ChromaScape LLC Imported Banned Chemical Twice, Lied to Customs Both Times, Paid $37,400.

The Mechanics of the Violation

ChromaScape LLC operates a chemical manufacturing and processing facility at 105 Wood Street in Greenville, South Carolina. In 2020, the company imported a substance the EPA consent agreement refers to only as “Chemical A.” The EPA redacted the chemical’s identity, citing confidential business information protections under Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Here’s what matters: Chemical A was not listed on the TSCA Inventory. Under federal law, any chemical substance not on that list is classified as a “new chemical substance” and cannot be imported into the United States without first submitting a premanufacture notice to the EPA at least 90 calendar days before import. This is not a suggestion. It is a hard legal requirement codified at 40 C.F.R. § 720.22 and enforced under Section 5 of TSCA.

ChromaScape did not submit a PMN. They imported Chemical A anyway. Twice.

Each time, ChromaScape filed a written certification with U.S. Customs and Border Protection stating that the shipment complied with all applicable TSCA rules. Both certifications were false. The company later claimed it made these certifications “in reliance on documentation provided by the supplier of Chemical A.” The EPA did not find this excuse persuasive.

“On each occasion when Respondent imported Chemical A in 2020, Respondent filed a written certification that the import complied with all applicable rules under TSCA. Respondent asserts it made these certifications in reliance on documentation provided by the supplier of Chemical A. However, because the imported chemical substance had in fact been subject to PMN requirements, and Respondent had not submitted a PMN as required by the rules found at 40 C.F.R. Part 720, Respondent’s certification was incorrect and was not in compliance with the requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 12.121.”

Translation: ChromaScape trusted its supplier, skipped the review process, and imported a potentially hazardous unlisted chemical twice. When caught, they pointed at the supplier and said it wasn’t their fault. The EPA’s position is clear: the importer is responsible, period.

How the EPA Found Out

On September 25, 2023, more than three years after the illegal imports, the EPA issued ChromaScape a Notice of Inspection under Section 11(a) of TSCA. This is a formal notification that federal agents intend to conduct a compliance inspection at a facility. ChromaScape submitted records to the EPA on October 17, 2023. Authorized EPA agents physically inspected the Greenville facility on October 25, 2023. ChromaScape submitted additional records on January 22, 2024.

On March 21, 2024, the EPA issued an Opportunity to Show Cause letter, alleging ChromaScape had violated Sections 5, 13, and 15 of TSCA by failing to comply with PMN regulations and import certification requirements. ChromaScape responded on April 19, 2024. The consent agreement and final order were filed on July 15, 2026.

The timeline is worth noting. ChromaScape imported Chemical A in 2020. The EPA inspection didn’t happen until 2023. The consent agreement wasn’t finalized until 2026. That’s a six-year gap between the violation and the settlement. During that time, Chemical A was in the United States, presumably being used in ChromaScape’s manufacturing processes or sold to other companies. No one knows what happened to it. The consent agreement doesn’t say.

The Non-Financial Ledger

The consent agreement is a masterclass in procedural language designed to obscure accountability. ChromaScape “neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations” but agrees to pay the penalty. The company “certifies to the best of its knowledge that Respondent is currently in compliance with all relevant requirements of the Act.” The violations “which are neither admitted nor denied, have been corrected.”

Corrected how? The document doesn’t say. Who at ChromaScape made the decision to import Chemical A without a PMN? The document doesn’t say. Was Chemical A sold to other companies? The document doesn’t say. Did ChromaScape employees handle Chemical A without knowing its safety profile had never been reviewed by federal regulators? The document doesn’t say.

The people who work at ChromaScape are not abstract legal entities. They are human beings who come to work, follow orders, and trust that their employer is operating within the law. When a company imports an unlisted chemical without federal safety review, it is not the CEO who handles the barrels. It is the warehouse workers. It is the forklift operators. It is the technicians in the processing facility who mix, measure, and store substances they are told are safe.

ChromaScape’s defense is that they trusted their supplier. But who at ChromaScape was responsible for verifying that trust? Who signed off on the import paperwork? Who decided not to check the TSCA Inventory? Who reviewed the supplier’s documentation and concluded it was sufficient? The consent agreement names no one.

This is the non-financial cost. The dignity of workers who deserve to know what they are handling. The integrity of a regulatory system that allows companies to settle without naming the individuals responsible. The trust of a community in Greenville that has no idea whether Chemical A is still in their air, their water, or their soil.

Legal Receipts

The consent agreement is filed as Docket No. TSCA-04-2026-6006(b) with the EPA Region 4 Hearing Clerk. The document is 13 pages long and was signed by ChromaScape CEO Dustin Riley on June 29, 2026, and by EPA Region 4 Director Keriema S. Newman on July 14, 2026. Regional Judicial Officer Michele Wetherington approved the final order on July 15, 2026.

“Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 720.120(b), a person who manufactures a new chemical substance before a PMN is submitted and the PMN review period expires is in violation of Section 15 of the Act even if that person was not required to submit the PMN under 40 C.F.R. § 720.22.”

This is the regulatory hammer. Even if ChromaScape argues they didn’t know they were required to submit a PMN, the act of importing the chemical before the review period expired is itself a violation. Ignorance is not a defense. Reliance on a supplier is not a defense. The law is clear.

“Based on the EPA’s investigation, including a review of Respondent’s records as set forth above, the EPA alleges that Respondent: (a) Failed to submit a PMN at least 90 calendar days before importing Chemical A, a new chemical substance, in violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 720.22, 720.40(b), and 720.120(b), and Sections 5(a)(1) and 15(3) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2604(a)(1) and 2614(3); and (b) Submitted incorrect certifications that its importations of Chemical A were in compliance with TSCA, in violation of 19 C.F.R. § 12.121(a)(1), and Section 15(1) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2614(1).”

Two violations. Two false certifications. One settlement. No admission of guilt.

Societal Impact Mapping

Environmental Degradation

The consent agreement does not disclose the identity of Chemical A, its toxicity profile, or its environmental persistence. We do not know if it bioaccumulates. We do not know if it degrades in soil or water. We do not know if it is a carcinogen, a reproductive toxin, or an endocrine disruptor. The entire purpose of the premanufacture notice process is to answer these questions before a chemical enters commerce. ChromaScape bypassed that process.

Greenville, South Carolina, sits within the Reedy River watershed. The city has a population of approximately 70,000 people. ChromaScape’s facility is located at 105 Wood Street, an industrial area near rail lines and distribution hubs. If Chemical A was released into the environment during its handling, storage, or processing at the facility, the Reedy River is the most likely pathway for contamination. The consent agreement contains no environmental monitoring data, no sampling results, and no remediation plan.

Public Health

The Toxic Substances Control Act exists because unreviewed chemicals have a documented history of causing cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and immune system dysfunction. The PMN process is the firewall. It requires companies to submit data on a chemical’s properties, its intended use, and its potential for human and environmental exposure. The EPA then reviews that data and can impose restrictions, require additional testing, or prohibit the chemical entirely.

ChromaScape imported Chemical A without triggering that review. Twice. In 2020. During a global pandemic when supply chain disruptions and regulatory oversight gaps were at their peak. The chemical was in the United States for at least three years before the EPA inspection. Who was exposed? The consent agreement doesn’t say.

Economic Inequality

ChromaScape is a limited liability company. That legal structure exists to shield individual owners and executives from personal liability. When ChromaScape settles for $37,400, the company pays, not the people who made the decisions. The CEO signed the consent agreement. His name is Dustin Riley. But the settlement does not name him as individually liable. It does not name the compliance officer who should have caught the error. It does not name the purchasing manager who selected the supplier. It does not name the operations director who oversaw the import process.

The fine of $37,400 is a rounding error for a chemical manufacturing company with the capacity to import industrial-scale shipments of raw materials. The consent agreement specifies that the penalty must be paid within 30 days and that late payments will accrue interest at the IRS standard underpayment rate. If ChromaScape fails to pay, the EPA can refer the debt to a collection agency, offset it against federal payments, or file a civil action in district court. But none of those enforcement mechanisms involve prison time. None of them involve personal financial ruin for the executives who made the call.

Compare that to a worker who unknowingly handled Chemical A. If that worker develops a chronic illness years from now, they will bear the medical costs. They will bear the lost wages. They will bear the burden of proving causation in a legal system that heavily favors corporate defendants. ChromaScape will point to the consent agreement as evidence that the matter was resolved and that they are now in full compliance. The worker will have nothing but a redacted document that doesn’t even name the chemical they were exposed to.

What Now?

The consent agreement identifies the following EPA officials involved in the case:

• Keriema S. Newman, Director, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, EPA Region 4
• Gopal Timsina, Case Development Officer, Chemical Safety and Land Enforcement Branch
• Ryan Jones, Attorney, EPA Region 4
• Colleen E. Michuda, Supervisory Attorney, EPA Region 4
• Michele Wetherington, Regional Judicial Officer, EPA Region 4

ChromaScape LLC is registered in South Carolina. The company’s CEO is Dustin Riley. The facility address is 105 Wood Street, Greenville, South Carolina 29611. The company’s legal representation was provided by Joseph P. Koncelik of Tucker Ellis, LLP.

The Toxic Substances Control Act allows citizens to petition the EPA to regulate specific chemicals. If you live in Greenville and want to know whether Chemical A is still in your community, you can file a Freedom of Information Act request with EPA Region 4 asking for the unredacted identity of Chemical A and any environmental monitoring data collected during the investigation. The request should reference Docket No. TSCA-04-2026-6006(b).

If you work in chemical manufacturing, processing, or distribution, your employer is required by law to maintain a hazard communication program under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200). You have the right to know what chemicals you are handling. If your employer cannot provide safety data sheets for every substance in your workplace, contact OSHA’s Region 4 office at 1-800-321-OSHA.

Support organizations working to strengthen chemical safety regulations and close the loopholes that allow companies like ChromaScape to settle without accountability. The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition and the Environmental Working Group are two national advocacy groups focused on TSCA reform.