|
On Dec. 11 2025, I filed a sixty-day notice of an incoming Clean Water Act Citizen Suit, as required by Section 505(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). This notice communicates my intent to file a citizen enforcement action for ongoing violations of Clean Water Act Sections 404, 401, and 1311 at the Saratoga Creek system and adjacent wetlands in Santa Clara, California. Between approximately 1950 and 1985, the parties identified in this notice discharged fill material into Saratoga Creek and adjacent jurisdictional wetlands without obtaining required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They repeatedly buried Saratoga Creek (a superficial and 200ft below ground surface aquifer) by placing fill material in the creek channel and installing underground pipes, managing the Waters of the U.S. as if it were stormwater runoff. They filled approximately 500+ acres of tideland-adjacent wet meadow, destroyed rare and nationally important ecosystems, and intentionally installed a drop structure that functions as a complete barrier to fish passage in a stream that provides natural habitat for Chinook Salmon. They also razed prime farmland of international acclaim against the farmers' wishes, non-consensually annexed these pioneer farming families' land, disturbed soils known to contain Native American burial grounds and artifacts, presumably disposed of Native American remains via a garbage dump, clear-cut irreplaceable pear orchards, and filled the natural wetland and creek in order to cover it with concrete and build industrial parks—which they used to create no less than four Superfund toxic waste cleanup sites in just a couple of decades. None of these activities were authorized by Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, and no Section 401 state water quality certification was obtained. These violations continue to the present day. The fill material remains in place in waters of the United States. The buried creek continues flowing through underground infrastructure, or builds pressure underground where it lost the ability to surface and seep. Each day the unpermitted fill remains constitutes a continuing violation of the Clean Water Act. The attached notice provides detailed documentation of these violations. (There is also a text version of the notice). Additional exhibits and supporting documentation are available in an Appendix. The notice will be sent via certified mail will satisfy the sixty-day notice requirement under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). If the violations are not remediated within sixty days, I intend to file suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees. If the EPA or the Army Corps commences enforcement action within sixty days, a citizen suit may be precluded under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B). I would strongly prefer that the EPA and Army Corps take action as I am not a civil engineer and this matter will require professional engineering oversight. I have a pending citizen suit already filed in the Northern District of California regarding hazardous waste and related violations at a specific facility in this location (Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Santa Clara, Jenab, et al., No. 5:25-cv-07360, N.D. Cal.). Only in researching that facility did I realize what was done in the overall area, and accordingly I filed this Notice and request enforcement action. - Ashley M. Gjovik  View the creek aerial photo album on Flickr here.
    
0 Comments
The US EPA announced a finalized federal enforcement action (including a $261,283 fine & federal consent agreement) against Apple Inc over this unpermitted semiconductor manufacturing facility, next to thousands of homes and a playground, in Santa Clara, California. The US EPA has now published the legal documents and the case docket for their RCRA ("Resource Conservation and Recovery Act" federal hazardous waste management) enforcement action taken against Apple Inc over Apple's Santa Clara semiconductor manufacturing facility at 3250 Scott Blvd. The Consent Agreement and Final Order was signed and finalized as Case. No. RCRA-09-2026-0006, dated Oct. 27 2025.
In the Matter of Apple, Inc., U.S. EPA Docket No. RCRA-09-2026-0006, Consent Agreement and Final Order (EPA Region IX Oct. 27, 2025) The Agreement & Order determined Apple was generating, treating, storing, and disposing of federally regulated hazardous waste at 3250 Scott Blvd without federally required permits (¶ 27, 43, 53); was unlawfully venting "solvent exhaust...directly to the atmosphere" (¶ 47); was unlawfully asserting, without analysis, that its federally regulated hazardous waste was not federally regulated hazardous waste (¶ 31-33, 36-38); generated more than 1,000kg of federally regulated hazardous waste per month (¶ 28), yet abandoned that waste on weekends and holidays and did not monitor, inspect, or document that waste as required (¶ 60-61); stored federally regulated hazardous waste onsite without required labels or information, or even closing the containers (¶ 52, 53, 56-57). The Agreement and Order explains this enforcement action arose out of my "Tip and Complaint" to the US EPA in June 2023 regarding Apple's operations at this facility, and that Apple was informed the inspection (and resulting enforcement action was due to my complaints to the EPA). (¶ 12-13). Note: I specifically asked EPA to tell Apple that I was the one who sent them. (view the June 12 2023 Complaint as a PDF or in DropBox with attachments). The Agreement and Order states the enforcement action was based on inspection findings documented in a Notice of Violation and Requests for Information dated April 30 2024 (view the report as a PDF, or a larger PDF with attachments, or on Dropbox with all attachments and additional records) (¶ 15-16) and Nov. 6 2024 (¶ 17); and a Notice of Potential Enforcement Action sent June 26 2025 (¶ 19). (view the PDF). The enforcement action is based only on violations of the RCRA identified during EPA inspections on August 17-18 2023 and January 16 2024. The Agreement & Order specifically preserved jurisdiction for my Citizen Suit to continue to prosecute Apple and other defendants over violations of other federal environmental laws at this facility and any other violations of the RCRA not expressly settled at this facility. The Agreement and Order only settles liability regarding financial penalties for the specific violations identified by EPA on the specific inspection dates noted, but still allows me to still seek injunctive relief or other equitable relief, or for the DOJ to seek criminal sanctions, even for these same violations. (¶ 80-82). The Agreement and Order also still allows me to seek penalties for additional RCRA violations identified in the Citizen Suit if in addition to the ones EPA identified during its inspections. (¶ 74). In the consent agreement, Apple does not admit or deny any "specific factual allegations" but does "waive any right to contest the allegations and its right to appeal" (¶ 69) and "waives any rights or defenses... for this matter to be resolved in federal court" (¶ 70) if filed by the EPA (¶ 83). Apple certified "under penalty of law to EPA" that "to the best of [its] knowledge and belief formed after reasonably inquiry of individuals immediately responsible for compliance at this Facility" that "it has taken steps necessary to comply with RCRA... for the specific violations at the Facility alleged in the [Agreement & Order]." (¶ 71-72). Critically, this means that the US EPA is closing this matter by taking Apple's word for it that Apple resolved these violations. While its important that US EPA took this enforcement action, the Agreement and Order makes no factual finding the violations are actually resolved or that Apple changed its practices in such a way to prevent violations from re-occurring. This makes my pending environmental Citizen Suit even more critical. The Consent Agreement & Final Order contains seven counts, grouping hundreds of individual violations under specific types of RCRA violations including:
Apple is concurrently facing citations for violations of air pollution laws, with open cases filed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in Aug.-Sept. 2024 complaining Apple was operating the facility without required air permits, venting the solvent waste tank to the atmosphere without abatement, and exhausting unlawful amounts of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide into the ambient air. (view the citations here). As noted, the RCRA violations cited by US EPA at 3250 Scott Blvd in this case included a 1,700 gallon solvent waste tank that did not have required permits, that was managing federally regulated hazardous waste but which Apple claimed was not federally reregulated hazardous waste, and Apple was venting the hazardous waste solvent exhaust to the atmosphere (where the apartment windows and fresh air intakes are located) without abatement of the pollution and without air pollution permits. The April 2024 EPA report notes Apple claimed it was operating this tank (unlawfully) since 2017. OCT. 27 2025 US EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTION Docket: In re Apple, Inc., US EPA Docket No. RCRA-09-2026-0006 (Oct. 27, 2025) Filing: Consent Agreement and Final Order, In re Apple, Inc., EPA Docket No. RCRA-09-2026-0006 (Region 9, Oct. 27, 2025) Citation: In the Matter of Apple, Inc., U.S. EPA Docket No. RCRA-09-2026-0006, Consent Agreement and Final Order (EPA Region IX Oct. 27, 2025) Reference: US EPA resources with information about RCRA (commonly pronounced as "rick-rah"): Overview; History; Compliance. ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SUIT (SEPT. 2025 - ONGOING). Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Santa Clara, Khalil Jenab, et al., No. 5:25-cv-07360 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025-) Free, public access to the Citizen Suit case docket is available on CourtListener here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71272728/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ 2016 CALIFORNIA DTSC CONSENT AGREEMENT
In 2016, Apple entered a hazardous waste Consent Agreement with the California EPA over hazardous waste violations at two different Apple facilities in Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The agreement was for at least five years and covered all Apple hazardous waste activities in California. The agreement similarly found that Apple was violating hazardous waste laws under both federal and state laws including many of the same issues at 3250 Scott Blvd including operating without required permits, failing to properly label and mark hazardous waste, and unlawfully transporting hazardous waste without required manifests or records (including unlawfully exporting hazardous waste to other countries). DTSC fined Apple $450,000. View the 2016 Complaint, Settlement Agreement, and Announcement. In 2016, Apple's environmental team told Reuters that "This matter involves an oversight in filing paperwork... We've worked... to ensure that going forward we have the proper permits for our current site. As we do with all our facilities, we followed our stringent set of health and safety standards, which go well beyond legal requirements." (See, California EPA says settled with Apple on hazardous waste claims). The Consent Agreement could only be terminated if Apple demonstrated compliance with hazardous waste laws at all of its facilities. At the time Apple was able to obtain a termination of the agreement in 2020, Apple was admittedly in violation of federal hazardous waste laws at 3250 Scott Blvd. If the 2017-2025 RCRA violations had been identified and reported, those violations likely would have prevented the termination of the 2016-2020 California EPA Consent Agreement. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for information. -Ashley 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 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. 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. |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
December 2025
Categories
All
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed