|
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
Today we launched a Change.org Petition asking politicians and the EPA to shut down Apple's illegal chip fab at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California. Sign the Petition! We're also holding a rally & press conference at the public sidewalks next to the facility on August 16 2025 at 12pm - 2pm PT. If you're in the SF Bay Area come show the government & Apple that people don't want Apple dumping toxic waste on playgrounds!
On June 30 2025, I served Apple, City of Santa, EPA, and the property owner notice of an incoming EPA Citizen Suit under RCRA, CAA, CWA, TSCA, and EPCRA -- as well as a public nuisance claim -- about Apple's illegal semiconductor fabrication plant at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California.
Read the Notice here. I filed a complaint about Apple's stupid secret fab with the BAAQMD on July 22 2024. On August 29 2024, the California Bay Area Air Quality Management District published a formal notice of violations by Apple Inc of two violations of air pollution laws via their Skunkworks fab at 3250 Scott Blvd. Then on September 12 2024 (probably after an inspection?) BAAQMD cited Apple for four additional violations - 2-1-301 & 2-1-302 again, and also for "gaseous pollution." Apple apparently violated regulation 2-1-301 when it built/installed equipment that causes air pollution without first getting permission from BAAQMD; then violated -302 by operating the fab for around eight years without required permits. Then, Apple also violated 9-7-307.1 by dumping illegal amounts of NOx & CO into our air.
References: 9-7-300 STANDARDS
9-7-307 Final Emission Limits: No person shall operate a boiler, steam generator or process heater with a rated heat input listed in the table below that exceeds the corresponding NOx and CO emission limits on or after the... I filed a complaint about Apple's stupid secret fab with the BAAQMD on July 22 2024. On August 29 2024, the California Bay Area Air Quality Management District published formal notice of violations by Apple Inc of two violations of air pollution laws via their Skunkworks fab at 3250 Scott Blvd. BAAQMD cited Apple for violating local air regulations 2-1-301 & 2-1-302 with their stupid secret fab. References: Link: BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 1 - General Requirements Link: BAAQMD Notices of Violation
2-1-300 STANDARDS
2-1-301 Authority to Construct: Any person who, after July, 1972, puts in place, builds, erects, installs, modifies, modernizes, alters or replaces any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of which may cause, reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, shall first secure written authorization from the APCO in the form of an authority to construct. Routine repairs, maintenance, or cyclic maintenance that includes replacement of components with identical components is not considered to be an alteration, modification or replacement for the purpose of this Section unless the APCO determines the changes to be non-routine. The use or operation of the source shall initiate the start-up period in accordance with Section 2- 1-411. (Amended 3/17/82; 10/19/83; 7/17/91; 5/17/00) 2-1-302 Permit to Operate: Before any person, as described in Section 2-1-401, uses or operates any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of which may cause, reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, such person shall first secure written authorization from the APCO in the form of a permit to operate. My request for appellate review by the US Dept of Labor's Admin Review Board was approved on August 27 2024, and the CERCLA whistleblower retaliation case is now docketed as Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, ARB-2024-0060, 2024-CER-00001.  The U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB also issued an Order formally approving the appeal request and issuing a briefing schedule. I filed a Notice of Pendency in the civil lawsuit for our Case Mgmt Conference tomorrow. You can read the full Order in the filing here.
The recording of my LaborFest 2024 talk about Apple, hazardous waste, semiconductor fab, & workplace safety is now posted! Check it out! From the YouTube description: "Apple in Santa Clara has illegally built a fabrication facility next to residential apartments in Santa Clara and has flagrantly violated EPA and other local and state regulations in the operation of this facility. Ashley M. Gjøvik is a former Apple senior engineering program manager who discovered that her office was above a contaminated dump site that was allowing fumes to enter the office and that her home was also located next to the illegal Apple fabrication facility that was contaminating the Santa Clara neighborhood. When she blew the whistle she was targeted and terrorized by Apple in order to shut her down. She is now fighting Apple in Federal Court and filed a RICO suit against Apple for its illegal activities. She also discovered that the oversight agencies which are supposed to protect her and the public have been captured by Apple and the corporations that they are supposed to be regulating. This presentation was made on July 21, 2024 as part of LaborFest.net which commemorates the 1934 San Francisco general strike during the month of July and was also sponsored by WorkWeek. I'm incredibly honored to have my semiconductor fab story spotlighted by Monroe Labs on the "Microsoft - A Materialist Approach" YouTube channel. Check it out! From the YouTube description: "In today’s video, we’ll take a detour from examining Microsoft’s activities to talk about Apple. Specifically, the health and legal struggles of Ashley Gjovik (whose name I mispronounced as Grovnik in this video), inflicted on her by Apple. We’ll also talk about the work Gjovik has been doing shining a light on the ecological and health impacts of Apple’s chip fabrication facilities which are little reported on. When most people think of Apple, what comes to mind is the image it has crafted for itself: ultra competence, austere efficiency, design excellence and echoes of the myth of California - progressive and open. Of course, Apple is a corporation and operates according to the rules of capitalist political economy and also, the power imperatives of capitalist enterprises - an imperial disdain for people’s lives because profit is uber alles. In June of 2024, Gjovik posted an overview of her experiences and findings on LinkedIn which I read for you. By the way, the music you’re hearing is from the album, Architect of Truth by Robert Beshara. The song is Whiplash. Link in the show description." On June 21 2024, the US EPA released an enforcement report with 18 exhibits, that confirmed Apple Inc is operating an unpermitted *semiconductor fabrication* facility in one of the busiest and most trafficked areas in the city of Santa Clara, California.
The report, along with Apple's own regulatory filings, confirmed this facility is emitting hazardous waste vapors, fumes, and gases into the outdoor air around the building. The report also confirmed that Apple is engaged in hazardous waste treatment and disposal, including these air emissions, without the permits, records, and monitoring required by federal law. This nondescript building sits directly across the street from high-density residential apartments (Santa Clara Square), and a variety of commercial buildings including, but not limited to: a Whole Foods grocery store, several restaurants with outdoor patios, and a yoga studio. There is also a school within 1,000 feet, and two public parks within 200 feet of this factory. Back in February 2023, through my own research, I discovered that Apple was doing silicon fab at the facility. I spent several months researching further, gathering records, speaking with agencies, and drafting a formal complaint. Because of all of the evidence and information I gathered, I was able to successfully trigger a US EPA RCRA Compliance & Enforcement investigation, which then led to at least three on site inspections, as described in the report. US EPA found at least *19* unique violations of RCRA during these inspections. Semiconductor fab is one of the most dangerous types of manufacturing in history; for the workers inside the plant, and also for the people and environment outside the plant. I became seriously ill while living at the Santa Clara Square apartments several years ago - and the illness was diagnosed by chemical exposure doctors as exposure to industrial chemicals from an unknown source. I went public about it, and additional victims promptly came forward. But the government could not figure out where the chemicals were coming from. Its clear now what the source was. Its unclear how many people were exposed and injured by Apple's illegal manufacturing operations. I am lobbying for involvement from the Dept of Public Health to investigate the extent of the damage Apple has caused to probably thousands of human lives. There is also a question of harm to environment, and harm to the properties of all of the homes and small businesses surrounding this factory. I feel very proud and relieved that all of my hard work from 2020 to 2023 investigating the chemical hazards in that area resulted in so much action from the government, and identified such a dangerous situation that required intervention - but there is still a lot of work to be done. The US EPA RCRA Inspection report and all of its exhibits are available via my Dropbox. There's also a few social media threads about the report: - Twitter @ashleygjovik - Mastodon @ashleygjovik - BlueSky @ashleygjovik |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
December 2025
Categories
All
|
||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed