The Environmental Protection Agency is facing a lawsuit over its approval of two new chemicals used to manufacture semiconductors, after the agency identified potentially serious health effects but acknowledged it did not have enough information to fully measure some of the risks.
The chemicals are used in the complex manufacturing process behind semiconductors, the computer chips that power everything from phones to artificial intelligence and the rapidly expanding data centers that support it.
Other WRAL Top Stories
Environmental groups say the EPA should not have allowed the chemicals to enter the market without more testing or stronger protections.
“EPA admitted that it wasn't able to measure the full extent of those risks, that it didn't have the data, in fact it didn't even know the levels at which those chemicals are safe or unsafe,” said Jon Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney with Earthjustice. “And yet EPA still approved both chemicals for immediate use without the protections needed to protect communities and workers.”
Earthjustice is representing CHIPS Communities United and the Sierra Club in the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
EPA documents flag serious potential health effects
EPA's reviews identified potential hazards including genetic, reproductive and developmental toxicity. The agency's documents also reference “acute lethality,” while acknowledging it lacked enough information to quantify some potential risks.
Dr. Sue Fenton, a toxicologist at North Carolina State University who has studied the health effects of PFAS for two decades, said the phrase “acute lethality” describes a potentially deadly effect over a relatively short exposure period.
“Dose is really important, but the part of this that's important for these chemicals in particular is that they don't know the dose that's lethal or that can cause lethality,” Fenton said.
That distinction is important. Identifying a potential hazard does not by itself establish that workers or nearby communities are currently being exposed at levels that could cause those health effects.
Fenton said the uncertainty over dose and exposure is still concerning.
“Knowing that acute lethality is one of the outcomes of the already conducted studies on the health effects of these chemicals, there's no way anyone should be using them,” she said. “Accidents can happen any time.”
EPA did put restrictions on how the chemicals can be used. Environmental groups say those safeguards do not go far enough.
“It could have prevented all environmental releases of these chemicals. It chose not to,” Kalmuss-Katz said. “It could have ensured that workers were not going to be exposed to these serious but unstudied risks. It chose not to.”
The groups are asking the federal appeals court to throw out EPA's approvals.
Exact chemicals remain confidential
Exactly what the two chemicals are is not publicly known.
Their specific identities and chemical structures have been withheld as confidential business information, according to Earthjustice.
Kalmuss-Katz said their intended use and generic descriptions suggest they could be PFAS, a large class of persistent compounds commonly known as “forever chemicals,” but there is not enough publicly available information to confirm that.
Semiconductor manufacturing already relies on some PFAS and other highly specialized chemicals at multiple stages of production.
Fenton said the lack of information also raises questions about what ultimately happens to the chemicals after they're used.
“My biggest worry is that not only are these chemicals being used, therefore the people printing the cards or the chips are going to have exposure, but it's going to go into a waste system somewhere,” Fenton said. “It's either going to go into the air, or the water, or something.”
At least one of the two chemicals has had a notice of commencement filed, according to Earthjustice, meaning its manufacture or import can begin under the conditions established by EPA.
Chemical reviews part of broader AI infrastructure push
The legal challenge comes as the Trump administration moves to accelerate development of the massive infrastructure needed to support artificial intelligence.
In September 2025, EPA announced it would prioritize reviews of certain new chemicals intended for data center projects or the manufacturing of components used in qualifying data center projects.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at the time that the agency wanted to help speed development and make the United States “the artificial intelligence capital of the world.”
EPA says the Toxic Substances Control Act requires the agency to review potential risks from new chemicals before they enter the U.S. market and put safeguards in place when necessary.
It is not yet clear whether the two chemicals at the center of this lawsuit received prioritized review under EPA's data center initiative.
Kalmuss-Katz said accelerating AI development does not change EPA's obligations under federal chemical safety law.
“This administration's interest in promoting AI and promoting the use of semiconductors and the construction of new data centers does not permit the administration to violate the law,” he said.
Fenton said the growing demand for chips and data centers makes understanding the potential consequences of the chemicals used to support that growth increasingly important.
“I know data centers and chips are the wave of the future,” Fenton said. “I just think we have to find a way to make them safely and to make sure that the waste coming from the facilities making them doesn't go into our backyards.”
WRAL News contacted EPA Thursday with questions about the approvals, the potential health effects identified in its reviews and whether the chemicals received expedited or prioritized review as part of the administration's AI and data center policies.
An EPA spokesperson said the agency needed additional time to respond. This story will be updated when that response is received.