Opinion ID: 203878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Injunction Opinion and Order

Text: The court began by reciting a number of factual findings. It found that Esso had, until October of 2008, operated the service station [6] and owned one diesel and two gasoline USTs, as well as related pumps, pipelines, and servicing equipment, on the property. In 1992, Esso replaced the existing steel diesel UST with a fiberglass tank, as it did for the two steel gasoline tanks in 1998. In connection with the 1998 replacement of the gasoline USTs, Esso also removed some of the soil surrounding the tanks. The district court expressed concern that lead contamination had potentially occurred during this 1998 tank replacement, finding that the steel tanks had held leaded gasoline for many years before unleaded gasoline became available in 1988. The court stated that Esso's excavation and disposition of the soil and its failure to acknowledge the possibility that the soil was contaminated reflected willful blindness indicative of a potential RCRA violation. Besides the potential for lead contamination, the district court also found that the service station facility and equipment discharged hazardous petroleum-related products and discarded hazardous waste and related contaminants into the surrounding soils and groundwater. The court concluded that Esso had known about the contamination since at least 1993. [7] The court then observed that in November 2001, Esso hired Environmental Resource Technologies (ERTEC) to perform a subsoils evaluation of the site, the results of which became available in November 2003. The report found levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) of 3,290 mg/kg in the soil above the groundwater surrounding the diesel tank, which exceeded the acceptable 100 mg/kg limit set by EQB. The report further recommended that the diesel tank and pipeline be tested in accordance with EQB regulations, a test which, the court found, was never performed. In September 2006, Esso again hired ERTEC, this time to perform an assessment known as a Phase II Environmental Evaluation. The ensuing report indicated that the groundwater below the service station was contaminated with benzene, [8] a hazardous petroleum-related hydrocarbon which is heavily regulated by the EPA due to its known carcinogenic properties. [9] The court noted that, although federal regulations establish a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for benzene of 5 mg/l in groundwater and .5 mg/l in drinking water, the Phase II report revealed concentrations as high as 2,800 mg/l. The report concluded that the contamination was apparently related to discharges emanating from the southeast area of the site, where the USTs are located, and the northeast area, which contains the grease traps. According to the district court, a review of the EQB UST Program File for the Dolores Service Station confirmed that Esso had never reported the contamination documented in the Phase II report to the EQB, and this non-reporting likely explained why the station was not listed in the EQB's Leaking Underground Storage Tank facility list. The court determined that Esso had never conducted the tests required to investigate the extent of the petroleum-related contamination or performed an organic lead analysis on the property. For this reason, the court concluded that Esso had distanced itself from its duty to confront the contaminated status of the property and ha[d] only taken bland mitigation measures, without committing itself to removing the contamination as required. In sum, the court stated that Esso appear[ed] to be in continuous violation[ ] of EQB rules and their federal counterparts, and that Esso's derelict conduct bordered on egregious, reflecting a goal to hopefully duck legal responsibility or have others, such as the Plaintiffs or another incoming petroleum company, deal with the problem generated by Esso's actions. It noted that the costs associated with pre-cleanup studies and actual cleanup can reach astronomical monetary figures, and Esso must bear responsibility as required by law. After making these factual and legal findings, the district court explicitly stated that it saw no need to make a boilerplate exposition of irreparable harm and injunction law, because it is patently clear that this case fit[ ] the most restrictive measure for that remedy. The actual order itself directed the parties to submit recommendations for companies that could perform a comprehensive site assessment before the court further orders Esso to remediate soil and groundwater contamination at the site originating from . . . petroleum-based products dispensed at the service station between 1982 and October 31, 2008. [10] The court then scheduled a hearing to consider the implementation of the comprehensive site assessment at Esso's expense. The order concluded by declaring: In addition, and subject to the results of the scheduled ... hearing, Esso is not only enjoined and restrained from contributing by action or inaction to further environmental contamination at the site, but Esso will be ordered, depending on the results of the Comprehensive Site Assessment, to pay for all necessary testing, corrective actions, and removal of all pollution and contamination within the site and into adjacent areas as previously described.