Deputy Secretary at Maryland Department of Environment Horacio Tablada, Program Manager Chris Ralston, and other members of the MDE met with Mayor Chris Cerino, Chestertown Town Council and the public Tuesday evening to describe the MDE approved oil remediation process that would be used to extract oil contaminants from the area around UM Shore Medical Center on Brown Street.
Deputy Secretary at Maryland Department of Environment Horacio Tablada
The heating oil spill occurred in 1986-1987 and residual oil has been kept from migrating downhill to the town’s water supply by using a host of “pump and treat” wells that extract oil and hydraulically keep any area fluids static.
It was noted by Town Utilities Manager Bob Sipes that when the pumps were turned off in 2012, oil was detected at the site’s monitoring wells.
Town Utilities Manager Bob Sipes
“I would like to express that the MDE concern has always been the protection of the public health and environment and to ensure that the citizens of Chestertown have clean water to drink and to ensure there is no contamination left in the ground,” Tablada said in his opening remarks.
The meeting, not required by law for MDE, highlighted and explained the reasoning behind the remediation process presented to the agency by contractors for UM Shore Regional Health, and approved with several changes, including keeping the pump and treat wells on during the process. The pump and treat wells were installed in the late 80s after the heating oil sill was detected.
The estimate for the amount of oil released into the ground has ranged from 5,000 to 160,00 gallons. 85,000 gallons have been retrieved through the pump and treat system.
According to EPA standards cited by Utilities Town Manager Robert Sipes, pump and treat systems historically only remove 50% of subsurface oil product. An argument has been made by Sipes and others, that if the 50% figure is accurate, and that 85,000 gallons have been removed, it’s possible that up to 80,000 gallons still exist.
“The pump and treat system that was operating before is not sustainable. Like most treatment systems, it runs its course,” Tablada said. He added that “pump and treat” systems are not meant to be a long-term solution for removing petroleum products from the ground. “It’s the mission of MDE to remove all the contaminants,” he said.
Site Engineer Chris Ralston displayed charts to show the site area and explain that there would be four priority zones where the surfactant Ivy-Sol would be injected into the pump and treat wells followed by the extraction of three to five times more liquid two days later. Then the area would be tested. Monthly monitoring and quarterly sampling would be made throughout the site.
Ivy-Sol surfactant is a non-toxic, soap-based solution used to loosen caked oil underground. When it is freed, the pump and treat wells extract the free-floating product.
“It could take several treatments and three to six months to completely remediate the site, followed by a monitoring phase,” he said.
Town Utilities Manager Robert Sipes listed his concerns with the proposal, and as published before in town council meetings and during a Spy interview, is primarily concerned that the testing procedure will give a false reading around the pump and treat sites. While the pump and treat wells will appear clean, oil can still exist elsewhere.
Questions from the audience included a statement from David Foster who submitted that the pump and treat wells should be kept running and used as a hydraulic curtain to best protect the town’s water supply in the long term and that the cost of maintaining them is minimal compared to the cost of having to build a new well water system for the town.
Town Council Ward 1 Councilwoman Liz Gross stated that the town has incurred at least $30,000 of un-reimbursed expenses dealing with the oil spill site and aired a concern over future financial liabilities and who would be responsible for them.
Attorney Michael Forlini, representing Chestertown, said that he would like to see a consent agreement made in partnership with the town, UM Shore Regional Health and the MDE to assure a measure of responsibility for the outcome of the remediation process.
MDE quashed the notion that just because a remediation site case is closed, it does not mean that they will not return if a threat is detected through future monitoring. Monitoring can last from one to five years depending on MDE’s assessment at the end of the remediation test.
Tablada said that if the remediation process did not MDE requirements that they could find themselves aback at another meeting with the town to discuss other options.
The video represents snapshots of a two and quarter hour meeting. The choices we made were not meant to exclude information but to provide key points made during the meeting.
A schedule for the process has not been determined as of yet. Tablada said that the town would be notified when the remediation process would take place. If minutes of the complete meeting become available, we will direct readers toward them.
Complete MDE documentation will be posted at the MDE site here. (Scroll to Kent County, Chestertown). It will be updated in the next few days.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.