Opinion ID: 1921947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Congress Street Mobil Site

Text: ¶ 8 DownEast also removed six underground oil storage tanks at its Congress Street Mobil site in Portland. Prior to the removal, DownEast's consultant, JBP, concluded that this site would similarly be targeted for baseline cleanup goals. A Department representative again concurred. ¶ 9 After the tanks were removed, JBP reported to the Department that three of the tanks had contaminated the surrounding soil. The Department representative evaluated the site and required that only saturated soils and free product be removed from the site in accordance with baseline cleanup goals. JBP also inspected the site for contamination, and observed that no saturated soils or any free product of any kind were present in the excavations. [2] These observations were communicated to DownEast. ¶ 10 Nevertheless, DownEast removed over 3000 tons of soil from the site, and the Department's representative issued several virgin petroleum letters to allow DownEast to send the soil to Commercial Recycling Systems without conducting hazardous waste testing. In its report, JBP described the DownEast's rationale for removing the soil: Additional soils requiring removal for the installation of a new facility were also transported off-site based primarily on petroleum contamination.... A total of 3,101.78 tons of soil was removed (primarily as a result[] of new construction specifications, not baseline cleanup levels) and transported to Commercial Paving in Scarborough. JBP did not note how much, if any, saturated soil was removed. ¶ 11 DownEast then filed its application with the Department for eligibility for reimbursement for the cleanup costs incurred at the Portland Mobil site. [3] Once again, the Department initially indicated that DownEast was eligible for reimbursement of eligible costs, but ultimately determined that none of DownEast's soil removal costs were eligible because there had been no saturated soil or free product found at the site. Accordingly, it concluded that DownEast was not entitled to any reimbursement from the Fund. ¶ 12 DownEast appealed both denials to the Board, which conducted a de novo hearing and reached the same conclusion as the Department. DownEast then appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the Board's decision. This appeal followed.