|
On September 2 2025, I filed an environmental Citizen Suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendants are Apple Inc., the City of Santa Clara, and the property owner. The cases arises out of activities at a modern semiconductor fabrication facility. I'm alleging violations of five federal environmental statutes—the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—and California public nuisance law. On October 10 2025, the City of Santa Clara filed a Motion to Dismiss requesting to remove themselves from the lawsuit, generally claiming immunity from liability due to their status as a municipal government. On October 25, 2025, I filed my Opposition and Request for Judicial Notice. The hearing is scheduled for November 20, 2025 in San Jose federal court.
In Santa Clara County in the 1970s and 1980s, the County (including City of Santa Clara) became ground zero for semiconductor manufacturing disasters. Reckless industrial practices led to toxic waste dumps, groundwater contamination, chemical spills, deaths, evacuations, and toxic clouds. The result: Santa Clara County ended up with the most Superfund cleanup sites in the nation. Congress looked at what happened in Santa Clara County and enacted the federal environmental laws at issue in this case. RCRA, CERCLA, CAA, CWA, and EPCRA exist largely because of what happened here. Local regulations created in response to Santa Clara County disasters—like the Toxic Gas Ordinance and silane-specific safety regulations—were later adopted nationally in the International Fire Code. The semiconductor fabrication facility at 3250 Scott Boulevard uses some of the most dangerous chemicals in industrial manufacturing including arsine, phosphine, mercury, silane, and extensive industrial solvents while sitting extraordinarily close to residential housing. The facility is also adjacent to two city-owned parks: Meadow Park and Creekside Park. Both parks are advertised on the city's website and feature playgrounds, BBQ facilities, and fitness equipment. The city invites the public to use these parks. The city knows these specific chemicals have caused deaths and mass casualties. The city knows the community has fought for decades against locating these facilities near homes. The city cannot claim ignorance or good faith. In 2023 and 2024, the EPA conducted inspections and found RCRA violations at the facility. According to EPA records, the facility reported releasing 16,083 pounds of air pollutants annually and its currently facing multiple air pollution violations from the Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt District. Beginning in at least 2020, multiple residents filed complaints with the city about chemical exposure. The city did nothing. The City of Santa Clara voluntarily became a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). This means the city demanded exclusive control over enforcement of federal hazardous waste laws at the local level. Only three cities in Santa Clara County chose to take on this responsibility. The city positioned itself as the local enforcer of RCRA, CAA, CWA, and EPCRA. According to the city's own 2025 Operating Budget, Santa Clara employs just 3.95 full-time equivalent employees for CUPA administration and enforcement for the entire city. The budget reveals the city's enforcement priorities:
Between 2015 and 2017, the city approved the development of over 2,000 residential units at the Santa Clara Square Apartments location. During this approval process, the city kept the semiconductor facility's operations out of the Environmental Impact Report. The city never disclosed to future residents what was next door. This violated the city's own General Plan, which requires restricting "the use and storage of hazardous materials for industrial uses within 500 feet of existing residential uses." When residents began experiencing chemical exposure, the city concealed information. In 2020 and 2021, I and other residents filed complaints with the city. I spoke directly with the Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Gary Welling, the Water and Sewer Director, about the chemical exposure. Other victims of chemical exposure also contacted both of them. The city did nothing, disclosed nothing, and stopped nothing. Instead, the city concealed ongoing violations rather than reporting them to CalOES or EPA as required. The city refused Public Records Act requests. The city may have even tipped off the facility about an unannounced EPA inspection—which would constitute a federal crime. In response to my Public Records Act request, the city stated it has no documentation of ever enforcing the Toxic Gas Ordinance—an ordinance created specifically to prevent catastrophic disasters at facilities exactly like 3250 Scott Boulevard.   The federal environmental statutes at issue expressly authorize citizen suits against government agencies:
The EPA found RCRA violations at the facility in 2023 and 2024. The city was aware of these violations for years and did not even document them, let alone cite them. The city further concealed violations by omitting details from public records and refused Public Records Act requests. The city may have also tipped off the facility about an EPA inspection, which would be a criminal violation of RCRA -- and repeatedly refused to respond to Public Records requests about this despite there certainly being evidence of communications that led to their ad hoc "inspection" the same day as the unannounced EPA inspection. The facility releases over 16,000 pounds of air pollutants annually, including mercury, arsenic, phosphine, benzene, toluene, NMP, silane, and formaldehyde. The city knew there were not required air permits or abatement technology, the city knew the releases would enter the apartments and parks, and they failed to stop it, report it, warn the residents, or refer the matter to the Air Quality Management District. The city contributed to the construction and operation of a major emitting facility without required air permits, and that facility has already caused irreparable harm. The city also holds a municipal NPDES Permit (No. CAS612008) with specific requirements. The permit mandates that the city "shall implement an industrial and commercial site control program" and "shall conduct inspections, effective follow-up, and enforcement to abate potential and actual non-stormwater discharges." The city violated these permit terms. The city failed to implement the required site control program, failed to conduct proper inspections and enforcement, and failed to respond to complaints about pollution. The stormwater at the facility accumulates (at least) the same pollution being released into the air, and then that storm water flows directly the SF Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The city also took on the role of emergency response commission under EPCRA and has direct mandatory obligations to report EPCRA matters to CalOES. The city failed to report known hazardous substance releases. The city concealed information instead of providing it to the community, directly violating the "Right-to-Know" purpose of EPCRA. The city refused to report violations to CalOES or EPA as required. The city helped conceal and enable ongoing violations with releases of extremely dangerous chemicals that could cause mass fatalities. The city also knew about the use, storage, and releases of lead, mercury, TCE, formaldehyde, and NMP at the facility. The city knew these toxic substances were being mishandled, were not being property reported or controlled, and that the reckless handling of these TSCA regulated substances had and was causing injury to the public and environment. The city failed to report TSCA violations to the EPA, while helping to conceal and enable ongoing violations. The city didn't just fail to enforce environmental laws. The city actively participated in the violations, encouraging and enabling those violations, with full knowledge of the risk and harm. The city approved residential development while concealing what the facility was doing next door. The city kept the facility's operations out of the Environmental Impact Report. The city received direct complaints from injured residents and concealed information rather than acting. The city refused to disclose the facility's activities to people who were being harmed. The city financially benefits from enabling violations through tax revenue and other sources. The criminal provisions of RCRA, CAA, and CWA apply to "any person"—not just facility owners and operators. These provisions can reach contractors, accomplices, and anyone who knowingly contributes to violations. The city's conduct—concealment, enabling, and potential obstruction of EPA enforcement—creates plausible criminal liability. If the city has plausible criminal liability under these statutes, it certainly has civil liability under the citizen suit provisions. This is a novel legal theory in environmental citizen suits. Most cases involve cities that passively fail to enforce laws. This case involves a city that actively conspired with violators and aided their violations. I'm arguing that contribution, conspiracy, and similar theories apply when a defendant crosses the line from passive regulator to active participant. Further, under California Government Code § 830, public entities are liable for dangerous conditions on their property when they fail to warn or protect against known dangers. The city owns Meadow Park and Creekside Park. Both parks are located less than 230 feet from the facility. The city advertises these parks on its official website and invites the public to use them. The parks feature playgrounds, BBQ facilities, and fitness equipment. The parks are contaminated by and exposed to toxic releases from the facility (air, soil, groundwater, stormwater, sewer vapor, etc). The city knew about the dangers and failed to warn park users or take protective measures, and instead invited vulnerable populations to come to the parks, assuring them the parks were safe. I personally used both parks and was injured. I experienced dizziness, difficulty breathing, rashes, and gastrointestinal issues while at these parks—symptoms consistent with chemical exposure. California precedent establishes that counties can be liable for allowing dangerous third-party activities on public land. In Vedder v. County of Imperial, the court found a county liable for allowing explosive chemicals to be stored on property without adequate fire protection. Additionally, under California law, California Government Code § 815.6 ensures municipal tort liability when a public entity has a mandatory duty designed to protect against a specific type of injury, the entity is negligent with that duty, and the entity's negligence caused the kind of injuries that were supposed to be prevented if the entity had not been negligent in their duty. The city has mandatory duties under federal and California law with the statues at issue binding the city with requirements that are communicated with "shall," not "may." I lived at the Santa Clara Square Apartments. I made complaints to the city about chemical exposure and asked for help understanding what was happening. The city concealed what the facility was doing. I lost my job at Apple, my income, my savings, many of my friends, my reputation, my health, and my career due to my advocacy about safety and environmental hazards at this location. My toxic tort claims were dismissed due to statute of limitations, partly because the city concealed information that would have helped me discover the cause of my injuries sooner. While I lost everything, the city continued collecting tax revenue and reputational benefits from continuing to conceal and enable these dangerous operations. This case matters beyond my individual situation. I'm attempting to breathe life back into the underused EPCRA citizen suit provisions. I'm testing whether contribution and conspiracy theories can apply in environmental citizen suits when defendants cross the line from passive regulators to active participants. This case asks: What happens when the regulator becomes the enabler? Can cities hide behind immunity when they actively participate in violations rather than just failing to prevent them? The city took on enforcement responsibilities for federal environmental laws and then established policies, systems, and practices that enabled the businesses in the city to violate those same laws without consequence. The city actively concealed violations for financial benefit. The city enabled the same kind of scenario that these federal environmental laws were designed to prevent—in the very county whose disasters led to the creation of these laws. Relief against the city is necessary and will be unavailable if the city is dismissed. The venue is significant. The San Jose courthouse sits in the county where these federal environmental laws originated. The timing is significant too: semiconductor manufacturing is being re-shored to communities across America, making these questions urgent nationwide. I now live in Boston, Massachusetts. I was able to fundraise the money to purchase a plane ticket to California to attend the November 20, 2025 hearing in person. I believe the city is a necessary defendant, and their dismissal from this case would cause further irreparable harm to the community. -Ashley
0 Comments
|
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
December 2025
Categories
All
|
||||||||
RSS Feed