Environmental and community groups have sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its approval of two chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing, arguing that the agency allowed the substances into commercial use despite unresolved health and environmental risks.
The lawsuits were filed on Aug. 14 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by CHIPS Communities United and the Sierra Club, with Earthjustice representing the groups. The petitions seek judicial review of the EPA’s decisions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs the premarket review of new industrial chemicals.
The substances have not been publicly identified by commercial names. EPA documents use generic chemical descriptions and tracking numbers. The plaintiffs describe the materials as photoacid generators, which are used to process semiconductor wafer surfaces during chip manufacturing.
One of the chemicals is described by the groups as an “apparent” per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS), a category of chemicals known for persistence in the environment. The classification has raised concerns over potential contamination associated with semiconductor supply chains supporting the rapidly expanding AI infrastructure market.
At the centre of the lawsuits is the groups’ claim that EPA did not adequately evaluate risks to semiconductor workers and communities near manufacturing facilities before approving the substances.
Earthjustice said the agency’s reviews identified potential hazards including cancer, neurological effects and sudden death, while also acknowledging gaps in available data. The environmental groups argue that TSCA requires sufficient information to determine whether a new chemical presents an unreasonable risk before commercial use is authorised.
The legal challenge comes as US investment in AI data centres drives demand for advanced semiconductors and expands pressure on the wider chip supply chain. Environmental advocates argue that accelerating semiconductor and data-centre development should not come at the expense of chemical safety reviews.
The groups are asking the Ninth Circuit to vacate the EPA approvals and send the decisions back to the agency for further review. They also dispute the redaction of health and safety information submitted by chemical applicants, arguing that greater disclosure is required under TSCA.
The case could have implications beyond the two substances. A ruling against EPA could increase scrutiny of its approval process for new chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing, potentially affecting materials needed as chipmakers expand capacity for AI-related demand.
The litigation adds another layer to the growing debate over how quickly the US should build AI infrastructure while addressing environmental, health and regulatory risks across the technology supply chain.
