CHESTERTOWN — Ahead of the mayor and council meeting here on Monday night, Aug. 17, when a proposed amendment to the town’s 2016 agreement with the University of Maryland Shore Medical Center at Chestertown and the University of Maryland Medical System [collectively the “hospital”] related to the decades-old spill of heating oil leaked underground will be discussed, the Town of Chestertown sent out a news release that also is posted on its website.
Monday’s meeting will begin at 6 p.m., preceded by a closed-door session at 4:30 p.m.
Because of the broad public interest, the meeting will he held on the second floor of town hall to accommodate anticipated larger than usual attendance.
The 1980s leak, which predated the Chestertown hospital’s affiliation with the University of Maryland Medical System and Easton-based UM Shore Regional Health, went undetected and unreported for years.
It’s not known how large the spill was, but going back to media coverage from at least a decade ago all parties agreed that about 83,000 gallons of oil have been recovered from a spill that was at least twice that amount.
The spill site is uphill from the town’s wells and less than a mile away, causing concern about the safety of the town’s drinking water supply.
In the news release dated Friday, Aug. 14, the town stated that it was taking “additional steps to strengthen long-term groundwater monitoring and protect the community’s public water supply” through a proposed amendment to its 10-year-old agreement with the University of Maryland Shore Regional Health.
Under the proposed amendment, the responsibility for testing seven existing sentinel monitoring wells will be transferred from the hospital to the town.
The proposed amendment preserves the existing 2016 agreement and its protections while allowing the town to continue monitoring after the hospital completed its required three-year post-remediation monitoring period.
“The Town believes continued monitoring is prudent following detections of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons–Deisel Range Organics (TPH-DRO) and naphthalene in one sentinel well,” the news release states.
Concentrations have not reached levels requiring responsive action under the 2016 agreement, according to the news release.
The town plans to initially conduct quarterly sampling of all seven wells at an estimated cost of $5,800 per event, including laboratory analysis.
Based on results, subsequent monitoring may rotate among four wells at approximately $4,500 per event, while wells detecting naphthalene or TPH-DRO will remain subject to quarterly monitoring, according to the news release.
The mayor and council previously authorized installing three to four additional sentinel monitoring wells to expand monitoring across a broader area.
Installation is estimated at $17,500, including permitting, drilling and environmental oversight.
“Together, the existing and new wells will provide Chestertown with additional data to evaluate groundwater conditions and proactively protect its drinking water resources,” the news release states.
Printed here are questions and answers provided by the town regarding the proposed amendment to the 2016 agreement.
QUESTION: What is the role of the proposed amendment to the 2016 town-hospital agreement?
ANSWER: The proposed amendment provides for the transfer of ownership and responsibility for the seven sentinel monitoring wells from the hospital to the town and ensures that the obligations and conditions set forth in the 2016 town-hospital agreement remain in full effect and enforceable.
QUESTION: Why does the town need to execute this proposed amendment?
ANSWER: This proposed amendment is not intended to create a new agreement but rather to preserve the framework established in the 2016 town-hospital agreement.
The hospital has fulfilled its obligation to conduct three years of post-remediation monitoring, and the Maryland Department of Environment [MDE] did not extend the monitoring period. As a result, the hospital has no further obligation to continue sampling or maintaining the sentinel monitoring wells.
The town’s view is that continued monitoring of those wells supports the purpose of the 2016 town-hospital agreement in providing data about the presence of the contaminants of concern in the samples.
The town has expressed concern to MDE and the hospital regarding continued detections of TPHDRO and naphthalene in one sentinel well and the potential for increasing trends that could affect the town’s water supply.
Although concentrations have not reached the levels requiring responsive action, the hospital, in recognition of these concerns, has agreed to the transfer. This will allow the town to continue sampling and monitoring the sentinel monitoring wells under town ownership and at its sole expense, subject to the terms and conditions of the proposed amendment.
QUESTION: Does the proposed amendment eliminate or dilute the indemnity given by the hospital to the town under the 2016 town-hospital agreement?
ANSWER: No.
The proposed amendment explicitly states that the 2016 agreement remains in effect, and the indemnity from the hospital to the town in the agreement is intact.
Additional protection also is offered by MDE’s final “Closure Letter,” dated Nov. 25, 2025, concerning the hospital. As stated in MDE’s letter: “This letter is not a waiver or limitation of MDE’s right to take enforcement or other action in the future based upon contamination at and around the site. MDE’s Oil Control Program and the State of Maryland retain all authority and rights to seek all available relief, including equitable relief and damages of any nature, such as compensatory and natural resource damages, for contamination at and around the site.”
QUESTION: Will the transferred sentinel monitoring wells be closed in three years?
ANSWER: Under the proposed amendment, the town may retain the sentinel monitoring wells for up to three years before decommissioning. At the end of that period, the town’s environmental consultant will evaluate the monitoring data, with a focus on TPH-DRO and naphthalene trends, to determine whether continued monitoring is warranted.
Monitoring can extend beyond three years if concentrations exceed the detection trigger levels established in the 2016 agreement.
QUESTION: Why does the proposed amendment provide an immunity running from the town to the hospital?
ANSWER: This is a limited immunity that is common in transfers of ownership or responsibility. It protects the original owner from liability for incidents occurring after the transfer, when the property or equipment is under the recipient’s control, for example, an injury occurring while the sentinel monitoring well is being monitored or maintained.
This provision does not affect the hospital’s core indemnification obligations to the town under the 2016 agreement.
QUESTION: With MDE’s case closure and the end of the hospital’s groundwater monitoring obligations, what additional monitoring measures can the town consider?
ANSWER: The town considers groundwater monitoring essential to protecting this vital resource. With no TPHDRO trigger levels detected under the 2016 agreement, and MDE confirming the hospital has fulfilled its obligations, the hospital has agreed to transfer the seven sentinel monitoring wells to the town.
This is beneficial to the community as a whole.
The town will also install additional wells to support continued monitoring, which is essential to protecting the community’s water supply.
QUESTION: What will it cost the town to maintain the existing sentinel monitoring wells?
ANSWER: The initial quarterly sampling will include all seven monitoring wells and is expected to require one day to complete, at an estimated cost of $5,800 for the event, which includes laboratory results and a summary memo.
Based on the results, subsequent quarterly sampling may rotate among four of the seven wells at a cost of $4,500/event.
Any well with a detection of naphthalene or TPHDRO will remain subject to quarterly monitoring.
QUESTION: Why is the town proposing additional sentinel monitoring wells?
ANSWER: The monitoring program, which was developed more than 10 years ago, will be expanded to cover a broader area based on the results of recent sampling and analysis, while allowing the town to continue monitoring over the long term.
QUESTION: What will it cost the town to install new sentinel monitoring wells?
ANSWER: The cost to retain a licensed Maryland well driller and install three (3) new sentinel monitoring wells constructed similarly to the existing sentinel wells is $ 17,500. This includes permitting, drilling and oversight by the town’s environmental consultant during drilling and well installation.
The wells would consist of 2-inch diameter PVC well screen and casing installed to a depth of 40 feet below ground surface.
