1. Introduction

On June 14, 2022, inspectors from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arrived at Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc., a gas station located at 1000 Dual Highway (Route 40) in Hagerstown, Maryland. What they found was a story of environmental oversight, and the possible dangers to public health when corporate accountability is overshadowed by the pursuit of profit. According to the EPA, the facility had repeatedly failed to investigate or report signs that one of its underground gasoline tanks—Tank 2—might be leaking. Over a span of several weeks in May and June of 2022, the monitoring system reportedly registered fourteen continuous statistical leak detection (CSLD) “FAIL” signals without any documented corrective action, reporting to state authorities, or immediate investigation.

This series of infractions is particularly alarming in an time when robust corporate ethics and corporate social responsibility are expected of those whose operations could pose a significant health, environmental, or economic fallout risk. Under federal and Maryland-specific laws, owners and operators of USTs must promptly investigate any warnings of a potential fuel leak. Such regulations exist for good reason: leaked gasoline can contaminate soil and groundwater, posing acute dangers to public health in the short term (e.g., explosion risk and exposure to toxic vapors) and chronic risks (like carcinogenic compounds reaching local water supplies).

The central storyline of this case is straightforward: the station had an automatic tank gauge (ATG) system that flagged a possible problem with Tank 2 on repeated occasions, yet the operator seemingly ignored these fails for nearly a month. By the time EPA inspectors arrived in mid-June, at least thirteen consecutive FAIL alerts, plus an additional fail report the station later disclosed, had gone unreported and uninvestigated. The allegations crystallize a grim point: the station either overlooked or bypassed essential protective protocols.

Such behavior underscores a deeper reality: in neoliberal capitalism, corporations often operate within a profit-driven framework that can incentivize cutting corners. The violations at Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. reflect far more than just a local compliance breakdown; they speak to systemic issues of corporate corruption, corporate greed, inadequate regulatory checks, and the looming threat of corporations’ dangers to public health, all within an economic order that prizes maximized returns to shareholders.

In the sections that follow, we will peel back the layers of this case and place them in a broader social, economic, and political context. We will examine how the station’s misconduct fits into a pattern of corporate playbooks, highlight the crucial regulatory oversights that may have emboldened such behavior, and explore the economic fallout for local communities when environmental protections fail. We will also delve into the station’s possible public relations maneuvers, the cost-benefit calculations that may have incentivized ignoring regulatory rules, and what this entire scandal reveals about the broader phenomenon of wealth disparity and corporate ethics in America today. Our purpose is not just to illustrate a single violation but to highlight how corporate power can clash with public interest when regulations—designed to guard public health and the environment—are disregarded.

Over the course of the next seven sections, we will explore in detail:

1. Corporate Intent Exposed – Probing whether the station’s omissions were accidental or the outcome of a corporate structure that prioritizes profits over compliance.
2. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It – Laying out the strategic and systematic nature of compliance failures, how “defective equipment” explanations often surface, and the typical day-to-day tactics that mask or delay compliance.
3. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation – Examining the notion of cost-benefit analyses in corporate malfeasance, particularly regarding ignoring or suppressing equipment alerts.
4. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing – Investigating how regulatory capture, delayed inspections, or budget constraints may contribute to a culture of impunity.
5. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug – Understanding why, under neoliberal capitalism, these behaviors might be intrinsic to the business model rather than just a one-off failing.
6. The PR Playbook of Damage Control – Surveying how corporations typically respond once allegations surface, including rhetorical devices, partial mea culpas, and “we have changed our procedures” statements.
7. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest – Asking what the community wants and needs for true corporate accountability, and whether, in a system that encourages profit maximization, we can ever fully trust the largest businesses to guard our collective well-being.

We begin with a more direct look at the legal complaint against Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. and how the legal source details each point of misconduct. From there, we will expand outward into the broader conversation about corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, economic fallout, and local community impacts—touchstones that remind us these are not just bureaucratic missteps, but actions with real-world consequences for people’s health, environment, and livelihoods.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

When it comes to corporate ethics in the context of environmental regulation, the line between a genuine “mistake” and a knowing violation can be perilously thin. In the official Consent Agreement and Final Order, the EPA laid out a series of infractions that reveal which appears to be more than a trifling oversight:

• Fourteen “FAIL” Reports: Between May 19, 2022, and June 13, 2022, the Gas & Go’s automatic tank gauge, a Veeder-Root TLS-350 system, continuously reported suspected tank leaks in Tank 2.
• No Investigation: The station did not contact service technicians or notify the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) within the mandated two-hour window upon receiving these reports.
• Uncorrected Programming Error: The station later blamed a programming issue on the fails, suggesting that the system was not calibrated to handle “manifolded tanks.” While this explanation might be credible in part, it remains unclear why repeated consecutive fails did not spark immediate concern.

Those details matter a great deal. Under RCRA Subtitle I—specifically designed to prevent and detect leaks from underground storage tanks—operators are held responsible for taking immediate corrective actions when a suspected release is indicated. Maryland regulations (COMAR Title 26, Subtitle 10) echo these requirements. Failing to investigate possible leaks or to immediately report them to regulators is a serious lapse: if real leaks were occurring, each day that passes without investigation places local soil, groundwater, and communities at increasing risk.

On the surface, it might seem that Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. simply made an error, or that no actual leak took place. But from the POV point of corporate accountability, the crucial question becomes: Was the station deliberately ignoring these alerts, or was it a matter of operational incompetence? The EPA neither conclusively states that the station intentionally suppressed the warnings, nor does it present direct evidence that the station knew for certain there was a leak and chose to do nothing. Yet the repeated nature of the failures raises eyebrows. As an attorney might argue, ignoring a single fail could be chalked up to a glitch, but ignoring repeated daily fails for nearly a month suggests an institutional disregard.

Profit Over Prevention

In the broader world of neoliberal capitalism, where shareholder returns and monthly revenue targets often drive managerial decisions, environmental regulatory requirements can sometimes be relegated to an afterthought. Particularly for smaller stations that face razor-thin margins, shutting down a tank for inspection can translate to direct financial losses. Even if we do not have a precise record of the company’s internal communications, we have seen countless examples (historically and in ongoing controversies across the petroleum retail industry) where cost-saving or revenue-protecting measures lead to corner-cutting. If Tank 2 had to be taken offline, the station might have had to reduce its product offerings or undergo expensive repairs. The station might also have feared that an official notification to MDE would bring about a site shutdown or further scrutiny. In some corners of the petroleum industry, there is a phenomenon known as “run to failure,” where equipment is operated until it breaks, simply because the business calculation suggests paying for the eventual penalty might be cheaper than paying upfront for thorough repairs and investigations.

All of this begs the question: Did Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. weigh the risk of a potential penalty against the guaranteed revenue loss that might come from investigating or reporting the leaks? We may never know the exact internal calculus, but the EPA paints a story that is consistent with these broader patterns of corporate greed and short-term profit maximization over compliance with environmental norms.

Potential Impact on Public Health

The most important piece of the puzzle is the threat to public health and local communities. If Tank 2 was indeed leaking gasoline, the harm could be severe. Gasoline contains benzene, a known carcinogen, and other compounds hazardous to groundwater. Once leaked petroleum products migrate through soil, they can wind up in local water supplies. Over time, such pollution can cause myriad health problems and degrade an area’s property values, driving wealth disparity. Property owners might discover that their land is contaminated, scaring away potential buyers or leading to expensive remediation measures. Nearby residents might fear for their drinking water or experience a decline in overall water quality. For many small communities, the presence of a polluting business can lead to ongoing social justice concerns—especially if the impacted neighborhoods are lower-income or historically marginalized.

By highlighting these failures to respond to leak alarms, the EPA has underscored the seriousness of corporate responsibility in UST management. For the average consumer, it is easy to focus on the convenience of cheap, readily available gasoline—yet behind that convenience stands a complex network of environmental and regulatory requirements. These are the guardrails that keep communities safe from potential dangers to public health.

Moral Hazards and Lax Oversight

As the story unfolds in the subsequent sections, a recurring theme emerges: the possibility that a corporate actor might neglect essential obligations because the perceived penalties are too small or the chance of being caught is too slim. These moral hazards arise when a cost-benefit calculation in a deregulated or poorly enforced environment leads to the conclusion that paying fines may be a lesser burden than halting operations or meeting higher compliance standards.

In this sense, the failure by Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. to handle repeated “FAIL” messages exemplifies a broader phenomenon of corporate corruption in the form of inaction and willful neglect. The power imbalance becomes evident: local communities rely on the station to handle its business ethically, while the station relies on the region’s thirst for accessible fuel. Meanwhile, if the station underestimates the risk or expects a minimal fine relative to its revenue, it has little incentive to prioritize remediation.

Ultimately, these oversights speak to the station’s potential corporate intent: if not outright malicious, it could be described as deeply irresponsible. The next section examines what this oversight looks like in practice: a corporate playbook that might allow companies to “get away with it” for as long as possible.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

One might wonder how an operation can ignore so many “FAIL” signals without quickly attracting the attention of inspectors or local regulators. The truth is, many corporations—even relatively small-scale ones—develop a kind of informal or tacit “playbook” that enables them to sidestep oversight, often in subtle ways that straddle the boundary between ethically dubious and outright illegal. While the EPA’s complaint does not provide explicit insight into the precise decisions made at Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc., the pattern of allegations reflects, in broad terms, the strategies regularly employed by corporations to minimize regulatory blowback.

Strategy 1: Dismiss Alarms as “False Positives”

An important piece of the gas station’s defense was that the Veeder-Root TLS-350 was not “programmed” correctly for manifolded tanks, supposedly leading to false fails during times of high gasoline sales or product deliveries. In many past cases, whether dealing with industrial facilities or smaller operators, companies have used claims of “equipment malfunction” or “false positives” to explain away repeated alarming signals. The question is whether the claimed error should have triggered an immediate service call or a recalibration to confirm that no actual leak was occurring. Instead, it appears it took from May 19, 2022, to July 18, 2022, before a reprogramming fix was documented. That nearly two-month period saw no formal report to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), despite state requirements to report suspected releases within two hours.

Companies across various industries might adopt this approach—where a day-to-day manager or clerk is instructed (officially or unofficially) to ignore alarms, or to label them “recurring false positives,” until a certain threshold is reached. Often these local staff do not have direct lines of communication with environmental compliance officers, and thus slip into a pattern of ignoring the daily bleeps and error readouts.

Strategy 2: Defer, Delay, and Distract

The next typical play in the corporate playbook is to defer any fix or compliance step. In official statements, a company might claim they were “in the process” of investigating potential malfunctions, or that they were waiting for a specialized contractor. In the Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. complaint, the record notes that the reprogramming action to address the alleged ATG glitch did not occur until July 18, 2022—a full month after the last recorded fail on June 13. This delay might reflect standard logistical challenges, or it could be a calculated gamble: each day the station remains operational while ignoring the potential leak is another day’s worth of sales that might otherwise be lost if the tank were shut down. If no major problem emerges, it’s business as usual, and maybe no one notices.

Companies also sometimes use distractions—remedial steps that look good on paper but do not address the core issue. For instance, a station might do a quick in-house check of equipment to see if “anything looks off.” Because some of these monitoring technologies are complex, a superficial check can be inconclusive, yet it permits management to assert that they have been “investigating.”

Strategy 3: Downplay the Risks in Internal Communications

Although the complaint does not reveal internal documents or emails of Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc., parallels from other UST cases often show a pattern: internal memos highlight the desire to avoid regulatory entanglement and potential shutdowns. Staff might share a sense that “we can manage these alarms ourselves.” They may express confidence that no actual leak is present, especially if a small sample or quick test is negative. At times, mid-level managers or even frontline workers are told by corporate to keep the matter in-house because official notification to regulators would “unnecessarily alarm the public” or “trigger expensive interventions.”

Strategy 4: Rely on Regulatory Gaps and Infrequent Inspections

Regulatory agencies often lack sufficient resources for unannounced or frequent inspections. For many smaller gas stations, once they pass one round of inspection, they might expect only sporadic visits for several years. In the Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. case, the significant date is June 14, 2022, when the EPA conducted its onsite inspection. One wonders: if that inspection had been postponed or canceled, how long would the station have continued operating with potential issues flagged by daily FAIL reports?

Critics point out that this phenomenon is symptomatic of neoliberal capitalism and the broader push for deregulation. Budget cuts to environmental agencies and reliance on “self-reporting” create an environment where corporate malfeasance may continue under the radar until a catastrophic event occurs. The fact that an alarm system was triggered is a testament to at least some attempt at corporate social responsibility by installing an ATG in the first place. But if the signals are ignored, the technology’s purpose is undermined.

Strategy 5: Offer Partial Compliance or Retroactive Explanations

When the station finally addressed the repeated FAIL messages, they told the EPA that the fails were caused by the system not being configured to handle manifolded tanks. While that explanation might be technically accurate, it highlights a common approach: once faced with direct evidence, the company tries to retcon a plausible (if partial) explanation. They may or may not provide documentation of regular calibrations or how they train staff to respond to ATG alarms. Indeed, the official Consent Agreement references an invoice from July 18, 2022 that documented the reprogramming fix. All these details might be offered retroactively to demonstrate an eventual remedy, overshadowing the fact that critical steps mandated by law—i.e., investigating suspected leaks and notifying authorities within two hours—were initially neglected.

Consequences for Local Communities

Within this “how they got away with it” narrative, it can be easy to lose sight of the real losers: the surrounding community and environment. By ignoring repeated alerts or attributing them to a glitch, the station left open the possibility that an actual leak (if present) could have continued for weeks. Local residents would typically have no idea unless a neighbor smelled fumes or water contamination surfaced. The corollary is an erosion of trust in corporate accountability measures, as the public starts to suspect that corners are being cut in pursuit of profit.

Such a scenario exemplifies the broader societal risk of corporate pollution and underscores how local communities—especially those lacking the resources for independent oversight—are vulnerable. Indeed, the entire premise of installing underground storage tank leak detection systems is to catch problems early, before they morph into large-scale contamination events. Yet for detection to be effective, it relies on an immediate, transparent, and thorough corporate response. If the “playbook” is to skirt or ignore these alerts, the entire system fails.

The Cycle Continues

Overall, this playbook—ignore, postpone, deny, eventually fix when pressed—has become a pernicious cycle in certain segments of the corporate world under a framework of neoliberal capitalism. Without substantial changes in how regulations are enforced or how the economic incentives are aligned, we risk repeated episodes where corporations can hide behind claims of “false alarms” or “programming errors” to persist in potentially harmful behavior. The next section takes a closer look at the financial angle of such decisions, exploring how ignoring environmental requirements can become part of a profit-maximizing strategy, and how “crime pays” might not be hyperbole after all.

---

4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation

The idea that a corporation might find it more financially advantageous to pay a government penalty than to comply proactively with regulations is not new. It traces back to a very basic cost-benefit analysis: if compliance costs exceed the expected penalty or the probability of getting caught is small, then ignoring the law can be profitable. This concept is especially relevant in the context of environmental regulations and underscores the systemic failings inherent in the neoliberal capitalist framework.

Calculating the Costs and Benefits

In the Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. case, the EPA and Maryland regulations specify that any suspected leak must be reported within two hours, with immediate investigations to follow. Investigations might involve taking the tank temporarily out of service, hiring specialized technicians to perform tightness testing, or even shutting down the site until the suspected release is resolved. These measures come with direct costs—loss of revenue from the inactive pump—and indirect costs, such as negative publicity or damage to the company’s reputation. Meanwhile, ignoring the alarms might have allowed the station to continue business as usual for weeks, capturing significant revenue in a period of elevated gas prices.

From the vantage point of corporate greed, management might weigh the daily profits from operating all pumps against the theoretical penalty for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle I. The official Consent Agreement sets a $10,219 civil penalty for multiple counts of failing to investigate and report the leak detection fails, which presumably includes statutory adjustments for seriousness and good faith. One can see how, if the station makes thousands of dollars each day in gas sales, continuing operations for weeks while ignoring the alarms might result in a net financial gain, even when factoring in the eventual penalty. This is the essence of “crime pays”—the fine may be less than or roughly equal to the money made by flouting the law.

Low Probability of Detection

Another dimension is the likelihood of being caught. Federal and state environmental agencies do not have the staff to inspect every underground storage tank operation frequently. For smaller stations, an inspection might happen only once every few years or in response to complaints. This relative scarcity of oversight creates an environment in which ignoring “FAIL” alarms seems low-risk. If an owner or operator thinks no one will know unless they volunteer the information, they have a built-in incentive to keep quiet.

In the Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. incident, the station was unlucky from a corporate-cost perspective that the EPA happened to conduct a site visit in mid-June 2022. One wonders, if the inspection had not occurred, might the station have quietly handled the reprogramming in July and moved on without penalty?

Externalizing the Costs to the Public

From an ethical standpoint, the station’s actions (or inaction, rather) externalize the potential costs of a leak onto the broader community and the environment. Residents bear the risk of contamination, and taxpayers fund the state or federal authorities who might later clean up a spill. Wealth disparity can deepen when residents in lower-income areas already have limited means to advocate for themselves or to relocate if groundwater contamination occurs. Corporate irresponsibility not only places them in harm’s way but also perpetuates cycles of environmental injustice.

It is also worth noting that many municipalities rely on local water sources, so if contamination goes undetected for long enough, entire systems might need costly interventions. Such infrastructure burdens eventually come back to the public, while the corporate actor responsible may face only a limited penalty.

The Broader Political Economy of Deregulation

Under neoliberal capitalism, there has been a sustained push toward deregulation, with the argument that markets are more efficient when they are free from overly burdensome government rules. However, the Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. allegations highlight the dark side of this approach. When regulatory oversight is underfunded and compliance burdens are not meaningfully enforced, the rational business decision might be to flout the law—especially if ignoring fail signals yields extra revenue.

I argue that such an environment fosters corporate corruption and encourages “good apples” to behave just as badly as the “bad apples,” because the competitive marketplace punishes those who spend more on safety and compliance. If everyone else is ignoring minor alarms, then being the only station that invests in thorough, routine leak checks might force higher gas prices at that location, causing customers to go elsewhere. This race-to-the-bottom dynamic is precisely what well-enforced regulations are meant to avoid.

Social Justice and Public Health Implications

When “crime pays,” it is often communities that carry the greatest risk. In the event that Tank 2 was actually leaking, the potential contamination could lead to significant public health issues, from elevated cancer risks (due to benzene and other toxic compounds in gasoline) to widespread community anxiety about water quality. Small towns can see their property values decline and their local economies destabilized if news spreads that soil or groundwater contamination has occurred.

For people living paycheck to paycheck, the costs of dealing with potential medical bills or relocation, if necessary, can be devastating. This scenario further exacerbates wealth disparity, as families with fewer resources cannot just pick up and move to a safer area. Thus, when corporations choose to externalize these risks, the brunt is often borne by those least able to shoulder it, magnifying social injustice.

Why the System Tolerates It

To fully understand why a phenomenon like the Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. violations can happen, we must return to the structural drivers. Regulatory agencies are often short-staffed. Civil penalties under the RCRA, while they can be large, are typically overshadowed by the economic scale of the petroleum industry. Meanwhile, courts may be reluctant to impose maximum fines or to hold small operators to the same standard as large corporations, believing that family-owned businesses might be crushed by large penalties. This leads to a persistent cycle where:

1. Companies risk ignoring compliance to cut costs.
2. Agencies can only inspect so many facilities each year, so many infractions go undetected.
3. Penalties—when eventually imposed—may be less than the money saved by avoiding compliance.
4. The cycle repeats.

Ultimately, we see that the story of ignoring leak detection fails at Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. is not an anomaly; it is the direct outcome of a system in which the rules of neoliberal capitalism permit (or even encourage) cost-cutting at the expense of environmental stewardship. The next section, “System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing,” will explore why these compliance lapses can slip through regulatory nets for so long and what structural barriers hamper effective oversight.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

The official record in this case shows that it was not until June 14, 2022—nearly a month after the first fail alarms—that EPA Region 3 inspectors visited the facility. In a perfect world, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) would have been notified within two hours of any suspected leak, which in theory should have prompted immediate follow-up. But that did not occur. From an outsider’s perspective, it appears that the regulatory framework either missed or delayed the detection of a potentially serious environmental hazard. This situation raises questions: Why did it take so long to notice something was amiss? Where was MDE’s oversight in the intervening weeks?

The Realities of Limited Regulatory Resources

The MDE is responsible for enforcing underground storage tank regulations, with authority delegated from the EPA. However, state budgets for environmental protection are notoriously tight. Inspectors must oversee thousands of facilities, each requiring periodic audits or visits. As a result, enforcement often becomes reactive rather than proactive. Regulators typically discover violations through:

1. Scheduled Inspections: But these may occur only once every few years.
2. Triggered Investigations: Initiated by self-reported incidents (which obviously didn’t happen here) or complaints from the public, local governments, or workers.
3. Random Spot Checks: When resources allow.

Given these events, Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. never triggered a complaint, so it’s plausible that if the EPA inspection date had fallen much later, the uninvestigated fail alarms might have persisted indefinitely—or at least until it manifested as an overt spill or strong gasoline odor that the neighborhood could not ignore.

Regulatory Capture or Simple Underfunding?

The concept of “regulatory capture” describes a phenomenon where an agency meant to regulate an industry ends up beholden to it, whether through lobbying influence, close relationships, or an industry-friendly political climate. While there is no direct evidence in the complaint that MDE or the EPA were “captured,” the broader environment of neoliberal capitalism does push for smaller government footprints, often leaving agencies under-resourced. The industry, on the other hand, has the incentive and means to maintain minimal compliance, especially if the official enforcement environment is lax or sporadic.

Reliance on Self-Reporting

UST regulations place a significant onus on owners and operators to self-report suspected releases. This self-reporting mechanism is designed under the assumption that corporate social responsibility will drive compliance, combined with the fear of potentially worse penalties if caught concealing a leak. However, self-reporting works only if the station genuinely fears those more severe repercussions or has a strong moral and ethical commitment to the community’s well-being. If a corporation calculates that it can evade detection or face only a mild fine, the impetus to self-report wanes.

The Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. case epitomizes a broken link in this chain: repeated fail alarms but no immediate call to MDE. The official reason provided was a “programming issue,” but that does not explain why the station did not at least contact the state environmental authority to clarify the meaning of the repeated alarms or to confirm an actual leak. Thus, the crucial self-reporting step—that underpins so much of the regulatory framework—failed in this instance.

The Slow Grind of Bureaucratic Enforcement

Even after a violation is identified, the timeline can be painfully long before final penalties are levied. Paperwork, administrative hearings, negotiations, and potential appeals can stretch across months or even years. In the official Consent Agreement, one sees references to events from May and June of 2022, but the enforcement process did not finalize until 2024. Meanwhile, the facility presumably continued normal operations for much of that time. This lag can create the impression that regulators are toothless: by the time an official penalty hits, the public has often forgotten about the original hazard.

Erosion of Public Trust

When communities witness such prolonged inertia, they can lose faith in the state’s ability to protect them. This fosters cynicism and can deter individuals from reporting suspicious odors or potential leaks if they believe regulators will not act swiftly. Ironically, this cynicism then further reduces the likelihood of timely complaint-based inspections, perpetuating the cycle. For local residents, it can create real anxiety: “If there was a problem, would we even know? Would the state do anything about it?”

Hardwired Vulnerabilities in the System

A closer look reveals the system is not merely failing; it is designed in a way that allows such failures to happen:

1. Sparse Inspections: The station counts on the fact that regulators might not check them often.
2. Lenient Penalties: The cost of ignoring regulations may be smaller than the cost of thorough compliance.
3. Presumption of Good Faith: Self-reporting frameworks rest on companies acting ethically, but do not adequately anticipate corporate greed.
4. Understaffed Agencies: Regulators scramble to oversee thousands of USTs, lacking the capacity to promptly follow up on every red flag.

Tipping Points for Reform

Stories like Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. occasionally grab media attention, prompting public debate about tightening regulations. However, major legislative reforms typically occur only after large-scale disasters (e.g., catastrophic spills, major leaks contaminating city water supplies). While smaller, localized controversies might yield incremental improvements in enforcement, structural change requires political will—something that can be lacking if powerful industry lobbies push against it, or if the local economy is heavily dependent on fueling stations, refineries, or related sectors.

Yet to the dismay of many environmental justice advocates, the station’s civil penalty of around $10,000 does not appear to represent a strong deterrent. For perspective, a single day’s worth of sales from multiple pumps might approach or exceed that figure, especially during times of high gas prices. The discrepancy between the penalty and potential profits is yet another reminder of how the system’s design can effectively reward risk-taking behavior.

In sum, “why regulators did nothing” is partly answered by the chronic underfunding of enforcement mechanisms, a reliance on flawed self-reporting, and a policy environment that prizes economic expansion over strict regulatory compliance. Neoliberal capitalism and the drive to reduce the size of government set the stage for shallow or delayed oversight. Nowhere is that more clear than in allegations that a station in Hagerstown, Maryland, potentially ignored numerous daily warnings of a possible leak, unpunished until an eventual scheduled inspection. This type of system failure is not an aberration but a recurring pattern that reverberates throughout multiple industries, as the next section will illustrate.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

When analyzing corporate malfeasance or regulatory failures, it’s tempting to focus on the individual personalities involved or the specific missteps in a single case. But the corporate misconduct at Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. exemplifies a systemic phenomenon. The details shift from one scandal to another: sometimes it’s a chemical plant failing to maintain safety valves, or a mining operation polluting local waterways. The underlying pattern, however, remains the same: corporate greed meets lax enforcement, and corners are cut until a watchdog intervenes—if one ever does.

The Logic of Neoliberal Capitalism

Under the reigning economic ideology of neoliberal capitalism, corporations are urged to maximize shareholder value above all else. Government regulation is decried as unnecessary red tape that slows growth. Within this worldview, any overhead cost that does not directly contribute to profit might be minimized. Environmental compliance, no matter how crucial to public health, remains an item on the expense line.

In many ways, the repeated fail alarms at Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. reflect the system’s deeper structure: ignoring fails may be an “economically rational” decision if a station’s owners believe they won’t face swift or severe repercussions. If the regulatory environment were more robust—backed by real-time monitoring and the power to impose harsh immediate penalties—companies might behave differently. But in an economy where the watchwords are “growth,” “flexibility,” and “competitive advantage,” short-term profit motives often overshadow long-term responsibilities.

How the Public Good Gets Lost

Environmental regulations are supposed to function as guardrails, preventing personal or corporate gains from harming the broader public. The presence of underground storage tank rules is an admission that these tanks, if mismanaged, can damage the environment. Yet from the vantage point of corporate logic, the station’s interest in keeping the pumps running may well overshadow the public’s interest in ensuring that no leaks occur.

Critics of unrestrained capitalism often point out that the system treats the environment as a free disposal site. In ignoring repeated FAIL messages, a station might gamble that any real leaks are minimal or slow enough that they will not cause catastrophic damage overnight. If a bigger issue surfaces, they can handle it at that time. This approach, sometimes called “postponed compliance,” shifts the risk burden onto neighbors and local ecosystems.

The Nature of Regulatory Delays

By the time the station was compelled to take corrective action, at least a month’s worth of suspicious alarms had gone unreported. That month is not a glitch: it is often how businesses operate when the regulatory net is wide-meshed. There is no impetus for immediate compliance if:

1. Regulators rarely appear without warning.
2. The station can blame an “equipment glitch.”
3. Fines remain lower than potential lost revenue from shutting down a tank.

All of these factors were in play in the Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. scenario, underscoring how these corporate environmental violations might not be an isolated slip but a feature of the system that normalizes a certain level of corner-cutting.

Externalities and Environmental Injustice

Meanwhile, local communities see few upsides from such an arrangement. Accidents or undetected leaks can become ticking time bombs. They not only threaten the environment but can also impose real economic fallout on neighbors—homes become harder to sell, some families may face health risks, and local governments bear remediation costs. Under-resourced communities, in particular, can be forced to endure or pay for the harms while the business reaps the profits.

One might argue, therefore, that “predation” is not too strong a word: the station, whether knowingly or negligently, offloads risk onto the public domain. This is reminiscent of many other corporate corruption stories, whether in finance, manufacturing, or pharmaceuticals: profit is privatized; risk is socialized.

Consumer Reliance and Brand Trust

Another reason these issues recur is that consumers rely heavily on these providers—people need fuel to commute, run errands, and keep their households functioning. The station’s central location and presumably competitive prices might keep customers coming back, unaware that the facility is alleged to be ignoring potential leaks. Many consumers assume, often wrongly, that stations are under continuous regulatory scrutiny. This trust can be exploited if companies realize that the public is not fully informed.

A Culture of Complacency

Finally, for the pattern to persist, a certain culture of complacency must exist among both corporations and regulators. When repeated infractions do not elicit immediate or harsh consequences, ignoring them can become routine. This climate can drift toward a scenario in which employees, managers, and even local government officials accept the status quo: “Yes, the system fails sometimes, but that’s just how it works.” It takes either a disastrous spill or a highly publicized enforcement action to wake up the system, and even then, reforms often stall in the face of lobbying and public attention fatigue.

From this vantage point, the corporate misconduct at Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc.—the repeated ignoring of fail alarms, the lack of immediate reporting, and the subsequent enforcement process—appears almost predictable. It is a pattern where the station’s operational logic collides with public interest, and the system is ill-equipped to swiftly or effectively protect the community. The next step in this cycle is the corporate public relations machine, which often springs into action to contain the damage once the allegations become public. That PR playbook is the subject of our next section.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When allegations of environmental misconduct surface, corporations often rely on a well-honed public relations (PR) playbook. The goal: manage reputational fallout, reassure stakeholders, and minimize the potential for future litigation or heightened regulatory scrutiny. While Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. has not issued an extensive public statement in the official record, the patterns in such scenarios are broadly consistent across industries. Here’s how that typical process unfolds.

Step 1: Contain the Story

Soon after enforcement documents become public—like the Consent Agreement and Final Order in this case—corporate representatives typically engage in message control. Press releases might emphasize that the matter has already been “resolved,” pointing to the final settlement or the Consent Agreement as evidence that the station is not ignoring the problem. They might stress that no “actual” leak was confirmed, carefully omitting that the law required an immediate investigation irrespective of whether a leak was ultimately found. By focusing on the resolution rather than the alleged failure to act, the station deflects attention from the original wrongdoing.

Step 2: Downplay the Severity

Another staple in the PR toolkit is to minimize the seriousness of the allegations. Company spokespeople often adopt phrases like:

• “We took swift action as soon as we became aware.”
• “No environmental harm has been documented.”
• “We are working cooperatively with regulators.”

Such statements can be technically true while obscuring the fact that repeated fail messages went unaddressed for nearly a month. Because the public rarely parses the legal intricacies of RCRA and COMAR regulations, a statement emphasizing “no known harm” can effectively diffuse public outrage. After all, if no big spill occurred, the story might fade.

Step 3: Portray the Incident as an Anomaly

Corporations commonly label such events as “isolated incidents.” They might attribute the alleged violation to a rogue employee, a misunderstanding of regulations, or a technology glitch—just as the station apparently did with the explanation of improper programming for manifolded tanks. This narrative reassures customers that they can continue purchasing gas with confidence. It also assuages regulators by implying that no systematic problems exist and that the station takes its corporate social responsibility seriously. The complaint might characterize it differently, but from a PR vantage point, “one-time glitch” is less damaging than a “recurring corporate disregard.”

Step 4: Announce New Measures

To show accountability, a typical move is to roll out a set of “enhanced compliance measures.” Even if the improvements (like reprogramming the ATG) were already completed to remedy the immediate problem, the station may publicly tout these changes as evidence of a robust response. For instance, the station might promise more frequent calibrations, better staff training on how to respond to fail alarms, or direct lines of communication with MDE. The PR spin frames these steps as part of an ongoing commitment to corporate ethics, overshadowing the fact that these measures were mandatory and should have been there in the first place.

Step 5: Emphasize Community Ties

A final common step in damage control is to highlight the corporation’s roots in the local community. Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. might sponsor local events, make charitable contributions, or post signage in the store praising local nonprofits. The aim is to reinforce the station’s image as a community partner, making the public more forgiving of any slip-ups. If the station can shift attention to its philanthropic endeavors or its role in providing jobs, the negative spotlight may fade faster.

The Limits of PR in the Face of Real Harm

Of course, if a tangible environmental disaster or a series of illnesses among residents were tied to the station, the best PR in the world would not contain the backlash. But in the absence of such a crisis, the station may effectively rely on the standard PR narrative: “We regret any confusion, the problem is fixed, and we care deeply about our community.” The short news cycle and the complexity of environmental regulations can help them succeed in moving on quickly.

Scapegoating the Regulatory Process

Another angle sometimes seen in corporate PR is to blame the complexity of the regulations themselves. The station might claim that “the regulatory requirements are unclear,” or that “paperwork delays prevented a faster response.” By positioning the station as a victim of bureaucratic red tape, the company attempts to shift any blame from a deliberate violation to an unintentional paperwork or programming snafu. This can resonate with the public, especially in places where skepticism toward government bureaucracy runs high.

The Broader Significance

Ultimately, the PR playbook does not merely shield the company from reputational harm; it also helps reinforce a dynamic in which corporate accountability remains minimal. By swiftly assuaging public fears, companies can carry on with business-as-usual. The cycle of ignoring safety warnings, paying nominal fines, and delivering polished PR statements recurs because it often works. If the station can hold onto its customers and stave off new regulations, the overall cost remains manageable. For critics, this is precisely why calling out these patterns remains crucial.

The final section of this piece delves into the broader stakes at play: how the tension between corporate power and public interest shapes not only environmental outcomes, but also social and economic realities. It frames the Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. story as more than a local enforcement action—it is a microcosm of the deep structural issues that define American capitalism today.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

This case began with the seemingly small-scale issue of a local gas station ignoring repeated leak detection alarms. But the implications reach well beyond Hagerstown, Maryland. We see a microcosm of how corporate power can overshadow the public interest when regulations rely on voluntary compliance and when enforcement agencies lack the resources or political support for thorough oversight.

The Stakes for Public Health and the Environment

If Tank 2 did indeed leak during the period of repeated “FAIL” alarms, it could have introduced toxic hydrocarbons into the soil or groundwater. Even if no verifiable leak occurred, the station’s apparent disregard for mandated inspections and reporting requirements undermines the entire regulatory system. Residents in many parts of the United States live near stations with similarly aging infrastructure. Should those communities endure the same risk if station owners across the country adopt a “wait and see” approach when alarms go off?

Economic Fallout and Local Communities

The danger does not lie solely in potential contamination. There’s also an economic fallout dimension: if a leak is discovered later and cleanup costs balloon, local property values can nosedive. The station might face bankruptcy or closure, leaving behind an abandoned, contaminated property that the community must grapple with. In the worst-case scenario, if contaminants migrate widely, local governments might struggle with lawsuits or the costs of remediation. These indirect but significant costs highlight why the public interest in strict compliance is so high.

Social Justice and Wealth Disparity

Poorer communities, or ones with large immigrant populations, may be at the highest risk because they often lack the resources to advocate for themselves or to challenge a corporate entity over corporate misconduct. They also tend to have older infrastructure and a concentration of polluting facilities. The fiasco at Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. underscores how wealth disparity can intersect with environmental risks: those who are least able to relocate or pay for private water supplies can suffer the greatest harm if a leak occurs. Meanwhile, owners or corporate shareholders might not live in the immediate vicinity and thus do not share the same public health burdens.

The Challenge of Genuine Corporate Accountability

The question remains: how do we enforce corporate accountability in an environment that systematically rewards cost-cutting? One answer is stiffer penalties that truly outweigh the financial incentives for ignoring problems. Another is more frequent inspections, better-funded agencies, and a stronger emphasis on immediate sanctions when repeated alarms or warnings go unheeded. Yet all these reforms collide with the neoliberal emphasis on reducing government spending, minimizing regulatory burdens, and trusting the market to regulate itself.

Danger of Corporate Corruption

Many in the environmental advocacy space warn that corporate corruption is not just about bribes or secret deals; it can be as ordinary as ignoring an alarm and lying low until the next inspection. Corruption thrives where transparency is minimal and accountability is weak. The story of Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. suggests a scenario in which management may have found it easier to assume the risk of a fine than to comply with immediate reporting rules. That is a form of corruption in its own right, placing private gain over the public’s right to a safe environment.

Pursuing Genuine Corporate Social Responsibility

The station’s conduct—whether intentionally neglectful or carelessly ignorant—stands at odds with the ideal of corporate social responsibility. A truly responsible station operator would have begun investigating on the first day a “FAIL” message appeared. They would have alerted MDE promptly and possibly suspended sales from Tank 2 until certain the issue was resolved. They might even have offered the community updates, assuaging fears and demonstrating a commitment to public health over short-term profit. Such a scenario is unfortunately far from guaranteed, especially if internal cost calculations suggest that ignoring the alarm is cheaper.

Looking Ahead

The Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. story closes on a civil penalty of about $10,000. Whether that sum effectively deters future misconduct is open to debate. What it does do is draw attention to the holes in our regulatory safety net:

• Self-reporting stands or falls on corporate goodwill.
• Inspections may be too infrequent and occur long after problems arise.
• Penalties might be inadequate to outweigh the financial rewards of ignoring small-scale alarms.
• Communities often remain in the dark until regulators uncover the issue.

For real change, there needs to be a recalibration of priorities. We must ask: Are we comfortable with a business model that treats environmental protections as optional until proven otherwise? Does the system’s tacit acceptance of “crime pays” logic reinforce corporate greed at the expense of the common good? These are not new questions, but they gain renewed urgency each time an evil corporation is caught flouting safety rules.

A Community-Centric Approach

At the community level, local governments and civic organizations can push for more transparency and accountability. This might mean requesting real-time data from local stations about fail alarms or lobbying for more frequent random inspections. Grassroots efforts can also spotlight questionable corporate behavior, forcing the station or the regulator to respond. Ultimately, any meaningful solution will require more than a single enforcement action and a modest fine. It demands systemic reforms that place environmental stewardship and public health at the heart of corporate operations, rather than treating them as afterthoughts.

The Hagerstown Gas & Go Inc. case is a clear as fuck call to re-examine the intersection of corporate ethics, economic fallout, and consumer advocacy. While the station’s story may soon slip from the headlines, it joins a larger tapestry of evidence that suggests our existing regulatory apparatus, though well-intended, can be undermined by cost-cutting shortcuts.

Realizing the promise of safe communities and a protected environment requires vigilance from regulators, accountability from businesses, and pressure from ordinary citizens who refuse to accept short-term profits as a justification for long-term harm. Only then might we craft a future where the notion of “most damning evidence” is no longer an expected prelude to the everyday rhythms of the corporate world.

sources:

https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/Filings/7E5916F1F8F2B7E485258B80006864EE/$File/1000%20Dual%20Highway%20LLC%20dba%20Hagerstown%20Gas%20Go%20Inc_RCRA%20CAFO_Aug%2021%202024_REDACTED.pdf

https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/All+Dockets+by+Case+Number/RCRA-03-2024-0127