|
In February 2026, I filed a petition asking EPA to evaluate the South Bay in Boston for the Superfund program — the federal program for the country's most contaminated sites. The South Bay is the filled-in tidal bay under the South End, Fort Point Channel, and surrounding neighborhoods, where Boston spent two centuries dumping sewage, incinerator ash, industrial waste, radioactive waste, and more -- then built housing on top. There has never been a Superfund site in the City of Boston. My petition argues there should have been one decades ago.
The petition works through a specific legal mechanism. CERCLA — the Superfund toxic waste dump clean-up law — includes a provision, § 105(d), that lets any person petition EPA to assess a site for the National Priorities List. And here's the important part: once you file, EPA must respond. The statute gives the Agency twelve months to either complete a "preliminary assessment" of the site, or send the petitioner a written explanation of why it won't. EPA doesn't get to shrug. Congress built this provision specifically so ordinary people could force the government to look at contaminated sites it was ignoring. So in February 2026, I started that twelve-month clock. We're now around the six-month mark so I sent EPA Region 1 a formal status inquiry asking where things stand. Within a day, I got two written answers — one from the Superfund program, one from EPA's enforcement lawyers. The Superfund program answered first. EPA has assigned a Site Assessment Manager to my petition: Mandy Liao of Region 1's Superfund and Emergency Management Division. A Site Assessment Manager is the EPA staffer who shepherds a site through the Superfund evaluation pipeline. Ms. Liao's response confirmed that:
The EPA has now confirmed in writing that it's bound to this process and this deadline. By February 13, 2027, one of two things happens: EPA assesses the site, or EPA explains itself. Both are formal agency actions. Both give Boston an answer it has never had. And if the explanation doesn't hold up, I can take it to a federal judge.
When I filed the CERCLA petition, I also served a Notice of Intent to File a Citizen Suit under the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act lets private citizens sue polluters directly in federal court — but first you have to send a notice and give the government a window to bring its own enforcement case. If the government steps up and "diligently prosecutes" the violations, the citizen suit is off. If it doesn't, the courthouse doors open. So my status inquiry also asked: has EPA brought any enforcement action on the violations in my notice? The Superfund team kicked that question to EPA's Office of Regional Counsel, and Jeff Kopf, Senior Enforcement Counsel for Region 1, answered in writing:
Notice what that second answer isn't. It isn't "no." EPA could have simply said no referral exists. Instead it invoked the policy it uses to protect referrals that do. Draw your own conclusions. When I served my citizen suit notice, I voluntarily extended the standard sixty-day waiting period to a full year to accommodate the year-long CERCLA process. If I have to take this matter to court myself, I'll likely bundle the claims. Now the petition has a named Site Assessment Manager, an active review, and a written deadline. That's the process I extended the clock for, and it's happening. Between now and February 13, 2027, I'll post updates here as things move. If EPA completes the assessment and the site scores the way I expect, the South Bay heads toward the National Priorities List — the first Superfund site in Boston's history. If EPA declines, I get a written explanation, and I already have the citizen suit noticed, preserved, and ready to file. Either way, this is now on the record, on a clock, and in writing — which is exactly where I want it. - Ashley Read the emails with US EPA Region 1: 
   Read more in the Petition and the dedicated South Bay pages: South Bay/Boston Marsh
0 Comments
RESIDENTS AND ADVOCATES TO RALLY AT SANTA CLARA CITY HALL OVER APPLE’S SECRET CHIP FAB NEXT TO HOMES, PARKS, AND A CHILDREN’S SCHOOL Press conference precedes City Council meeting; follows amended federal lawsuit seeking to shut down hazardous semiconductor plant at 3250 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara, California. SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Community members, labor advocates, and environmental activists will hold a press conference and rally on Tuesday, August 18, outside Santa Clara City Hall (1500 Warburton Avenue), ahead of that evening’s City Council meeting, to demand the City stop protecting an unmarked, high-hazard semiconductor fabrication plant (“chip fab”) operated by Apple Inc. at 3250 Scott Boulevard — directly across the street from the 1,840-unit Santa Clara Square Apartments, public city parks, children’s playgrounds, a church and Whole Foods, and the San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek. WHO: Ashley Gjovik, former Apple senior engineering program manager, environmental whistleblower, and plaintiff in Gjovik v. Apple Inc., City of Santa Clara, et al.; community members; labor and environmental advocates. WHAT: Press conference and rally regarding the federal environmental citizen suit seeking to shut down hazardous operations at the chip fab — followed by attendance and public comment at the Santa Clara City Council meeting. WHEN: Tuesday, August 18, 2026. Press conference and rally at 6:00 PM; City Council meeting begins at 7:00 PM. Attendees are encouraged to arrive at 6:00 PM and stay through the Council meeting. WHERE: Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 (rally outside; Council meeting in the Council Chambers). CAN’T ATTEND IN PERSON? The Council meeting is a hybrid meeting — join and speak during public comment via Zoom:
Supporters joining remotely are encouraged to sign on by 7:00 PM and speak during the public comment period. Full participation instructions: santaclaraca.gov > City Clerk’s Office > Watch and Participate in Public Meetings. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-clerk-s-office/city-council-meetings/watch-and-participate-in-public-meetings)  Image of graphic advertising the August 18 2026 rally at 6pm and city council meeting at 7pm outside 1500 Warburton Ave with zoom log-in information as noted in the next of the post. The Santa Clara City Clerk’s Office confirmed that no pre-registration to speak; in-person speakers fill out a speaker card in the Chambers; Zoom speakers use “Raise Hand”; 3 minutes per speaker; written public comments and any presentation materials (PowerPoint/PDF) go to [email protected] by 12:00 PM (noon) on Tuesday, August 18. Make your voice heard! An optional draft template for written comment is below: 
My public comment and public presentation slides.
 SPEAK DURING “PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS”: Speakers will address the Council during the “Public Presentations” portion of the meeting which is open to anyone attending in person or via Zoom. Gjovik and other advocates will speak during Public Presentations, and all community members are invited to speak as well including sharing thoughts about fenceline communities, responsible zoning in the City of Santa Clara, and the issues in this lawsuit. Speakers may use their few minutes to share their views, or to formally request that the Council place these issues on a future meeting agenda under Council Policy 030 (“Adding an Item to the Agenda”): https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/82368/638354905782130000. The entire meeting, including every Public Presentations speaker, is livestreamed and recorded, with playback available on the City’s website (santaclara.legistar.com), Facebook page, and YouTube channel (youtube.com/cityofsantaclara). Every comment becomes part of the public record. WHY: On August 6, 2026, Gjovik filed a Second Amended Complaint in federal court (N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:25-cv-07360-PCP) bringing thirty-five claims against Apple, the City of Santa Clara, and the property owners under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and California public nuisance law. The suit seeks removal of the facility’s hazardous chemicals and toxic gases, community warnings, and enforcement of the environmental laws that federal, state, and local regulators have documented the facility violating for a decade. The facility — which bears no company name and no street-visible hazard warnings — stores and uses acutely lethal gases including arsine, phosphine, and chlorine. Apple’s own worst-case dispersion modeling places its arsine toxic endpoint at 1.1 miles, covering thousands of residents. A school serving up to 900 children sits within that radius; in a chemical emergency, the school’s evacuation plan directs children to assemble at a park directly across the street from the plant. The lawsuit follows government enforcement triggered by Gjovik’s complaints. In October 2025, the U.S. EPA resolved seven federal hazardous waste counts against Apple’s facility through a Consent Agreement and Final Order with a monetary penalty — an action EPA’s own records credit to Gjovik’s tip. In May 2026, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District settled air quality violations at the site, including operating emission sources without required permits. Sworn testimony and records obtained in related litigation — cited throughout the amended complaint — include Apple’s own hazard analysis identifying failure scenarios resulting in “injury and/or fatality” to site personnel or neighbors, and Apple’s admission that it is still using the facility today. The complaint also details the City of Santa Clara’s role: approving thousands of apartments beside the fab while omitting it from the project’s environmental review, failing its state-delegated hazardous materials enforcement duties, and — in 2025 — formally amending its General Plan after City officials stated on the record that the area is “not an appropriate area for housing” and “we do not want housing there.” Decades earlier, in LSI Logic Corp. v. City of Santa Clara, the California Court of Appeal rejected this same City’s attempt to site children next to chip fabs. “I almost died in an apartment across the street from this factory. When I went to agencies asking for help, no one knew or would admit this chip fab even existed. Six years later, the plant is still running, still unmarked, and still next to a children’s playground. The agencies fined Apple and moved on. The City rezoned its mistake and left my neighbors and coworkers behind. Nobody even warned the families who live there — so we’re going to court, and we’re going to City Hall.” - Ashley Gjovik Speakers will address the litigation, the enforcement record, the City’s ongoing refusal to warn residents, and calls for the Council to act. After the 6:00 PM rally, participants will move inside to attend the 7:00 PM Council meeting and speak during public comment — in person and via Zoom. Visuals include signs, the facility’s hazard placard imagery, and maps of the plume radius over the surrounding homes, parks, and school. Case: Gjovik v. Apple Inc., City of Santa Clara, Property Owners (Jenab, Lindsey, et al.), N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-07360-PCP. The Second Amended Complaint and exhibits are available on the public court docket via CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71272728/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ Media Contact: Ashley Gjovik [email protected] | Steve Zeltzer & Labor Media [email protected] | Friends of Saratoga Creek friendsofsaratogacreek.org |
 Image of graphic advertising the August 18 2026 rally at 6pm and city council meeting at 7pm outside 1500 Warburton Ave with zoom log-in information as noted in the next of the post. On April 27, 2026, I filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Gjovik v. Apple Inc., City of Santa Clara, Jenab et al., Case No. 25-cv-07360-PCP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The hearing is set for June 4, 2026 at 10:00 AM, before Judge P. Casey Pitts in Courtroom 8 — 4th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA. The hearing is open to the public.
The motion asks the Court to order all hazardous waste, hazardous materials, and toxic gases removed from Apple's semiconductor fabrication plant at 3250 Scott Boulevard within 30 days, to prohibit resumption of hazardous use during the case, and to prohibit the property owner from re-leasing the site to any operator for hazardous use above CalARP, RMP, or Toxic Gas Ordinance threshold quantities. Apple may continue to occupy the building for office or non-industrial use. The relief targets the chemicals — not the building. The full filings:
Since I served the sixty-day notice in June 2025 and filed my Opposition to the City's motion to dismiss in October 2025, the record has only gotten worse for the Defendants. In October 2025, EPA issued a Consent Agreement and Final Order documenting seven RCRA counts. The underlying April 2024 EPA Inspection Report identified 19 Potential Violations — 14 of which were still outstanding when EPA issued its Notice of Violation. Six BAAQMD air-pollution violations remain Pending as of April 26, 2026 — sixteen months after BAAQMD cited them. Santa Clara County's post-Bhopal Toxic Gas Ordinance permitting regime, which exists specifically to prevent catastrophes at facilities like this one, has zero records for this site. Apple's own sworn 2024 throughput report — signed under penalty of law by Apple's EHS Lead in February 2025 — confirms permit-cap exceedances of arsine at 84% over, phosphine at 61% over, and boron trichloride at 824% over. In September 2025, I offered all three Defendants a comprehensive menu of stipulated interim mitigation — air and sewer monitoring with auto-shutoff alarms, public warning signage, basic operator-identification signage (the building bears no public sign identifying Apple as the operator), completion of unfiled hazardous-substance permits, independent professional-engineer assessments, monthly compliance reporting. None of it required admission of liability. All three Defendants refused every measure and offered no counter-proposal. The engineers said it in writingThe most important document in the motion is Apple's own. In its September 2020 Process Hazard Analysis Revalidation, Apple's retained consultant identified specific failure modes — toxic gas leak, fire, explosion, sabotage, truck fire — and assigned to each consequence column the same phrase: "personnel exposure resulting in injury and/or fatality (site personnel or neighbors)." That phrase appears across at least eleven distinct nodes in the document, covering arsine, phosphine, chlorine, ammonia, diborane, silane, and the pyrophoric organometallics like trimethylaluminum and diethyl zinc — chemicals that ignite violently in air or water. Apple's own RMP*Comp dispersion modeling places its arsine worst-case toxic endpoint at 1.1 miles. Inside that envelope: 5,343 residents (a number that excludes the apartment complex across the lot line, which Apple just left out of the count), 1,787 housing units, an amusement park, a college, places of worship, the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, VTA Light Rail, and Highway 101. The Santa Clara Fire Department — the CalARP Administering Agency that received the modeling — has formally written that Apple's plume models are "not favorable for this area" and on June 17, 2025 withheld approval of an adjacent 166-unit residential project pending environmental review. The Granada Islamic School, with up to 900 pre-K through 8th-grade students, sits inside the arsine plume. In a chemical emergency, the school's Shelter-in-Place plan directs the children to evacuate to Meadow Park — directly across the street from the facility. The evacuation route runs the children toward the source. The failure modes Apple's engineers predicted have already materialized. Between June 2016 and May 2024, there were at least eleven toxic gas incidents at the facility, including:
Five chemical-release events in the past three years alone. Santa Clara has been withholding additional incident records since May 2024. Apple's facility sits directly on top of a pressurized artesian aquifer at about 35 feet below grade. Documented head pressure has been increasing since 1988 — a Honeywell monitoring well next door went from 19 feet depth-to-water in 1988 to zero by 1995, with water rising 100 feet up the well shaft. The 2015 Geotechnical Investigation for the apartment site documented four pressurized springs with measured pressure sufficient to drive the water column 10 to 13 feet above grade if uncapped. Apple stores silane, dichlorosilane, silicon tetrachloride, trimethylaluminum, diethyl zinc, and 49% hydrofluoric acid — chemicals that ignite or react violently with water — directly above this system. The geotechnical engineers' only mitigation recommendation was, essentially, don't dig down into it. Apple has known about the increasing aquifer pressure since 2015 and has done nothing. The City has been here before. The Sixth District Court of Appeal held in LSI Logic Corp. v. City of Santa Clara (1995) that the City of Santa Clara was unlawfully negligent for approving sensitive receptors next to chip fabs, and rejected the City's "shelter-in-place safe room" mitigation as inadequate. Current Mayor Lisa Gillmor was on the City Council at the time. The City was on direct, judicially-noticeable notice — thirty years ago — that doing this in this very City violated the duty owed to the surrounding community. The City did it again here, concealed Apple's CalARP-regulated status from the 2015 EIR, and continues to conceal the danger. Apple is also judicially estopped. In my prior personal-injury case before this same District (3:23-cv-04597), Apple won a statute-of-limitations dismissal on the position that, on notice that Apple was operating a semiconductor manufacturing plant at this address, I and any other victims should have immediately suspected the facility as the cause of severe chemical injuries. Apple cannot now turn around and tell this Court the same facility presents no extraordinary risk to anyone living next door. The fab is either ultrahazardous activity or it isn't. What I'm asking forThe motion asks the Court for what the Defendants would not agree to voluntarily:
What comes nextI'll post updates here as briefing develops. Apple, the City, and the property owner have their oppositions due in the coming weeks; my reply follows. If you want to support the case, you can sign the Change.org petition and share it. The community right next door has been kept in the dark about this for nearly a decade, and the people inside the 1.1-mile arsine plume — the residents, the children at the playground across the street, the 900 schoolkids whose evacuation route goes toward the source, the worshippers at the Family Prayer House nursery, the urgent care patients, the workers who have already been hospitalized — deserve to know. The chemicals at this facility can kill thousands of people in minutes if released. Apple's own engineers admitted that in writing under penalty. It's time for the chemicals to come out. -Ashley 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 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. On June 26 2025, US EPA served Apple with a notice of RCRA enforcement action re: Apple's fab at 3250 Scott Blvd, in Santa Clara, California. Read the notice here.    Recent federal judicial decisions in Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (3:23-cv-04597, Northern District of California) represent a systematic judicial assault on federal environmental enforcement authority and constitutional due process protections. Through procedural manipulation disguised as case management, the defendant (Apple) and District Judge (Judge Edward Chen) created a framework that effectively immunizes corporate polluters from toxic tort liability while denying citizens fundamental constitutional rights. These decisions threaten to undermine decades of environmental protection law and federal enforcement capabilities. The implications of these decisions extend far beyond a single case, establishing precedent that could effectively eliminate private enforcement of environmental violations while creating procedural mechanisms for corporate defendants to escape liability through systematic rule manipulation.
The timeline also reveals the decision's direct conflict with federal enforcement priorities. After plaintiff's investigation revealed potential violations at Apple's semiconductor facility, her June 2023 EPA complaint triggered federal enforcement investigation at the site. The EPA's response validates that plaintiff's concerns warranted regulatory attention (precisely the type of citizen enforcement mechanism Congress intended to encourage through environmental statutes). Chen's decision penalizes the thorough investigation that led to federal enforcement action, essentially ruling that plaintiff should have filed suit before conducting the due diligence that revealed actionable violations and prompted EPA intervention. On May 20 2024, Chen ruled on a Motion to Dismiss and decided to allow Gjovik's environmental claims to move forward. Then, despite previously approving the claims, on October 1 2024, Chen dismissed the same environmental claims with leave to amend, specifically instructing Gjovik to plead "inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence." Then, on February 27 2025, after Gjovik amended as instructed, Chen dismissed the same claims with prejudice using an entirely different legal standard based on judicial notice of public documents. In response to Apple's fifth 12(b)(6) motion, Chen took judicial notice of Apple's own regulatory documents and then made factual determinations about what "reasonable inquiry" would have reveal and what that inquiry would have consisted of. Chen then also resolved disputed questions about reasonable diligence without testimony or discovery, and concluded any factual conflict in pleadings with deference to the defendant's unsubstantial claims. Chen also denied the plaintiff the right to develop factual records on questions traditionally reserved for juries. Chen's use of judicial notice transforms regulatory filings from compliance documentation into litigation weapons. Corporate defendants can now attach their own permits and emission reports to motions to dismiss, arguing these documents establish liability notice regardless of content or interpretation complexity. Chen's reasoning would also eliminate discovery rule protection for anyone living near industrial facilities. This circumvents normal discovery processes where federal agencies could provide context about regulatory compliance, violations, and enforcement priorities. The procedure denies federal prosecutors potential cooperation from private litigants who might develop evidence useful in criminal enforcement actions. By cutting off civil discovery, Chen's approach limits the factual development that often supports federal prosecutions. Worse, he made this decision while knowing the US EPA was investigating Apple's activities at this site and he also refused to take notice of the plaintiff's request for Judicial Notice with those federal public records. Chen identified that CERCLA § 9658 preempts state discovery rules for toxic exposure cases. However, his application fundamentally misinterprets federal policy. The provision exists to ensure adequate time for complex environmental investigations; not to accelerate dismissals based on industrial permit availability. Chen's reasoning converts federal preemption from a plaintiff protection into a corporate shield, inverting Congressional intent to provide adequate investigation time for environmental claims. Chen's implicit reasoning also creates discriminatory limitation periods based on technical knowledge. This is a particularly problematic precedent for environmental enforcement. This professional expertise penalty would deter environmental professionals from residing near industrial areas and discourage the technical knowledge crucial for environmental enforcement. Under this framework:
Chen also applied the 2-year toxic exposure statute (§ 340.8) while completely ignoring the 3-year property damage statute (§ 338(b)) that would have protected Gjovik's property damage claims. This selective statute application demonstrates systematic bias toward the shortest possible limitations period and is not supported by existing law or public policy. Further, Chen entertained Apple's successive motion based on speculative "judicial economy" concerns arising out of the expectation that Apple would engage in Rambo litigation. Chen even acknowledged that Rule 12(g)(2) "does lend support to Ms. Gjovik's position," but proceeded anyways. This reasoning nullifies Rule 12(g)(2) entirely by allowing defendants to always claim future filing opportunities, and to reward them for litigation misconduct. He further justified his actions post hoc by claiming he was able to find more claims he could dismiss at his discretion (not on the merits), which is not the legal standard. The plaintiff objected to these issues, and catastrophic legal implications, in her filings and during oral arguments. Apple's legal counsel consisted exclusively of Big Law employment litigation defense counsel, including multiple partners specialized in defending large corporations from retaliation and discrimination claims, and did not include any environmental attorneys. Apple's counsel also affirmatively told the court that Apple was not under investigation for environmental issues at the site, when Apple was under active US EPA investigation and enforcement. The impact of Chen's decision specifically eliminates the discovery rule for private tort remedies and incentivizes defendants to engage in criminal obstruction until the statute of limitations expires. This also creates a bifurcated enforcement system where, upon successful concealment by the defendant, environmental violations can only be addressed through federal citizen suit mechanisms with limited injunctive relief, not through state tort law with damages liability. This bifurcation reduces deterrent effects by eliminating corporate financial liability while preserving only prospective equitable remedies, and requiring uncompensated labor by victims to enforce and obtain financial penalties to be charged against wrong-doers, but only paid to the U.S. Treasury. Judge Chen also dismissed the plaintiff's environmental tort claims as time-barred while simultaneously allowing her crime victim retaliation claims to proceed, while both are based on the overlapping and related misconduct by Apple Inc. The same judge who created multiple unconstitutional loopholes to shield Apple from tort liability also found that Apple's conduct appeared to present a strong enough case for criminal charges, as to support Labor Code protections for crime victims arising out of the same facts. At the same time, Chen also refused to acknowledge plaintiff's arguments that during the same time period that Apple claims she should have discovered their activities, Apple was actively retaliating against her, engaged in criminal witness intimidation and tampering, attempted to coerce her into an undervalued settlement of all claims while concealing what they did to her and prior to firing her, Apple made false and misleading statements to her and the government about their activities at the facility, and that she has inherent claims to crime victim restitution regardless of the form of the cause of action. Chen did not even address these arguments and his decision implies that even if an employee is a victim of criminal environmental conduct by their employer, that employer can avoid claims about the underlying harms through otherwise criminal retaliation, harassment, and obstruction in order to conceal their misconduct until the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit's repeated refusal to review final judgments on these dismissed environmental claims also violates established appellate jurisdiction principles while creating complete procedural blockade for pro se crime victims. Constitutional violations become unreviewable while precedent harmful to private environmental rights becomes entrenched. This appellate denial particularly harms federal enforcement interests by preventing correction of decisions that undermine private environmental rights that complement federal enforcement capabilities. Chen's framework provides corporate defendants with a replicable strategy for escaping environmental liability, even if they did not engage in the same earlier criminal conduct and cover-up that Apple did:
Federal agencies should clarify that regulatory filing availability does not create immunity from private tort liability for environmental violations. EPA should issue guidance clarifying that citizen investigation and complaint processes support federal enforcement authority, and that the federal discovery rule preempts Chen's rogue decision. Federal prosecutors should also prioritize cases involving facilities where citizen complaints have been dismissed under similar reasoning to demonstrate federal commitment to environmental protection. ENRD should consider amicus briefing in any future cases or appeals under Chen's theories, in order to clarify federal enforcement priorities and preemption scope. Gjovik v. Apple Inc. represents systematic judicial nullification of private environmental rights through Apple's procedural manipulation. Chen's framework threatens to eliminate tolling for private tort liability and serves as a warning that a well-resourced defendant's sophisticated and malicious case management strategy can sabotage entire statutes. Federal intervention is necessary to prevent this precedent from destroying private environmental remedies that support broader enforcement goals, to provide essential deterrent effects against corporate environmental violations, and to hold Apple and their counsel accountable for making these bad faith arguments and obstructing an appeal that could have corrected this untenable and catastrophic outcome. -Ashley Published: August 24 2025 Apple had filed an opposition to my appeal of the U.S. Dept. of Labor toxic waste whistleblower case & reading Apple's response, and having to respond to it, was just as enjoyable as stabbing pencils into my eyes. You can read that here. I filed my Reply to U.S. Dept. of Labor on Nov. 6 2024, cutting it close at literally midnight - but getting it in. US Dept. of Labor accepted it later that day. U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB appellate reply:
 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 On March 10 2024, Ashley submitted a community stakeholder interview record to the US EPA and USACE for the Five Year Review process at the Triple Site in Sunnyvale, California.
Read the submission here: https://www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/us-epa-fyr-triple-site-gjovik-interview-final-full.pdf On January 19 2024, Gjovik's CERCLA/Superfund whistleblower retaliation case was docketed with the US. Dept. of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges as Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-CER-00001 and assigned to the Boston court house.
View PDF of docketing order.2PD42024-CER-00001-CER-00001 On January 8 2024, Ashley Gjovik appealed her US Department of Labor CERCLA charge to the US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Judges and requested a de novo hearing on the record.
View the request here: gjovik.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/US-DOL-OALJ-Gjovik-v-Apple-CERCLA-RCRA-CAA.pdf Ashley also requested an amendment to add RCRA and Clean Air Act charges as well, to capture what Apple did to her with their secret semiconductor fab exhaust in 2020. On June 12 2023, Ashley filed a complaint to the US EPA, CalEPA, and city HazMat about Apple's stealth semiconductor fabrication activities at 3250 Scott Blvd and Gjovik (and other's) resulting illness.
Read the complaint: www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/3250_scott_complaint_-_final.pdf 8/29/2021 - Ashley Files Complaint to US EPA about Apple & the TRW Microwave Superfund Site8/29/2021 On August 29 2021, Ashley filed a complaint to the US EPA about Apple, the TRW Microwave Superfund site, and the cracks in the foundation.
Due to Gjovik's disclosures, the US EPA inspected the site and found a number of CERCLA issues that required oversight for multiple years after. |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
September 2026
Categories
All
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed