new data (see pages 8 -10 and 17 of Reference 62 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, containing the 2012 wetland s delineation report; see also Reference 34 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, a map, revised to reflect the new delineation). Based on this new delineation, the wetland perimeter scored for HRS purposes does not signif icantly change (it increases from 1,613.8 feet in the HRS documentation record at proposal to 2,271 feet in the HRS documentation record at promulgation, remaining in the same category of 0.1- 1 mile from HRS Table 4

- 24); and, the resulting sensitive enviro nment value assigned for Wetland #2 does not change. (See areas of Level II wetland as illustrated in Figure 1 of this support document).

Regarding the claim that the EPA “incorrectly assumes in the DR [HRS documentation record] that all of the alleged potentially Sensitive Environments contain Level II contamination, including both Wetland #2 and the Back River,” this is inaccurate. As explained above and illustrated in the map in Reference 34 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the HRS documentation record only identifies portions of
Wetland #2 that lie within the zone of actual contamination as subject to Level II concentrations.

Similarly, the HRS documentation record at proposal on page 66 noted that “[a] ccording to the Baltimore County Depa rtment of Permits and Development Management, Sauer Dump is zoned as a Resource
Conservation Critical Area under the Critical Area Act.” On page 67, the HRS documentation record at proposal assigns a Level II sensitive environments score to this area as an “ Area identified under Coastal Zone Management Act .” However, as specified by HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit, quoted above, this Level II score is only assigned for the portion of the target located partially at or between the probable point o f entry (PPE) and observed release samples.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

53 The HRS specifies assignment of a Level II concentration value for only the portion of a sensitive environment within the zone of actual contamination (established between the PPE and observed release samples) ; this does not mean the entirety of each sensitive environment is subject to actual contamination. The HRS documentation record at proposal did not state that any portion of a sensitive environment outside the zone of actual contamination is subject to Leve l II actual contamination.

Timing of Wetlands Development

The timing of the establishment of the wetlands is irrelevant to the HRS evaluation of the Site. That is, an observed release of hazardous substances to the surface water pathway has still occurr ed, and Wetland #2 is an eligible target currently present at the site and subject to actual contamination released by the Site. The HRS does not require that a sensitive environments target be present in an area prior to hazardous substance deposition/mig ration to that area 5 for the wetland to be considered eligible for consideration or actually contaminated.

Furthermore, APU’s claim that wetlands developed at the Site after fill was deposited is incorrect. Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at prop osal note s the following:

The oldest evidence supporting the use of Source 1 as a landfill is photographs and an inspection report dated 1954. The 1954 inspection report stated that the land being filled consisted of marshland (wetland) fronting the Back River (Ref. 3, p. 1). An aerial photograph from 1957 shows Sauer Dump as marshland (wetland) that is being filled. The unfilled marshland (wetland) is shown in a 1938 aerial photograph (Ref. 14, p. 121). The fill area was expanded in 1968. By 1977, the entire Sauer Dump, formerly a marshland (wetland), had been filled (Ref. 14, pp. 122, 123).

This statement is supported by an aerial photography review included in the HRS documentation record at proposal Reference 14, an Environmental Service and Technology Corporation (ENSAT) Remedial Investigation report, and is supported by a 1954 Baltimore County Health Department report included in HRS documentation record at proposal (see page 1 of Reference 3, a June 1985 Maryland Waste Management Adm inistration Preli minary Assessment of Sauer Dump , in the HRS documentation record at proposal).

In addition, the EPA Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) has performed a new analysis of historical aerial photographs and confirmed that the general area w here Source 1 is located
was indeed the location of HRS

- eligible wetlands prior to fill (see pages 10 -11 of Reference 61, 2011 EPA EPIC Historical Aerial Photograph Review , of the HRS documentation record at promulgation).

Concerning the comment that Wet land #1 and Wetland #2 were originally tidal flats according to the USGS, this assertion appears to be derived from a USGS topographic map submitted as Figure 1 to Alliance’s comments. However, although that USGS map does show tidal flat bordering the coas tline in the area of the Site, the actual location of Source 1 and Wetlands #2 fall on portions of the map marked with the USGS symbol for “marsh or swamp,” which is not inconsistent with the EPA’s characterization
of Wetland #2.

This comment results in n o change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.

5 For example, HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2

, Level II concentrations , on det ermining the length of wetlands subject to Level II contamination, states to “ use the perimeter of that portion of t he wetland subject to Level II . . .” There is no requirement to use the perimeter specifically at the time of hazardous substance release.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

54 3.11 .4 Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act

Comment : APU disputed the HRS evaluation of a critical area under the Coastal Zone Management Act, making the following claims:

• EPA has provided no support for its incorrect determination that the Maryland Critical Area Act designation for Source 1 constitutes a ‘sensitive environment’ identified in the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Plan, as required by HRS regulations, Table 4 -23.

• Maryland's Critical Area designation applies to all land within 1,000 feet of the Chesapeake Bay or its tidal tributaries and does not single out a specific area as a
‘sensitive environment.’

• [T]he designation of the Site as a ‘Resource Conservation Area’ does not mean that there has been a specific finding that the Site is an area requiring protection because of ecological value.

• [T]he Coastal Zone Management Act is not a ‘plan’ making any referenc e to the Site as an area with ecological value (as required by Table 4 -23) to yield a scoring value of 100. Rather, it is an approval by NOAA of Maryland's coastal zone management ‘programs.’

Response : T he Chesapeake Bay Critical Area qualifies as an are a identified in State Coastal Zone Management plans as requiring protection because of ecological value; is clearly within the watershed being evaluated for the site; and is therefore an eligible sensitive environment target under the HRS.

The subsequent parts of this response address the following issues:

• Establishment of an Area identified under Coastal Zone Management Act

• Determination of the Sensitive Environment Value

Establishment of an Area identified under Coastal Zone Management Act

The Chesape ake Bay Critical Area is an eligible environmental target as it is an “area identified under Coastal Zone Management Act.” That the Coastal Zone Management Act is not titled a “plan” does not mean that a location included in a plan approved of by the act d oes not qualify as an eligible target

.

In identifying sensitive environment targets, HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations , directs “[a] ssign value(s) from table 4 –23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level II concentrations. ” HRS
Table 4–23, Sensitive Environments Rating Values , contains a list of several sensitive environments to be considered as targets when scoring the surface water migration pathway; the fifth sensitive environment
listed in T able 4-23 is identified as “ Areas identif ied under Coastal Zone Management Act b .” Footnote b

to T able 4-23 further clarifies that these are “[a]reas identified in State Coastal Zone Management plans as requiring protection because of ecological value.” HRS Table 4 -23 lists a value of 100 for this sensitive
environment.

The HRS documentation record at proposal (see page 66) established that the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area falls under the Maryland Coastal Management Program approved by NOAA under the Coastal Zone Management Act :Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

55 According to the Baltimore County Department of Permits and Development Management, Sauer Dump is zoned as a Resource Conservation Critical Area (Ref. 26, pp. 1, 2; Ref. 41) under the Critical Area Act. In 1984, the Maryland General Assembly resolved to reverse the deterioration of the Chesapeake Bay’s environment by enacting the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. In 2002, the Act was amended to include the Atlantic Coastal Bays. The Act required the 16 counties, Baltimore City, and 44 municipalities surrounding the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays to implement a land use and resource management program designed to mitigate the damaging impact of water pollution and loss of natural habitat, while also accommodating the jurisdiction’s future growth. The Critical Area Act reco gnizes that the land immediately surrounding the Bays and their tributaries has the greatest potential to affect water quality and wildlife habitat and thus designated all lands within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or adjacent tidal wetlands
as the “Critical Area” (Ref. 41, p.1; Ref. 54, pp. 17, 18).

Reference 26, Baltimore County Zoning Map, of the HRS documentation record at proposal (cited above) shows that the area where Source 1 is located is clearly within the “Resource Conservation, Critical

Area.”

Re ference 41, Maryland Critical Area Frequently Asked Questions , from the Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coasta l Bays, of the HRS documentation record at proposal confirms the Maryland definition of “Critical Area” described in the above quote from the HRS documentation record at proposal.

Reference 54, Approval of Maryland Coastal Management Program , from NOAA , of the HRS documentation record at proposal contains the findings for the coastal nonpoint pollution control program submitted by the State of Maryland pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). Page 17 of Reference 54 states in part:

FINDING: Maryland's program provides for implementation and continuing revision of
addit ional management measures applicable to critical coastal areas and cases where (g) measures are fully implemented but water quality threats or impairments persist.

RATIONALE: Maryland has identified the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Criteria as
additional management measures to be applied to land uses within the Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area - 1,000 feet of upland bordering the Bay and its tidal tributaries and wetlands. Maryland has also identified a process to select additional measures, if needed. The pro cess is tied to the Chesapeake Bay tributary strategy implementation; if a 1997 evaluation finds that the strategies are not meeting their goals, additional measures will
be initiated.

Therefore, the 1,000-foot zone (of which the Source 1 area overlaps a portion) is the specific area that has been singled out as a sensitive environment with affects on water quality and wildlife habitat; and the 1,000- foot zone is clearly subject to added management measures for this reason.

The HRS documentation record at proposal continued on page 66 to explain that:

The Critical Area Act falls within the Maryland Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and EPA approved the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program submitted by the State of Maryland pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments ofSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

56 1990 (Ref. 54, p. 1; Ref. 56). The Maryland Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is part of Maryland Water Pollution Control Laws within the Maryland Coastal Management Program, which has been approved by NOAA under the Coastal Zone Management Act (Ref. 55, pp. 3, 6; Ref. 56, p. 1). Maryland’s Critical Area’s program is the principal mechanism used by Maryland’s Coastal Program to designate areas for preservation and restoration. Areas of special significance within the coastal zone are identified and designated State Critical Areas. Three types of coastal areas are designated. Sauer Dumps falls within the resource protection area (R ef. 55, p. 22; Ref. 26, pp. 1, 2). Resource protection areas consist of vegetated wetlands, upland natural areas, prime recreation areas, productive agricultural land, areas of historical and archeological importance, and aquatic resource areas (Ref. 55, p . 22).

Reference 56 (Electronic Mail from Joseph Abe, Coastal Policy and Project Review Specialist , Maryland Chesapeake and Coastal Program, Department of Natural Resources ) of the HRS documentation record at proposal cited in the above quote from page 66 of the HRS documentation record at proposal , clarifies
that the Critical Area Act

— under which the Site area is designated as a Resource Conservation Critical

Area —was incorporated into the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program as an Amendment to the

Pr ogram.” Reference 56 also specifically confirms that the Resource Conservation Critical Area in question indeed does require protection because of ecological value.

On pages 66 and 67, the HRS documentation record at proposal further explains that:

Sourc e 1 lies within the area designated as the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area under Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Act. The purpose of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Act is to protect the unique Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem an d its fisheries and other resources. Specifically, the portion of Source 1 located adjacent to Lynhurst Road is within a limited development area and the remainder of Source 1 is within a resource conservation area (the most protective and
restrictive clas sification) (Ref. 26; Ref. 32). The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program established, preserves, and maintains a 100 -foot, naturally vegetated, forested buffer from the mean high water line of tidal waters or from the edge of tidal wetlands and tributary streams. This includes non-tidal wetlands (Ref. 32).

Ample evidence has been presented in this support document to support that the area including Source 1
is an area identified in Maryland’s State Coastal Zone Management plan under the Coastal Zone Management Act; is reasonably considered to be protected due to ecological value ; and qualifies as an
HRS Table 4 -23 sensitive environment “ Areas identified under Coastal Zone Management Act .”

Furthermore, as stated in the HRS documentation record ( page s 66-67 quote above), the Site is considered a Resource Conservation Critical Area under the Critical Area Act, which falls within the Maryland Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; the Maryland Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is part of Maryland Water Pollution Control Laws within the Maryland Coastal Management Program ; and the Maryland Coastal Management Program is approved under the Coastal Zone Management Act

. T hat the Coastal Zone Management Act is not titled a “plan” does not mea n that a location included in the plan approved of by the act does not qualify as an eligible target. The purpose of this designation is to protect the unique Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and its fisheries and other resources. This site clearly qualifies as an area “identified in State Coastal Zone Management plans as requiring protection because of ecological value, ” consistent with the HRS. That the primary legal vehicle through which this protection is carried out is titled a “program” and not a “plan” does not negate this qualification

.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

57 Determination of the Se n sitive Environment Value

HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit, explains how to determine whether a target is subject to
actual contamination:

If a target is located, partially or wholly, eith er at or between the probable point of entry and any sampling point that mee ts the criteria for an observed release to the watershed or at a point that meets the criteria for an observed release by direct observation, evaluate that target as subject to act ual contamination . . .

HRS Section 4.1.4.3, Environmental threat-targets , states to “[e]valuate the environmental threat

- targets factor category for a watershed using one factor: sensitive environments.” HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1,

Sensitive environments , dis cusses determination of level of contamination for a sensitive environment:

Evaluate sensitive environments along the hazardous substance migration path for the watershed based on three factors: Level I concentrations, Level II concentrations, and potenti al contamination.

Determine which factor applies to each sensitive environment as specified in section 4.1.2.3, except: use ecological

- based benchmarks (Table 4

– 22) rather than health

- based benchmarks (Table 3

– 10) in determining the level of contaminatio n from samples. In determining the level of actual contamination, use a point of direct observation anywhere within the sensitive environment or samples (that is, surface water, benthic, or sediment samples) taken anywhere within or beyond the sensitive en vironment (or anywhere adjacent to or beyond the sensitive environment if it is contiguous to the migration path).

HRS Section 4.1.2.3, Drinking water threat

- targets , referred to above, cites to HRS Sections 2.5.1, Determination of level of actual contami nation at a sampling location , which states that if a target subject to actual contamination does not meet the criteria for Level I contamination, it is to be considered subject
to Level II contamination.

On page 65, the HRS documentation record at propo sal states that “[n] o Level I concentrations of
sensitive environments have been documented within the 15-mile downstream TDL. ” The area under the Coastal Zone Management Act present at the Site where observed release samples were identified is
therefore c onsidered subject to Level II actual contamination.

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations , states to “[a]ssign value(s) from table 4

– 23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level II concentrations.”

Therefore, as specified in HRS Table 4 -23, the sensitive environment value of 100 was correctly assigned at proposal. The Chesapeake Bay Critical area is an eligible sensitive environment and it includes the portions of Wetland #2 documented to be actually contaminated.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3.12 Environmental Threat – Waste Characteristics Score

Comment : Based on its claim that the correct environmental threat hazardous waste quantity factor value is 10, APU and Alliance commented that the environmental threat waste characteristics factor category
value should be 180.Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

58 Response : The environmental threat waste characteristics category factor value of 320 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal based on the identification of an actually contaminated target for the surface water pathway

.

Both commenters ’ challenge to this value is based on their conclusion that there were no targets subject to actual contamination. However, as explained in section 3.11.3, Environmental Threat Targets: Wetlands

, of this support document, Wetland #2 was correctly evaluated as a target and subject to actual contamination. Additionally, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area sensitive environment was also corr ectly documented as a target subject to actual contamination (see section 3. 11.4 , Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act, of this support document).

Further, a s explained in section 3.4, Waste Quantity, of this support document, the appropriate resulting hazardous waste quantity factor value is 100 for the human food chain threat and the environmental threat of the surface water migration pathway (b ecause the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately
det ermined and because targets in this pathway are subject to actual contamination, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned in accordance with HRS Table 2 -6 and HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value ).

HR S Section 4.1.4.2.3, Calculation of environmental threat- waste characteristics factor category value

, explains how to determine the environmental threat waste characteristics factor category value. It states:

For the hazardous substance selected for the watershed in section 4.1.4.2.1.4, use its ecosystem toxicity/persistence factor value and ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value as follows to assign a value to the waste characteristics factor category. First, multiply the ecosystem toxicity/per sistence factor value and the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the watershed, subject to a maximum product of 1×10 8 . Then multiply this product by the ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value for this hazardous substance, subject to a maxi mum product of 1×10 12 . Based on this second product, assign
a value from Table 2 –7 (section 2.4.3.1) to the environmental threat

- waste characteristics factor category for the watershed.

On p age 64

, the HRS documentation record at proposal explains calculation of the waste characteristics category value for this site. It state s:

The waste characteristics factor category value is determined by taking the product of the highest ecosystem toxicity/persistence factor value (10,000) and the HWQ value (100), and multiplying the product by the highest ecosystem bioaccumulation factor value (50,000) (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.2.3).

10,000 × 100 = 1 × 10 6

Ecosystem toxicity/persistence factor value × hazardous waste quantity factor value: 1 ×

10 6

1 × 10 6 × 50,000 = 5 × 10 10

(Ecosystem toxicity/persistence × hazardous waste quantity) × ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value: 5 × 10 10 (subject to maximum value of 1×10 10 ) Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2-7)Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

59 The value of 32 0 corresponds to a waste characteristics product from 1×10 10 to less than 1×10 11

.

Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal correctly assigned 320 as the environmental threat waste characteristics factor category value, consistent with the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3.13 Environmental Threat Targets Score

Comment : In their comments, APU and Alliance calculated alternative environmental threat scores, provid ing two possible scenarios. The first scenario generated an environmental threat targets factor category value of 0.0001 based on an endangered species subject to potential contamination in the Back River, and assuming their assertion that there are no wet lands or other sensitive environments subject to actual contamination (because of their claim that Wetland #2 is not mapped by the USFWS and is not areceptor for contamination from Source 1 but rather a part of Source 1, and their claim there is no HRSel igible critical area). The commenters’ second scenario generated a score of 25.0001 based on the same endangered species subject to potential contamination and assuming Wetland #2 is subject to actual
contamination. Both scenarios assume that the critical area under the Coastal Zone Management Act is not eligible for HRS evaluation.

Response : The environmental threat targets score of 125 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal.

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.4, Calculation of environmental threat-targets factor category value , states:

Sum the values for the Level I concentrations, Level II concentrations, and potential contamination factors for the watershed. Do not round this sum to the nearest integer. Assign this sum as the environmental th reat

- targets factor category value for the
watershed.

As explained in section 3.11.3 , Actually Contaminated Wetlands , of this support document, Wetland #2 was appropriately evaluated as a target subject to actual contamination. The wetlands rating value o f 25 assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal was thus appropriate.

As discussed in section 3.8.3, Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act, of this support document, t he Chesapeake Bay Critical Area qualifies as an area identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the sensitive environment value of 100 was therefore correctly assigned.

The sum of these values is 125, as was correctly assigned as the environmental threat

- targets factor
categ ory value in the scoresheet on page 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



### 3.14 Environmental Threat Score

Comment : APU and Alliance ch allenged the environmental threat score of 60 assigned by the EPA. Based on assertions that the likelihood of release factor category value should be 500, the environmentalSauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

60 threat waste characteristics factor category score should be 180, and the environme ntal threat

- targets factor category value should be either 0.001 or 25.001, Alliance claimed that the environmental threat
score should be 0.0011 or 27.27.

Response : The environmental threat score of 60.00 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal.

HRS Section 4.1.4.4, Calculation of environmental threat score for a watershed , states:

Multiply the environmental threat factor category values for likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets for the watershed, and round the product to the nearest integer. Then divide by 82,500. Assign the resulting value, subject to a maximum of 60, as the
environmental threat score for the watershed.

As detailed in section 3.6.1

, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis , of this support document, 550 was correctly assigned as the likelihood of release factor category value for the Site. As explained in section 3.12, Environmental Threat

— Waste Characteristics Score, of this support document, the HRS documentation record at proposal correct ly assigned 320 as the environmental threat waste characteristics factor category value, consistent with the HRS. As explained in section 3.13, Environmental Threat Targets Score , of this support document, the environmental threat- targets factor category v alue of 125 was correctly assigned.

The environmental threat score for the watershed is then 550 x 320 x 125, which equals 22,000,000. This value divided by 82,500 yields 266.66, subject to a maximum of 60.00, as correctly assigned in the scoresheet on pa ge 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, consistent with the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the

NPL.



## 4. Conclusion

The original HRS score for this site was 50.00. Based on the above responses to public comments, the
Site score remains unchanged. The final scores for the Sauer Dump site are:

Ground Water: NS
Surface Water: 100.00 Soil Exposure: NS Air Pathway: NS
HRS Score: 50.00

## Attachment 1

Chesapeake Bay Fishery Management Plans WebpageChesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans Page 1



## FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS

Copies of the Plans may be obtained through the Chesapeake Bay Program (US Environmental Protection Agency) - http ://www.chesapeakebay.net /

Atlantic Menhaden Management Plan

The Atlantic menhaden stock is currently managed on a coastwide basis under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) 1992 ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan (FMP). In April 2001, an amendment was adopted to improve management. The amendment contains a new overfishing definition for the Atlantic stock using a fishing target and threshold and a stock size target and threshold. The amendment also restructured the management board and technical committee to reflect the structure of other species management boards and technical committees. Before the amendment, the management board was composed of state, federal and industry representatives. The new board no longer allows industry representatives. ( Link to ASMFC page for a copy of the amendment)

.

The status of the menhaden stock is important to the Chesapeake Bay because of its ecological role in the food web and its filter-feeding capacity. Although the ASMFC amendment recognizes the important role menhaden plays in the ecosystem, specific management actions to address ecosystem concerns have not been developed. Currently, there are several research modeling efforts to help define how multispecies interactions affect population dynamics. These studies should provide the basis for developing appropriate management recommendations. The Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions under the auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Program will be developing a Chesapeake Bay fishery management plan for menhaden with the completion of a draft plan by 2002.

Chesapeake Bay Alosid (Shad and Herring) Management Plan

Historically, shad and River herring supported some of the most valuable commercial fisheries in Chesapeake Bay. Today, shad and River herring are at low abundance. The 1989 Alosid Management Plan was developed to protect, restore and enhance baywide shad and herring stocks. Strategies include a moratorium on American shad and hickory shad fishing in Chesapeake Bay. Stock assessment surveys and tagging programs will be continued . Because the loss of spawning habitat has contributed to population declines, Chesapeake Bay partners are working to remove blockages on streams and rivers that prevent fish from migrating to spawning grounds. Other habitat factors, such as dissolved oxygen and physical habitat are addressed.

Chesapeake Bay American Eel Management Plan

American eels are a catadromous species, meaning they spend most of their lives in freshwater rivers and lakes, then migrate to the ocean to spawn. Historically, commercial and recreational fishing for eels was extensive. Currently, the reported eel harvest in the Bay has been variable and the amount of eels harvested for crab bait can only be estimated. The goal of the 1991 American Eel Fishery Management Plan is to manage the stock so that harvest does not exceed the natural capacity of the population to maintain itself. Management recommendations promote protecting small eels; implement monitoring programs; and provide fair allocation of harvest, that are consistent with traditional uses.

Chesapeake Bay Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management Plan

Atlantic croaker and spot are part of an important inshore bottom fishery along the Atlantic coast. Chesapeake Bay supports both recreational and commercial fisheries for croaker and spot. Commercial landings for croaker from Chesapeake Bay have dramatically declined during the 1950's and 1960's. Spot are a favorite recreational species in both Maryland and Virginia. The 1991 Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management Plan aims to protect these species, while providing the greatest long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits. The plan directs Bay partners promote increases in fish size, improve research and monitoring; promote the use of trawl efficiency devices and bycatch reduction devices; and identify habitat requirements for spot and croaker.

Chesapeake Bay Black Drum Management Plan

Black drum support a directed spring commercial fishery and recreational fishery off the Delmarva peninsula. Although black drum stocks do not appear to be overharvested, many unknowns surround the stock and its exploitation. The 1993 Black Drum Management Plan strives to protect the stock in Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic coast, while allowing commercial and recreational harvest. Strategies include stabilizing the commercial harvest, decreasing the harvest of small fish, monitoring and research; resolution of gear conflicts between users; the establishment of water quality goals and habitat protection.

1996 Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

In the mid-Atlantic region, black sea bass are overfished and populations are currently at low abundance. This new fishery management plan (FMP) for the Chesapeake's black sea bass (BSB) populations will reduce fishing rates and improve protection of the spawning stock in the Bay and along the Atlantic Coast. The new BSB FMP contains an enhanced habitat section, including recommendations to protect important nursery habitat in Chesapeake Bay. Other management actions include coordinating management actions with coastal recommendations, a minimum size limit; gear restrictions; and promotion of better black sea bass research.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/commercial/fmp.html 2/23/2012 9:02:01 AMChesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans Page 2

1997 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan

The blue crab is a dominant bottom-dwelling predator in Chesapeake Bay. It is economically important to the Bay, consistently outranking harvests of other shellfish and finfish species in the Bay by both weight and dollar value. The 1989 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan recognized the importance of the blue crab resource, identified areas of concern, and recommended strategies to stabilize fishing effort. The 1997 Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan has the same overall goal of managing blue crabs to conserve the baywide stock, protect its ecological value, and optimize long-term use of the resource. In addition to recommendations to maintain regulations enacted by the states, limit access to the fishery, prevent exploitation, and improve research and monitoring, the 1997 Blue Crab FMP incorporates an enhanced habitat section recommending protection and restoration of Bay grasses and water quality.

Chesapeake Bay Bluefish Management Plan

Bluefish are one of the top recreational fish caught along the Atlantic coast. Bluefish are also an important recreational species in Chesapeake Bay. The 1990 Bluefish Management Plan commits Bay partners to protection and monitoring of the bluefish stocks in Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and state coastal waters. The plan recommends cooperation with regional coastal fish management commissions to solve interjurisdictional problems with managing this highly migratory species. Bay strategies include monitoring the status of the stock; implementing additional restrictions if necessary; reduction of wasteful harvest practices; improved catch and effort data collection; population biology studies; and identification of habitat requirements for bluefish.

Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Horseshoe Crab Fishery Management Plan

Horseshoe crabs play an important role in Chesapeake Bay's foodweb, especially for migrating shorebirds and juvenile Atlantic loggerhead turtles. Horseshoe crabs are commercially harvested in both Maryland and Virginia. The 1994 Horseshoe Crab Management Plan aims to protect the ecological role horseshoe crabs by protecting spawning areas and monitoring harvest. Recommendations include limiting harvest during the spawning season, encouraging research, mandatory reporting for the commercial fishery, and consideration of a special permit, implementing a Maryland spawning survey, and working with the Bay Program to improve water quality and habitat.

Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan

Oysters have been one of the most important commercial resources in Chesapeake Bay, but in recent years Baywide oyster harvest have dramatically decline. The oyster population has fallen prey to diseases, pollution, harvesting techniques, and habitat destruction. The 1989 Oyster Management Plan was revised in 1994. It recommended the development of to initiate short and long-term management actions to help stabilize harvest to maintain spawning stock; promote conservation goals; develop young oyster seed sources; further research; and increase the market for Chesapeake Bay oysters. Overharvesting, low levels of reproduction, the oyster diseases MSX and Dermo and market issues are address in this plan.

Chesapeake Bay Red Drum Management Plan

There is a modest red drum recreational fishery along the Atlantic coast and in the Bay region, but the species is not an important commercial species in Chesapeake Bay. However, Chesapeake Bay provides habitat for juvenile red drum. The 1993 Red Drum Management Plan protects red drum stock in Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast, while allowing long-term commercial and recreational harvest. Strategies for stock protection include size limits and gear modifications; management coordination among the costal states, support for biological and fishery data; and commitments to water quality improvements in Chesapeake Bay.

Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic King and Spanish Mackerel Fishery Management Plan

King and Spanish mackerel support important commercial and recreational fisheries along the Atlantic coast and throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Recent stock assessments indicate that management measures in the South Atlantic have been successful at rebuilding the stock. However, they are still in need of protection. The 1994 King and Spanish Mackerel Management Plan recommends size and catch limits; measures to prevent waste due to bycatch and catch and release mortality; and continued commitment to water quality improvements in Chesapeake Bay.

Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan

Striped bass are a fish management success story on Chesapeake Bay. This fishery was recently reopened in Maryland after a Bay-wide fiveyear moratorium. The Bay supported a popular striped bass commercial and recreational fishery, until 1970s and early 1980s, when heavy fishing pressure drastically reduced catches. This fishing pressure eliminated many of the larger reproductive fish. The goal of the 1989 Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass Management Plan was to enhance and perpetuate the striped bass stock in Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and throughout the Atlantic Coast range. Management measures are considered to generate optimum long-term ecological, social and economic benefits. Management recommendations include size limits, gear restrictions, and establishment of fishing seasons and creel limits. Stock assessment through biological studies and monitoring are also recommended. Bay jurisdictions are encouraged to take measures to meet habitat requirements for striped bass, including the reduction of nutrients and toxics in the Bay. As a result of cooperative management actions by the coastal states from Maine to North Carolina, the striped bass stock has been restored to historic levels. As the specifics of the Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass Management Plan changed with improvements in the stock, the Plan has been updated through progress reports (1991, 1992, 1993, 19994). A draft amendment to the Plan is being developed to replace the 1989 management recommendations.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/commercial/fmp.html 2/23/2012 9:02:01 AMChesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans Page 3

Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder Management Plan

Summer flounder supports valuable commercial and recreational fisheries in Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic Coast. Commercially, the flounder fishery generates a higher dollar value than any other finfish. They are a prized recreational catch and their distribution makes them available to a wide variety of fishing methods. Stock assessments indicated that summer flounder stocks are severely overfished. The 1991 Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder Management Plan recommends size and gear limits; participation in coastal management deliberations, improved collection of biological and fisheries data; identification of flounder habitat requirements; and continued commitment by Bay program signatories to water quality improvements. The 1991 Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder FMP has been updated to reflect the current status of the stock and the current problems associated with managing a coastwide quota system. This Minor Amendment #1 was adopted in 1997 and addresses overfishing of summer flounder with recommendations to implement quotas, recreational seasons, creel limits, minimum size limits, and a special landings permit.

Chesapeake Bay Weakfish and Spotted Seatrout Management Plan

Weakfish and spotted seatrout are highly sought after by commercial and recreational fishermen from the mid-Atlantic to the south Atlantic. Both species are very popular in Chesapeake Bay, especially its Virginia waters. The lower Bay, including Virginia seaside estuaries are important nursery sites for larval and juvenile weakfish. Spotted seatrout are seasonal migrants to Chesapeake Bay, with seatrout spawning in the Bay during the summer. Historically, the commercial harvest of weakfish has ranked in the top five species, but has declined in recent years. Recreational surveys suggest weakfish and currently spotted seatrout sport catch are significant and often exceed commercial catch. The 1990 Weakfish and Spotted Seatrout Management Plan addresses overfishing by implementing minimum size limits to reduce the harvest of small fish, participating in coastwide management deliberations, continued stock assessments and catch/effort analyses, plus monitoring of bycatch. The plan also recommends identification of habitat requirements for both species and continued support for the Chesapeake Bay Program's water quality commitments.

Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

In the mid-Atlantic region, black sea bass are overfished and populations are currently at low abundance. This new fishery management plan (FMP) for the Chesapeake's black sea bass (BSB) populations, recently adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council, will reduce fishing rates and improve protection of the spawning stock in the Bay and along the Atlantic Coast. The new BSB FMP contains an enhanced habitat section, including recommendations to protect important nursery habitat in Chesapeake Bay. Other management actions include a minimum size limit; gear restrictions; and promotion of better black sea bass research.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/commercial/fmp.html 2/23/2012 9:02:01 AM

## Attachment 2

2011 Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: * Mercury Δ PCBs + Pesticides

Species

Atlantic Croaker

American Eel

Black Crappie

Continued Waterbody

Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries **∆**

Anacostia River Δ

Δ Back River

Bush River Δ

Middle River Δ

Northeast River Δ

Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Δ

Patuxent River Δ

Potomac River (tidal)- 301 Bridge to DC Line Δ

Rock Creek (Montgomery County) Δ

Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam Δ

South River Δ

Cash Lake *

Lake Artemesia *

Lake Needwood *

Lake Roland Δ

Liberty Reservoir *

Loch Raven Reservoir *

Millington Wildlife Management. Area *

Tuckahoe Lake *

Potomac River (non-tidal):

DC Line to Dam #3 Δ

Dam #4 to Dam #5 Δ * Recommended Meals/Month

General Women 1 Children 2 Population

4 4 4

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other

month month month

Avoid Avoid Avoid

4 4 4

1 every other

month 1 every other

month

1 1 1 every other

month Avoid

Avoid Avoid Avoid

3 3 3

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other

month month month

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other

month month month

2 2 1 Avoid Avoid Avoid

4 3

6 5

6 5

3 3

8 7

No Restrictions No Restrictions

4 4

No Restrictions 8

2 2

3 3 2

3

3

3

4

6

2

4

2

3

1 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: * Mercury Δ PCBs + Pesticides

Recommended Meals/Month Species Waterbody General Women 1 Children 2 Population

3 3 3 301 Bridge to DC Line Δ

Blue Catfish

Crab meat

Back, Middle, or Patapsco Rivers including: 6 6 5

Baltimore Harbor Δ

No Restrictions No Restrictions No Restrictions Other Areas of the Bay Δ Blue Crab

Crab "mustard"

1 meal equals 9 crabs for general population & women (4 Mid Bay: Middle River to Patapsco River and crabs for children) Do Not Eat Crab “Mustard” Baltimore Harbor area Δ

Other Areas of the Bay Δ Eat Sparingly

5 5 4 Anacostia River Δ

2 2 2 Back River Δ

8 8 7 Chester River Δ

2 2 2 Elk River Δ

Magothy 6 6 5

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Brown Bullhead Middle River Δ month month month

1 1 1 Northeast River Δ

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Δ month month month

6 6 5 South River Δ

7 7 6 Wicomico River **Δ**

Deep Creek Lake * 6 5 3 Chain Pickerel

Avoid Avoid Avoid Anacostia River Δ

Avoid Avoid Avoid Back River Δ

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Channel Catfish Bohemia River Δ month month month

2 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides

Recommended Meals/Month Species Waterbody General 1 2 Women Children Population

Δ 1 every other Bush River 1 1 month

Δ Chester River and Tributaries 5 5 4

Δ Choptank River 2 2 2

Conococheague * No Restrictions 8 5

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Elk River (incl. C&D Canal) Δ month month month

Δ 1 every other 1 every other Gunpowder River Avoid month month

Δ Jennings Randolph Reservoir 4 4 4

Δ Middle River Avoid Avoid Avoid

Δ Monocacy River * 1 1 1

Δ Nanticoke River 4 4 3

Δ 1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Northeast River month month month

Δ Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Avoid Avoid Avoid

Δ Patuxent River 3 3 3 Channel Catfish

Continued Δ * Pocomoke River 3 3 3

Potomac River (non-tidal):

Δ DC Line to Dam #3 * 1 1 1

Δ Dam #3 to Dam #4 <18" No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Δ Dam #4 to Dam #5 * 2 2 2

Potomac River (tidal):

Δ 1 every other 1 every other 301 Bridge to DC Line <18" Avoid month month

Δ 301 Bridge to DC Line >18" Avoid Avoid Avoid

Rewastico Creek Δ 4 4 3

Rocky Gorge Reservoir * 6 5 3

3 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides

Recommended M Species Waterbody General Women Population

Δ Sassafras River 2 2 eals/Month

1 Children

1 2

Susquehanna River:

above Conowingo Dam Δ 1 1 1

below Conowingo Dam Channel Catfish

Continued Δ Wicomico River

Δ Back River Δ 1 every other

month

2

Avoid 1 every other

month

2

Avoid 1 every other

month

1

Avoid

+ Lake Roland Δ

Potomac River (tidal):

Common Carp Δ 301 Bridge to DC Line 2

Avoid 2

Avoid 2

Avoid

Apply Potomac River advisory for carp to Bohemia, Bush, Elk (C&D Canal), Gunpowder, Northeast, Patapsco, and Potomac Rivers since elevated PCB levels in these locations may be anticipated.

Antietam Creek Δ 2 2 1

Conococheague Creek * ∆ No Restrictions No Restrictions 7

Savage River Reservoir * Rock Bass ♥

Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries 2

∆ 5 2

5 1 every other

month

4

Spot ♥

∆ Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries

Greater than 28 inches 1 1 1 every other

month

Less than 28 inches Striped Bass ♥

Maryland' s Atlantic Coastal Waters

Sunfish Statewide: allpublicly accessible la impoundments except those listed b 3

∆ 1

kes and No Restrictions elow* 3

1

No Restrictions 2

1 every other

month

No Restrictions

Δ Anacostia River * 7 7 5

Δ (incl.Bluegill) Antietam River * 2

4 of 9 2 2

Last updated: September 20, 2011

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides

Recommended Meals/Month Species Waterbody General 1 Women Children Population

Bush River * ∆ No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 2

Cash Lake * 8 7 4

Centennial Lake * 6 6 3

Lake Artemesia * No Restrictions No Restrictions 7

Lake Lariat * 4 3 2

Lake Needwood * No Restrictions No Restrictions 6

Lake Roland Δ No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Liberty Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Little Seneca Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Millington Ponds* No Restrictions No Restrictions 5

Sunfish (incl. Piney Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Bluegill) Continued Potomac River (tidal):

Δ 301 Bridge to DC Line 2 2 2

DC Line to Dam #3 ∆ * 5 5 4

Dam #4 to Dam#5 * No Restrictions No Restrictions 5

Rock Creek (Montgomery County) ∆ 3 3 3

Rocky Gorge Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions 7

Susquehanna River above Conowingo Dam Δ 6 6 5

Triadelphia Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions 6

Wilde Lake *

Δ Anacostia River 6

1 5

1 3

1

Big Pool * 3 3 2

Blair Valley Lake * 6 5 3

Broadford Lake * Small and 3 3 2

Largemouth Bass ♥ * Δ Bush River 5

5 of 9 4 3

Last updated: September 20, 2011

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides

Recommended Meals/Month Species Waterbody General 1 2 Women Children Population

Cash Lake * 3 2 1

Centennial Lake * 8 7 4

Clopper Lake * 5 5 3

Conococheague Creek * 8 7 4

Cunningham Falls Lake * 5 5 3

Deep Creek Lake * 4 3 2

Greenbelt Lake * No Restrictions 8 5

Jennings Randolph Reservoir * 6 5 3

Johnson’s Pond * 7 6 4

Lake Artemesia * 5 4 2

Lake Bernard Frank * 2 2 1

Lake Habeeb * 7 6 3

Lake Kittamaqundi Δ No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Small and 1 every other Lake Lariat * 1 1 Largemouth Bass ♥ month

Lake Linganore * 7 6 3

Continued Lake Needwood * 3 3 2

Lake Roland * 5 4 3

Liberty Reservoir * 6 5 3

Little Seneca Lake * 5 4 3

Loch Raven Reservoir * 3 3 2

Millington Wildlife Management. Area * 3 3 2

Monocacy River * 8 7 4

Myrtle Grove Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

1 every other Piney (Frostburg) Reservoir * 2 2 month

Piney Run Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 6

6 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides

Recommended Meals/Month Species Waterbody General 1 2 Women Children Population 1 every other Potomac River @ Spring Gap * 1 1 month

Δ Potomac River: 301 Bridge to DC Line * 2 2 2

Potomac River: DC to Dam #3 * 3 3 2

Potomac River: Dam #4 to Dam #5 * 5 5 3

Prettyboy Reservoir * 6 5 3

Rocky Gorge Reservoir * 3 3 1

1 every other Savage Reservoir * 2 2 month

Smithville Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 5

1 every other St. Mary' s Lake * 2 1 Small and month Largemouth Bass ♥ Stemmers Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Continued Susquehanna River above Conowingo Dam * No Restrictions No Restrictions 6

Triadelphia Reservoir * 5 5 3

Tuckahoe Lake * 3 3 2

Unicorn Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 5

Urieville Community Lake No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Wilde Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Wye Mills Community Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8

Youghiogheny River Lake * 6 5 2

Put-and-Take Trout Fishing Areas No Restrictions No Restrictions No Restrictions

Antietam Creek:

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Funkstown Bridge to Mouth Δ month month month

**∆** North Branch Patapsco 5 5 4 Trout ♥

Δ Jones Falls 6 6 5

7 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: * Mercury Δ PCBs + Pesticides

Species

Walleye

White Catfish

Yellow Perch

7 6 4

7 6 3

2 1 1 every other

month

No Restrictions No Restrictions 7

No Restrictions No Restrictions 7 Yellow Bullhead

Catfish

White Perch Waterbody General Population Women 1 Children 2

Savage River * 7 6 4

Jennings Randolph Reservoir * 4 4 2

Potomac: Dam #4 to Dam #5 * 4 4 2

Savage River Reservoir * 1 every other

month 1 every other

month

Youghiogheny River Lake * 2 2 1

Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Δ

Potomac River: 301 Bridge to DC Line Δ

Bush River Δ

Elk River Δ

Deep Creek Lake *

Gunpowder River Δ

Middle River Δ

Piney Run Lake *

Susquehanna River below Dam Δ

Youghiogheny River Lake *

Lake Bernard Frank *

Liberty Reservoir *

Savage River Reservoir *

Wilde Lake *

Youghiogheny River Lake *

Δ Back River

Bohemia River Δ

Δ Bush River

Chester River and Tributaries Δ Recommended Meals/Month

Avoid

Avoid Avoid Avoid

Avoid Avoid Avoid

Avoid Avoid Avoid

No Restrictions No Restrictions 6

2 2 2

6 6 3 2 2 1

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other

month month month

8 7 4

1 1 1

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other

month month month

2 2 1

3 3 2

4 4 4

8 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011

# Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels

1 Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing)

2 Children = all young children up to age 6

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards

Contaminant present in fish: * Mercury Δ PCBs + Pesticides

Recommended Meals/Month Species

White Perch

Continued Waterbody

Choptank River Δ

Eastern Bay: Miles & Wye River Δ

Elk River (including C&D Canal) Δ

Gunpowder River Δ

Herring Bay Δ

Liberty Reservoir *

Magothy River Δ

Middle River Δ

Mid Chesapeake Bay:

Pooles Island to Bodkin Point Δ

Nanticoke River Δ

Northeast River Δ

Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Δ

Patuxent River Δ

Pocomoke River Δ *

Potomac River (tidal):

Mouth to 301 Bridge Δ

301 Bridge to DC Line Δ

Rhode & West Rivers Δ

Sassafras River Δ

Severn River Δ

South River Δ

Triadelphia Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions General Population

6

1

5

1

3

4

1 every other

month

1 every other

month

8

2

1 every other

month

8

5

6 6 6

4 4 4

1 1 1

2 2 2

2 2 1

2 2 2

6 5 3 Women 1 Children 2

6 5

8

1 1 every other

month

5 5

1 1

2 1

4 3

1 every other

month

1 every other

month

8 7

2 1

1 every other 1 every other

month month

8 7

5 5 Avoid

Avoid

9 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011

## Attachment 3

MDE Information Regarding Fish Advisory in the Back RiverRECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

Date: January 26, 2012

SUBJECT: Fish Advisory in the Back River (see attached pdf file)

FROM: Alicia Shultz

Hazard Ranking System Specialist

Tetra Tech EM Inc. (518) 356

‐ 3793 Alicia.Shultz@tetratech.com

TO: John Hill

Natural Resource Planner Maryland Department of the Environment (410) 537

‐ 3000 Jhill@mde.state.mde.com

Ms. Shultz contacted Mr. Hill about the attached Maryland Fishing Consumption Advisory and available

at: http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Marylande r/CitizensInfoCenterHome/Documents/www.mde.st
ate.md.us/assets/document/Maryland%20Fish%20Advisories%202011.pdf

. Mr. Hill indicated that the
advisory was an advisory and did not keep people from fishing and consuming fish within Back River.

The advisory was not posted on the Back River and was prepared because of the concentration of PCBs

and other contaminants in the fish species. The red avoid statement in the advisory is only for advisory

purposes. Only the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has the authority to close a fishery. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) which posted the advisory only has the
authority to advise and not to close a fishery. Also, the advisory only limits the consumption of white
perch in Back River. Therefore, the advisory does not advise not eating any fish from the Back River.

Mr. Hill is responsible for preparing the fishing advisories for MDE.

## Attachment 4

1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engine ers Wetlands Delineation Manual [excerpt]

### US Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment
Station



### Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition)



# Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual

by Environmental Laboratory

January 1987 - Final Report

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is UnlimitedThe following two letters used as part of the number designating technical reports of research published under the Wetlands Research Program identify the area under which the report was prepared:

Task Task

CP Critical Processes RE Restoration & Establishment
DE Delineation & Evaluation SM Stewardship & Management

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

### Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 January 1987



# Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual

by Environmental Laboratory

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

Final report

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000

# Contents

Preface to the On-Line Edition

........................................... v

Preface to the Original Edition

.......................................... vii

Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement

..................... ix

Part I: Introduction

.................................................... 1

Background

........................................................ 1 Purpose and Objectives

.............................................. 1 Scope

............................................................. 2 Organization

....................................................... 3

Use

............................................................... 5

Part II: Technical Guidelines

............................................ 9

Wetlands

.......................................................... 9 Deepwater Aquatic Habitats

.......................................... 10

Nonwetlands

...................................................... 11

Part III: Characteristics and Indicators of Hydrophytic Vegetation, Hydric Soils, and Wetland Hydrology

...................................... 12

Hydrophytic Vegetation

............................................. 12 Hydric Soils

....................................................... 20 Wetland Hydrology

................................................ 28

Part IV: Methods

..................................................... 35

Section A. Introduction

............................................. 35 Section B. Preliminary Data Gathering and Synthesis

.................... 36

Section C. Selection of Method

...................................... 44

Section D. Routine Determinations

................................... 45 Subsection 1 - Onsite Inspection Unnecessary

........................ 45 Subsection 2 - Onsite Inspection Necessary

.......................... 49 Areas Equal To or Less Than 5 Acres in Size

...................... 52

Areas Greater Than 5 Acres in Size

............................... 55

Subsection 3 - Combination of Levels 1 and 2

....................... 60 Section E. Comprehensive Determinations

............................. 61 Section F. Atypical Situations

....................................... 73 Subsection 1 - Vegetation

........................................ 74

iiSubsection 2 - Soils

............................................. 77

Appendix A: Glossary

................................................ A1

Appendix B: Blank and Example Data Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1

Appendix C: Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C1

Appendix D: Hydric Soils

............................................ D1 Subsection 3 - Hydrology

........................................ 80

Subsection 4 - Man-Induced Wetlands

.............................. 82

Section G. Problem Areas

........................................... 84

References

........................................................... 87

Bibliography

......................................................... 90

SF 298



## List of Figures

Figure 1. General schematic diagram of activities leading to a wetland/

nonwetland determination

.................................... 7

Figure 2. Generalized soil profile

..................................... 23

Figure 3. Organic soil

.............................................. 24

Figure 4. Gleyed soil

............................................... 26

Figure 5. Soil showing matrix (brown) and mottles (reddish-brown)

........ 26

Figure 6. Iron and manganese concretions

.............................. 27

Figure 7. Watermark on trees

........................................ 32

Figure 8. Absence of leaf litter

....................................... 33

Figure 9. Sediment deposit on plants

.................................. 33

Figure 10. Encrusted detritus

......................................... 33

Figure 11. Drainage pattern

........................................... 34

Figure 12. Debris deposited in stream channel

........................... 34

Figure 13. Flowchart of steps involved in making a wetland determina

tion when an onsite inspection is unnecessary

.................. 47

Figure 14. Flowchart of steps involved in making a routine wetland determination when an onsite visit is necessary

................. 50

Figure 15. General orientation of baseline and transects (dotted lines) in a hypothetical project area. Alpha characters represent different plant communities. All transects start at the midpoint of a baseline segment except the first, which was repositioned to include community type A

....... 56

iiiFigure 16. Flowchart of steps involved in making a comprehensive wetland determination (Section E)

............................ 63

Figure 17. General orientation of baseline and transects in a hypotheti

cal project area. Alpha characters represent different plant

communities. Transect positions were determined using a

random numbers table

...................................... 66



## List of Tables

Table 1. Plant Indicator Status Categories

............................. 14

Table 2. List of CE Preliminary Wetland Guides

....................... 15

Table 3. List of Ecological Profiles Produced by the FWS Biological Services Program

.......................................... 16

Table 4. List of Some Useful Taxonomic References

.................... 19

Table 5. Hydrologic Zones - Nontidal Areas

........................... 30

iv

# Appendix A Glossary

Active water table. A condition in which the zone of soil saturation fluctuates, resulting in periodic anaerobic soil conditions. Soils with an active water table often contain bright mottles and matrix chromas of 2 or less.

Adaptation. A modification of a species that makes it more fit for existence

under the conditions of its environment. These modifications are the result of genetic selection processes.

Adventitious roots. Roots found on plant stems in positions where they nor

mally do not occur.

Aerenchymous tissue. A type of plant tissue in which cells are unusually large and arranged in a manner that results in air spaces in the plant organ. Such tissues are often referred to as spongy and usually provide increased buoyancy.

Aerobic. A situation in which molecular oxygen is a part of the environment.

Anaerobic. A situation in which molecular oxygen is absent (or effectively so)

from the environment.

Aquatic roots. Roots that develop on stems above the normal position occupied by roots in response to prolonged inundation.

Aquic moisture regime. A mostly reducing soil moisture regime nearly free of dissolved oxygen due to saturation by ground water or its capillary fringe and occurring at periods when the soil temperature at 19.7 in. is greater than

5

Arched roots. Roots produced on plant stems in a position above the normal position of roots, which serve to brace the plant during and following periods of prolonged inundation.

Appendix A Glossar y A1 °C.Very poorly drained. Soils that are wet to the surface most of the time. These soils are wet enough to prevent the growth of important crops (except rice) unless artificially drained.

Watermark. A line on a tree or other upright structure that represents the maxi

mum static water level reached during an inundation event.

Water table. The upper surface of ground water or that level below which the soil is saturated with water. It is at least 6 in. thick and persists in the soil

for more than a few weeks.

Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

Wetland boundary. The point on the ground at which a shift from wetlands to nonwetlands or aquatic habitats occurs. These boundaries usually follow

contours.

Wetland determination. The process or procedure by which an area is adjudged

a wetland or nonwetland.

Wetland hydrology. The sum total of wetness characteristics in areas that are inundated or have saturated soils for a sufficient duration to support hydro

phytic vegetation.

Wetland plant association. Any grouping of plant species that recurs wherever

certain wetland conditions occur.

Wetland soil. A soil that has characteristics developed in a reducing atmos

phere, which exists when periods of prolonged soil saturation result in anaer

obic conditions. Hydric soils that are sufficiently wet to support hydrophytic vegetation are wetland soils.

Wetland vegetation. The sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. As used herein, hydro

phytic vegetation occurring in areas that also have hydric soils and wetland hydrology may be properly referred to as wetland vegetation.

Woody vine. See liana.

Xerophytic. A plant species that is typically adapted for life in conditions where a lack of water is a limiting factor for growth and/or reproduction. These species are capable of growth in extremely dry conditions as a result of mor

phological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptations.

A14 Appendix A Glossary