1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |EPA Announces the First Ten Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the "New TSCA"

EPA Announces the First Ten Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the "New TSCA"

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.30.16

Implementation of TSCA Reform Marches Forward

EPA announced yesterday the first ten chemicals that will be subject to risk evaluations, and possibly restrictions, under the “new” TSCA. The first ten chemicals are:

  • 1,4-Dioxane
  • 1-Bromopropane
  • Asbestos
  • Carbon Tetrachloride
  • Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster
  • Methylene Chloride
  • N-methylpyrrolidone
  • Pigment Violet 29
  • Tetrachloroethylene (aka perchloroethylene)
  • Trichloroethylene

According to EPA, the majority of these chemicals are used in a broad range of consumer products and services, from cosmetics (1,4 Dioxane) to dry-cleaning (1-Bromopropane, Tetrachloroethylene).

As part of the risk evaluation process, EPA will examine hazard and exposure data for each substance to assess whether the chemical presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” If, as a result of this evaluation, a substance is found to present an unreasonable risk, EPA will engage in rulemaking to impose restrictions on the substance necessary to mitigate that risk.

The risk evaluation process for these ten substances will commence with the publication of EPA’s announcement in the Federal Register. After that, the Agency will have six months within which to release a “scoping document” for each chemical. This document will capture the “hazard(s), exposure(s), conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation(s) the agency plans to consider for the evaluation.” Under the new law, EPA must complete its risk evaluations within three years of publication of the Federal Register notice.

Companies that manufacture, import, process or otherwise utilize any of the ten substances identified in EPA’s announcement must consider whether, and how best, to participate in the upcoming risk evaluation process – starting with the scoping documents to be published by EPA in June 2017. Companies that fail to participate in the process may be blindsided by restrictions that EPA imposes following completion of these risk evaluations.

EPA’s announcement is just the latest in a series of actions that the Agency has taken to quickly move forward with implementation of the new TSCA law. In recent weeks EPA has submitted two sets of proposed regulations to OMB for review. One of the proposed rules would establish the process and criteria for identifying “high priority” chemicals for risk evaluation. The second proposed rule would establish the process EPA will follow for conducting risk evaluations. EPA has promised to propose two additional sets of regulations by the end of 2016 – pertaining to the “Inventory re-set” and fees.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....