Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
F.3d at 282; compare Tilot Oil, 907 F.Supp.2d at 967-68 (rejecting groundwater contamination as ISE per se, but finding that “a lack of ongoing remediation might allow a finding of endangerment to the environment” even without any clear showing of threat to the nearby river). Since the Wellfield’s environment shows no overt signs of stress, and mere presence of C8 is not enough to show imminent and substantial endangerment, Defendant claims it is entitled to summary judgment on any RCRA environmental endangerment claims. Plaintiff responds that the uncontrovert-ed presence of C8 in the Wellfield’s groundwater, as well as complete absence of any remediation effort, is sufficient to show imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment. See Interfaith Cmty. Org., 399 F.3d at 263 . The Interfaith Court, relying on the New
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury
B. holding that coconspirator liability for a  924c offense may be established under pinkerton liability
C. holding no liability existed under the circumstances
D. holding liability under rcra for contamination to groundwater and rivers because the ise provision imposes liability for endangerments to the environment including water in and of itself
E. holding that clause eight imposes liability on time charterer for injuries to longshoremen
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.