In terms of evaluating whether the Defendants engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity, strict liability only applies “to ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activities . . . not to ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous materials.” BHK Realty, LLC v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 542 F.Supp.3d 133, 138-39 (D.R.I. 2021); see In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Inj. Litig., Civil Action No. 2:13-md-2433, 2015 WL 4092866, at *18-19 (S.D. Ohio July 6, 2015) (explaining that “the activity itself” must be abnormally dangerous, “not simply the conditions that result”); Read v. Corning Inc., 351 F.Supp.3d 342, 358 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (finding that the disposal of ordinary materials that just happen to contain hazardous chemicals “is not so inherently dangerous as to give rise to strict liability.”).