EPA draft risk evaluation 1,2-dichloropropane, comments Nov 3

EPA draft risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloropropane and the comment deadline

EPA's draft TSCA risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloropropane preliminarily finds that 14 of the 15 conditions of use assessed significantly contribute to unreasonable risk to human health. Comments are due November 3, 2026, in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0428. The companion trans-1,2-dichloroethylene comment period closes on October 26, 2026. That one comes first.

EPA released the 1,2-dichloropropane draft on September 2, 2026. The Federal Register notice followed on September 4 (91 FR 56882) and is dated September 1. The draft file, EPA-740-D-26-035, still says August 2026, but EPA released it in September.

What the 1,2-dichloropropane draft finds

The EPA chemical page, updated October 15, 2026, says 11 conditions of use contribute to the preliminary unreasonable risk determination for workers. Four of those 11 also put occupational non-users at risk: nearby workers who don't handle the chemical. The news release is looser. It groups workers and non-users together and ties inhalation and skin contact to 11 uses. Use the chemical page for who is actually in the finding.

The 11 worker uses are domestic manufacture, import, processing as a reactant, incorporation into a formulation, repackaging, industrial use as a processing aid, commercial laboratory chemical and disposal, plus three commercial cleaning and furnishing-care uses: all-purpose liquid spray cleaner, waxes and polishes, and liquid cleaner and polish. Those three cleaning uses and disposal are the four that also affect non-users (draft, pp. 11, 13-14).

All three consumer uses contribute too, mostly from short-term inhalation. The spray cleaner also carries long-term non-cancer and cancer risk (draft, pp. 11-14). No assessed condition of use significantly contributes to unreasonable risk for the general population, including fenceline communities, or for the environment. Distribution in commerce does not significantly contribute (EPA chemical page).

EPA says 1,2-dichloropropane "has not appeared in U.S. manufactured products since 2022," and it kept the consumer uses because "products made outside the U.S. might still contain the chemical and find their way into American homes and businesses" (EPA news release). The draft treats consumer use as reasonably foreseen and asks whether it is still plausible in the US. If you import cleaning or furniture-care products, that question is aimed at you.

Hazard basis and uses

1,2-Dichloropropane "has been recognized as likely to be carcinogenic to humans," and the draft evaluates both cancer and non-cancer effects (EPA news release). Non-cancer effects in the draft are central nervous system depression and blood effects. EPA had no suitable dermal studies, so it estimated skin risk from oral values (draft, p. 13).

The Federal Register notice says the chemical is manufactured primarily as a byproduct, with 2024 Chemical Data Reporting production of 100 to 250 million pounds. The chemical page calls organic chemical manufacturing the primary use.

Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene draft risk evaluation

EPA announced the trans-1,2-dichloroethylene draft on August 28, 2026. The Federal Register notice (91 FR 55337) was signed August 24 and sets comments for October 26, 2026, in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0465.

The EPA chemical page, updated September 16, 2026, preliminarily finds that 20 of 25 assessed conditions of use significantly contribute to unreasonable risk to health. Non-cancer inhalation risk to workers and occupational non-users drives it. Nineteen uses contribute for workers, and 13 of those also for non-users. One consumer cleaner and degreaser use contributes through acute and intermediate non-cancer inhalation. EPA did not identify unreasonable risk from skin exposure, and it did not preliminarily identify unreasonable risk to the general population, including fenceline communities, or to the environment.

Five conditions of use do not significantly contribute: distribution in commerce, disposal, laboratory chemical use, semiconductor and photovoltaic etching and cleaning, and consumer use as a polymer foam blowing agent. The draft (EPA-740-D-26-029) preliminarily concludes a quantitative cancer assessment is not warranted. Sensory irritation, acute neurotoxicity and immune effects drive the non-cancer risk. EPA also asks for workplace controls, PPE, task frequency (notably for blowing-agent use), the number of vapor degreasing facilities and byproduct monitoring data (draft, p. 16; Federal Register notice).

Peer review and the final deadline

One SACC peer review covered five chemicals, including both of these (EPA peer review page, docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-2246). The public meeting ran August 3 to 7, 2026. SACC reviewed the supporting hazard and exposure documents, not the full drafts.

Both final evaluations are due February 12, 2027. The 2026 Annual Plan says all December 31, 2026 consent decree deadlines moved to that date. The decree is Community In-Power and Development Assoc. v. EPA, No. 1:23-cv-02715 (D.D.C.). If a final evaluation confirms unreasonable risk, EPA must propose risk management rules under TSCA section 6(a).

What the East Fork ruling means for these drafts

On September 15, 2026, the Fifth Circuit decided East Fork Enterprises v. EPA (Judge Edith H. Jones). It vacated EPA's May 2024 methylene chloride rule and the November 2022 revised risk determination. The court held that TSCA requires "a separate risk determination for each condition of use," not one finding for the chemical "as a whole." It also held that EPA "must account for PPE in its risk evaluations as a 'condition of use' if evidence reflects that PPE is actually used."

Both notices were signed before that opinion: August 24 for trans-1,2-dichloroethylene and September 1 for 1,2-dichloropropane. Each notice still says the chemical poses unreasonable risk to human health driven primarily by certain conditions of use. EPA's chemical pages list the result use by use, and both notices ask for PPE and exposure-control data per use.

EPA had already proposed revising its risk evaluation procedures in September 2025 (90 FR 45690), including a return to use-by-use determinations and considering PPE. That document is a proposal, not a final rule. East Fork concerned methylene chloride, not these two drafts. Check the dockets for EPA's response, and file use-specific evidence on PPE, controls and task frequency.

RegAffairs AI answers this question with links to EPA sources.