On June 9, 2026, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell filed suit against the owners and operators of an East Taunton gas station, accusing them of failing to report — and failing to contain — the release of more than 31,000 gallons of gasoline into the surrounding soil, groundwater, and air. State prosecutors are calling it the largest land-based gasoline release in the history of Southeastern Massachusetts.
For anyone who lives near a fuel station, owns commercial property with underground storage tanks, or operates a fuel system, this case is worth understanding. It is a textbook illustration of how environmental liability under Massachusetts law works — who is responsible, what the law requires, and what happens when the warning signs are ignored.
What Happened
According to the Attorney General’s complaint, gasoline began leaking from Amaro’s Market on Middleboro Avenue in East Taunton as early as April 2023 and continued through August 2023 — roughly five months. By the time the release was finally reported, the AGO alleges that at least 31,443 gallons of gasoline had escaped into the environment.
The numbers alone are staggering. To put it in perspective, that is enough gasoline to fill the tanks of more than 2,000 typical passenger cars. It did not vanish. It saturated the soil, mixed into the groundwater, and produced vapors that migrated into the air and into nearby buildings.
The two named defendants are Amaro’s Market, Inc. and its trustees, Two Brothers Realty Trust (collectively referred to in the complaint as “Amaro”), and Dependable Service Company, Inc., a Plymouth-based petroleum service company that the AGO describes as the operator of Amaro’s gasoline system.
The Warning Signs the State Says Were Ignored
The heart of the AGO’s case is not simply that a leak occurred. Leaks and equipment failures happen. The allegation is that the defendants had repeated, obvious notice that something was badly wrong and did not act on it.
The complaint points to a cluster of red flags. There were persistent gasoline odors at the station itself and in the basement of a neighboring property. There was a near-constant presence of gasoline and water in parts of the pump equipment that are supposed to stay dry. Fuel alarms went off repeatedly. And the station’s books did not add up — the AGO points to uncommonly high fuel deliveries and inventory discrepancies, meaning the station was paying for far more gasoline than its sales could account for.
Modern underground storage tank systems are engineered with a margin for exactly this kind of problem. Each pump sits above an impermeable catch basin, commonly called a sump, designed to collect leaking gasoline before it reaches the environment. The system also includes interstitial monitoring — sensors that detect liquid where there should be none and trigger a leak alarm.
According to reporting on the complaint, those protections were effectively overwhelmed. Liquid accumulated in and around the sumps, sometimes in large volumes, and the leak detection alarm activated almost continuously. The complaint alleges that the constant presence of liquid effectively defeated the interstitial monitoring system. In other words, the very safeguards meant to catch a leak early were drowned out — and, the state alleges, the people responsible for watching them did not respond as the law required.
The complaint also draws a sharp distinction between the two defendants. It alleges that Dependable knew the accumulating liquid was a mixture of water and gasoline, yet told the station’s owners it was merely water that needed periodic removal. The AGO’s position is that this does not let the station owners off the hook — under Massachusetts environmental law, owners carry their own independent responsibilities that cannot be delegated away.
The Public Safety Fallout
This was not a contained, low-stakes spill. When the release was finally reported in August 2023, the response reflected how dangerous the situation had become.
Gasoline vapors created a potential explosion risk at multiple locations around the station. Fumes detected in a nearby manhole were serious enough to require a round-the-clock fire watch in the area for several days. Testing performed in August and September 2023 found significant levels of gasoline vapors inside nearby residential properties, and gasoline mixed into the groundwater.
The health concerns are real. Exposure to gasoline fumes can cause lung irritation along with confusion, disorientation, headaches, blurred vision, and dizziness. Soil and groundwater contamination can also harm plants and wildlife in the affected area. The contaminated site spans roughly three-quarters of an acre, and cleanup of a release this size can stretch on for years.
The Law: Chapter 21E and the UST Regulations
This lawsuit rests on two pillars of Massachusetts environmental law, and they are worth understanding because they apply far beyond this one gas station.
The first is the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act, known as Chapter 21E. This is the cornerstone of the Commonwealth’s environmental cleanup framework. It does two things that matter enormously here. First, it imposes a duty to promptly notify the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) when a reportable release occurs, and to take immediate action to stop and contain it. Second, and just as important, Chapter 21E is a strict liability statute. That means a responsible party can be held liable for the cost of cleanup regardless of whether it intended the harm or was even negligent. Owning the property or operating the system from which a release occurs is generally enough to put you on the hook.
The reach of Chapter 21E is also broad. Liability typically extends to current owners and operators of the site, which is precisely why both Amaro and Dependable are named — and why Dependable’s alleged reassurance that the liquid was “just water” does not, in the state’s view, shield the property owners from their own obligations.
The second pillar is the Commonwealth’s Underground Storage Tank (UST) Systems regulations. These rules govern how fuel storage systems must be maintained, monitored, and operated. The AGO alleges that in the months leading up to the leak, Amaro failed to comply with these regulations by failing to ensure the system’s alarms were working properly, failing to properly address leaks, and failing to keep the system clear of liquid and debris. The UST regulations exist precisely to catch problems before they become 31,000-gallon disasters; the allegation here is that the system designed to provide an early warning was not being properly maintained.
What the State Is Asking For
The Attorney General is asking the court to order Amaro and Dependable to do several things. The defendants would have to pay for the cost of the cleanup, remediate the contamination, pay civil penalties, and comply going forward with both Chapter 21E and its regulations and the UST regulations.
It is worth emphasizing that these are allegations. A complaint reflects one side’s account, and the defendants have not yet had their day in court. They are entitled to a defense and to a presumption that the state must prove its case.
Why This Case Matters Beyond East Taunton
A 31,000-gallon spill in a single town might seem like a local story. But the legal principles driving this lawsuit reach into situations that affect a great many people across Connecticut and Massachusetts.
For property owners and operators of fuel systems, the lesson is direct and uncomfortable: you cannot outsource your way out of liability. Hiring a service company to manage your fuel system is sensible and often necessary, but under Chapter 21E the owner retains independent legal duties. If your contractor tells you a recurring alarm or a pool of liquid is “nothing to worry about,” that reassurance may not protect you when the AG’s office or MassDEP comes calling. Documenting alarms, demanding answers, and escalating unresolved problems is not just good business — it is risk management with real legal consequences.
For neighbors and nearby residents, this case is a reminder that contamination is not always something you can see. Gasoline vapors that infiltrate a basement, or fuel that mixes silently into groundwater, can pose health and safety risks long before anyone connects the dots. Persistent fuel odors near a station, in a basement, or around a manhole are worth taking seriously and reporting. Residents who suffer property damage or health effects from a release of this kind may have their own avenues for recovery, separate from the state’s enforcement action.
For anyone watching how Massachusetts handles environmental harm, the case signals that the AG’s Environmental Protection Division and MassDEP are prepared to pursue not only the property owner but every party in the operational chain. The breadth of the response here — multiple MassDEP bureaus, emergency responders, air and waste compliance staff — reflects how seriously the Commonwealth treats unreported releases.
The Bottom Line
The Amaro’s Market case is, at bottom, a story about warning signs and what the law expects you to do when you see them. Massachusetts gives owners and operators of fuel systems clear tools — alarms, monitoring, inventory reconciliation, sumps — to catch a leak early. When those tools are ignored or allowed to fail, the consequences are not just a costly cleanup. They are strict legal liability, civil penalties, and, as this case shows, a public health emergency that can put an entire neighborhood at risk.
If you own or operate property with underground storage tanks, or if you believe your home or business has been affected by a fuel release, the time to ask questions is before a small problem becomes a 31,000-gallon one.
Leave a Reply