Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is a “facility” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9); (2) a “release” or “threatened release” of any “hazardous substance” from the facility has occurred; and (3) such “release” or “threatened release” ' has caused the plaintiff to incur response costs. Ascon Properties v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir.1989). See also United States v. Bliss, 667 F.Supp. 1298, 1310 (E.D.Mo.1987); Violet v. Picillo, 648 F.Supp. 1283, 1289 (D.R.I.1986). In this case, it is undisputed that there has been a “release” or a “threatened release” from a facility and that the release triggered the incurrence of response costs by Acme. Therefore, the only issues for resolution are (1) whether the defendant dumped its waste at the Fadrowski site and (2) whether th . 1361, 1405- 06 (D.N.H.1986) . However, the plaintiff must establish some
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no requirement that plaintiffs show that defendants waste caused environmental harm
B. holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement
C. holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm
D. holding that there is generally no constitutional requirement that defendants must always be informed of their right to appeal following a guilty plea
E. holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.