S.Hrg.119-346

1[Senate Hearing 119-346]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-34656                 HEARING ON EXAMINING THE BENEFICIAL USE7                       AND REGULATION OF CHEMICALS89=======================================================================1011                                HEARING1213                               before the1415                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL SAFETY, WASTE16                   MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,17                        AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT1819                                 of the2021                              COMMITTEE ON22                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS2324                          UNITED STATES SENATE2526                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2728                             FIRST SESSION29                               __________3031                            OCTOBER 23, 202532                               __________3334  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works3536                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3738        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov39                               ______4041                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE424363-292                  WASHINGTON : 20264445               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS4647                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS4849                             FIRST SESSION5051             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman52            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member5354KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont55CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon56JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts57LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    MARK KELLY, Arizona58DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 ALEX PADILLA, California59PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska              ADAM B. SCHIFF, California60ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware61JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland62JON HUSTED, Ohio6364               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director65                  Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director6667                              ----------6869   Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental70                   Justice, and Regulatory Oversight7172                     JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah, Chairman73                  JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Ranking Member7475LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont76DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts77ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware78JON HUSTED, Ohio                     SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island79SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      (ex officio)80    (ex officio)8182                            C O N T E N T S8384                              ----------85                                                                   Page8687                            OCTOBER 23, 20258889                           OPENING STATEMENTS9091Curtis, Hon. John R., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah........     192Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     29394                               WITNESSES9596Woodruff, Ph.D., MPH, Tracey, UCSF Professor and Director,97  Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.............     598    Prepared statement...........................................     799    Responses to additional questions from Senator Merkley.......    11100Huntsman, Peter, President and CEO, Huntsman Corporation.........    30101    Prepared statement...........................................    32102Gross, Ph.D., Gwen, Senior Technical Fellow, The Boeing Company..    37103    Prepared statement...........................................    39104105                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL106107Chemistry Creates, America Competes: National Defense; Chemistry108  Critical to National Priorities................................    47109110                 HEARING ON EXAMINING THE BENEFICIAL USE111                       AND REGULATION OF CHEMICALS112113                              ----------114115                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2025116117                               U.S. Senate,118         Committee on Environment and Public Works,119        Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,120           Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight,121                                                    Washington, DC.122    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in123room 562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John R. Curtis124(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.125    Present: Senators Curtis, Capito, Merkley, Wicker, Boozman,126Husted.127128           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. CURTIS,129              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH130131    Senator Curtis. Good morning and welcome to our132subcommittee hearing this morning.133    I would like to begin by thanking our three witnesses. We134will talk a little bit more about you in a minute.135    My thanks to the Ranking Member. I am not sure if you have136followed the news, but it is kind of a big deal he is here137today. He was a little bit busy yesterday, and we are going to138test his voice after speaking for almost 24 hours. Ranking139Member, thanks for being with us this morning.140    Our hearing this morning impacts the regulation on141environment for new and existing chemicals, a subject that lies142at the intersection of innovation, safety, and U.S.143competitiveness.144    Today we will hear from both sides of a chemical equation,145from the Huntsman Corporation, represented by their chief146executive officer, Mr. Peter Huntsman, and Boeing represented147by Dr. Gwen Gross, Senior Technical Fellow in Compositions and148Chemical Technology and Chief Chemist, and Dr. Tracey J.149Woodruff, Ph.D., MPH, UCSF, Professor and Director of Programs150on Reproductive Health and the Environment, and Member of the151National Academy of Medicine.152    I will allow our Ranking Member perhaps to introduce her153just a little bit more in the remarks. I will just say a few154minutes myself about our other two witnesses.155    Mr. Huntsman and Dr. Gross bring critical perspective. Mr.156Huntsman leads a company whose core business is the development157of new chemicals, that enables the development of safer, more158efficient and more effective products in the United States.159    Dr. Gross represents a major customer of those materials,160an aerospace manufacturer whose ability to incorporate new161chemistries into aircraft is essential to maximizing the safety162and performance of aircraft and maintaining American163competitiveness.164    Together, their perspectives embody the essential165relationship between chemical manufacturers and their166customers, those who depend on chemical innovation to drive167American industry forward. Every day, American chemical168manufacturers like Huntsman invest billions of dollars in169research and development to produce new materials that can170reduce emissions, improve safety, and maintain U.S. industrial171competitiveness. These new chemicals enable lighter, stronger,172and more efficient products to reach the market, from cars to173aircraft to medical devices.174    However, regulatory delays and ambiguities in the chemical175approval process can stifle that innovation, forcing companies176to move research overseas or abandon promising materials177altogether. That is not good for our workers, our consumers, or178the environment.179    On the other end of the supply chain are manufacturers like180Boeing, companies that rely on those new chemicals to build181world-class products that meet our highest safety standards.182Dr. Gross and her team work every day to integrate next-183generation replacement materials into aircraft, a lengthy184approval process, including in this example, EPA, in addition185to FAA and Department of Defense.186    When the regulations guiding chemical approvals change187faster than the relevant agencies can deliver the chemical188approvals or certifications, companies like Boeing are caught189in a difficult position, hamstrung by a process that may190actually prevent safer or more effective replacement chemicals191from ever reaching the final products. Those regulatory192bottlenecks can ripple across the entire aerospace supply193chain, impacting thousands of suppliers and hundreds of194thousands of workers.195    Our challenge, therefore, is not whether to regulate196chemicals. Of course, we must regulate. How do we do so in a197way that protects public health and the environment without198stifling American innovation? We must ensure that our199regulatory system keeps pace with modern science, supports200collaboration between EPA and other relevant agencies, and201gives both chemical manufacturers and their customers the202certainty that they need to invest, produce, and compete203globally.204    America cannot lead in advanced manufacturing if our205innovators do not have a chemical approval process that works.206    Thank you for joining us today, and I look forward to207hearing from all three of our witnesses. I will yield to the208Ranking Member.209210            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,211             U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON212213    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and214congratulations on this first hearing of the subcommittee. You215are in your first term, so this is your first holding that216gavel.217    [Sound of gavel; laughter.]218    Senator Merkley. There we go, all right. It is a pleasure219to work with you.220    Senator Curtis. Thank you.221    Senator Merkley. Today, we are here to discuss how we222regulate toxic substances and chemical safety. As public223servants, we have a responsibility to ensure that while we work224to create good-paying jobs for working families, our highest225priority must be protecting public health.226    Americans need to be able to trust that the air they227breathe, the water they drink and the products they use in228their homes or workplaces, their communities, are safe for229themselves and their families, and that their long-term health230and safety takes priority over short-term profits.231    Pollution is not partisan, and addressing it is our shared232responsibility. That trust is placed here with this233subcommittee and with the agency we oversee, the Environmental234Protection Agency. In 2016, I worked with members of this235committee to pass 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act, which we236know as TSCA. That legislation required the EPA to develop a237new framework to evaluate the risks of new and existing238chemicals and to regulate chemicals that present an239unreasonable risk to human or environmental health. That240process was implemented during the first Trump administration.241    During that time, an industry-friendly EPA undermined242science, delayed action on chemicals like PFAS, missed243statutory deadlines for existing and new chemicals, according244to the EPA's own inspector general, and prioritized245deregulation over public health.246    Now, the second Trump administration is picking up where247the first left off. It had been stating that it was planning to248reconsider a Biden-era ban on chrysotile asbestos. I was struck249by this, because basically every developed country in the world250has banned asbestos. We banned it, I believe initially in 1988,251overturned by a court in 1991 and it really was not until just252recently we finally managed to say the effects of asbestos and253black lung disease should not exist in the United States.254    I was very pleased that there was a public outcry, saying,255really? This makes no sense at all. In July, the Trump256administration reversed course and said they were not going to257try to undo that ban. The ban actually is implemented over many258years, so it is not in place yet.259    I have argued for a long time that if the rest of the world260can do without asbestos, I think we can figure it out as well.261America should be a leader, not a follower in protecting its262workers and the environment.263    I have been concerned over plans of the administration to264dismiss the rules that regulate four of the PFAS chemicals265under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I am concerned about the266restructuring of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution267Prevention. It is being filled with lobbyists from chemical268corporations. There are plants to dismantle the Office of269Research and Development, which in my mind would be a big270mistake, things that our subcommittee should pay attention to.271    At the same time that all that is going on, the Trump272administration has released two health reports, the Make273American Healthy Again, or MAHA, report, released in May, and274the Make Our Children Health Again report, released in275September. These reports lay out the risks associated with276plastics and PFAS and pesticide and other proprietary277chemicals.278    The MAHA report said, ``The concentration of microplastics279found in America's brain tissue has increased 50 percent280between 2016 and 2024.'' That is something that I have raised281before. We held a series of six hearings last year on plastics,282the only six hearings that have ever been held on plastics in283Congress.284    One of the reports that had come forward was based on285studying the brains of deceased individuals and finding that286information. I was pleased that it was repeated in the MAHA287report because what we know about plastics is that they carry288endocrine disrupting chemicals that interfere, and I am quoting289from the report again, ``endocrine disrupting chemicals that290interfere with hormonal development and potentially trigger291early puberty, especially in girls, and heighten the risk of292obesity, infertility, and hormone related cancers.''293    These reports note that studies from chemical companies are294often biased compared to independent studies, and that chemical295corporations have often captured our Federal agencies. We have296chemicals that do amazing things. We need to be honest with the297American public when they affect human health.298    TSCA is the best tool our government has to address these299chemical risks. Yet interestingly, it is not mentioned in the300MAHA report or its follow-on for children.301    TSCA is not perfect. It can be improved. Let's work302honestly about how we can maximize the good, minimize the harm,303and I do not quote President Trump often, but I will today. On304May 22d, he said we need to ``protect our children, very305importantly, keep the dangerous chemicals out of our food306supplies, get toxic substances out of our environment, and307deliver the American people the facts.'' I agree completely.308    This is not the time to loosen oversight or lower309standards. It is time to recommit ourselves to protecting the310health of the American public. I look forward to today's311discussion.312    Senator Merkley. At what point would you like to me to313follow on comments to introduce?314    Senator Curtis. Let's do that. We will start with Dr.315Woodruff, who is our first witness.316    Senator Merkley. Okay. As Chair Curtis mentioned, Dr.317Tracey Woodruff currently serves as Director and Professor for318the University of California at San Francisco's Program on319Reproductive Health and the Environment. She is also a member320of the National Academy of Medicine.321    Dr. Woodruff is an expert in chemical and regulatory policy322as well as a leading scientist investigating how toxic323chemicals can impact public health, with an emphasis on324pregnant women and childhood development.325    We look forward to hearing from Dr. Woodruff today about326the critical role the Federal Government can play to protect327our children, to protect our adults, protect our communities328from toxic chemicals.329    Senator Curtis. Dr. Woodruff, just before you jump in, let330me just say, we will roll from Dr. Woodruff to Mr. Huntsman and331then Dr. Gross. You each have 5 minutes, and we look forward to332each of your testimoneys.333334STATEMENT OF TRACEY J. WOODRUFF, PH.D., MPH, UCSF PROFESSOR AND335 DIRECTOR, PROGRAM ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT336         AND MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE337338    Ms. Woodruff. Thank you. Subcommittee Chairman Curtis,339Ranking Member Merkley and members of the Subcommittee, thank340you for the opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Tracey Woodruff, a341professor from the University of California, San Francisco, and342director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the343Environment, and a member of the National Academy of Medicine.344    We conduct research to understand how industrial chemicals345and pollutants in the environment impact people's health.346    Toxic chemicals take a measurable toll on people's health.347Toxic chemicals are widespread in our air, water, food, homes,348and workplaces, and consequently, human exposures begin before349birth and continue throughout life.350    We know these exposures take a measurable toll on the351health of children and adults and can increase the risk of352cancer, infertility, neurological and cardiovascular disease,353low birth weight, birth defects, autism, and ADHD. These354conditions are increasing in the U.S. as documented in the355recent Make America Healthy Again Report.356    Environmental regulations came about from necessity and357evidence shows they are enormously effective at improving358health, reducing health care costs, increasing life expectancy359and productivity. Research finds that reducing air pollution360during pregnancy and early childhood leads to higher earnings,361improved education, and better health later in life.362    OMB documents that annual benefits to the American public363from major EPA rules ranged from $194 billion to $687 billion364per year; and EPA regulations yield the highest annual benefits365for Americans compared to any other Federal agency.366    Protecting people from harmful chemicals is something367Americans agree on. In a recent nationwide survey, over 90368percent of voters, including Republicans, Democrats and369Independents, agreed the government should require they be370proven safe before companies are allowed to put them on the371market. Eighty-eight percent of voters support the goals of372TSCA to protect people from harmful chemicals.373    As mentioned in TSCA's first 40 years, EPA struggled to ban374harmful chemicals, including asbestos, a known human carcinogen375causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. TSCA's failure led376Congress to update it in 2016 to ensure EPA could better377protect people from harmful chemicals.378    One of the goals of TSCA amendments was to provide stronger379protections for highly exposed and susceptible populations like380pregnant women, children, workers, and people who live in areas381where polluting facilities have been sited. However, with the382chemical lobby pouring millions of dollars into influencing the383regulatory process, we have seen troubling patterns of EPA384brushing aside rigorous science showing health risks, ignoring385dangerous exposures to half of the exposed population and386weakening the rules for scientific assessments.387    It is no secret that the chemical industry wants to reduce388the public health protections promised by TSCA in exchange for389less regulations and more profits. One of their criticisms is390that EPA is not approving new chemicals fast enough, yet TSCA391requires EPA to assess the safety of new chemicals and prevent392potential risks before these chemicals are allowed on the393market.394    Congress was clear that EPA should not cut corners on the395thoroughness of reviews to serve industry demands for rush396approvals. Despite this, EPA has granted low-volume exemptions397for over 600 PFAS, a class of over 16,000 chemicals so398persistent they have been detected in nearly everyone tested.399    A new report from NYU estimates the annual health care of400PFAS harms in the U.S. from $1 billion to over $60 billion, and401they also say the cost of destroying 1 year's worth of PFAS402releases exceeds annual global GDP.403    Under the guise of supporting innovation, EPA also approved404a new chemical for use in jet and boat fuel that has caused405cancer risks so high nearly every person who is exposed to this406chemical through foreseeable uses is expected to develop407cancer. That is unacceptable.408    While industry says faster, faster, and uses buzz words409like progress and innovation, it is essential that policymakers410understand the repercussions of unleashing new toxic chemicals411on the population. Once they are out, you can not take them412back, and the result is that people can get sick and die.413    Instead, we need a stronger TSCA that creates incentives414for the industry to develop new chemicals that will not harm415health or the environment.416    The chemical lobby is also attaching EPA's Office of417Research and Development because they do not like science that418finds that their chemicals and products are toxic. They are419attacking the TSCA risk assessment rule, because they do not420want EPA to consider all real-world chemical uses and exposures421or the full extent of human health hazards and risks for lethal422chemicals, like methylene chloride. They do not want EPA to423address cumulative impacts to fence line community residents424where rates of cancer and other chronic diseases are exceeding425the general population.426    As you consider the next steps for TSCA, you should also427consider how polluting industries have lied about the harms of428their products to you, the public, even to their own employees.429Internal industry documents from PFAS manufacturers show the430industry knew about PFAS health harms decades before the431public.432    EPA was established to protect the health of the public and433the environment, not to increase corporate profits. I urge you434to act in the best interests of the American people, and435preserve and strengthen TSCA's mission to protect the public's436health.437    Thank you.438    [The prepared statement of Ms. Woodruff follows:]439440[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]441442    Senator Curtis. Mr. Huntsman?443444   STATEMENT OF PETER HUNTSMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUNTSMAN445                          CORPORATION446447    Mr. Huntsman. Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and448members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor for me to be here.449I am Peter Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of450Huntsman Corporation.451    American prosperity, security, and power are entirely452dependent on a strong, thriving and properly regulated chemical453sector. Without it, modern life is not possible. That is not454hyperbole. It is a physical, immutable reality.455    In the chemical industry, we take atoms and molecules,456break them apart, put them back together to create the building457blocks of nearly everything in modern society, automobiles and458airplanes, batteries and semiconductors, solar panels and wind459turbines, clean drinking water, pharmaceuticals and much more.460    Innovation in chemistry drives solutions that improve461modern life. Realizing these benefits depends on a regulatory462system that is efficient, science-based, predictable, and that463encourages investment in innovation instead of creating464unnecessary delays and uncertainty.465    If today we create a chemical that could eliminate466greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, there is no guarantee how467long it would take to get approved, even though it would be a468breakthrough for the environment and the world. This regulatory469uncertainty and delay hold back innovation, make it difficult470to invest in technologies we desperately need.471    Fifteen to 20 years ago, the vast majority of new chemistry472science came from the United States and Europe. Today, we see473China, India, Southeast Asian countries and the Middle East474region investing billions to not just match our innovation, but475to exceed our capabilities. I want to be clear: we do not need476to be cutting corners. We do need to have better focus, speed,477transparency and reliable standards in order to compete.478    If we do not get this right, I fear we will be here in five479or 10 years from now in the same situation we find ourselves480with critical minerals: dependent on others.481    As a chief executive officer I am responsible for making482long-term investment decisions that impact thousands of483employees, billions in capital, and our ability to compete484globally. When regulations like the Toxic Substance Control485Act, TSCA, are applied unpredictably and without regard to real486world risk, it becomes nearly impossible to plan with487confidence when EPA's review process for new chemicals488routinely exceeds the 90 day timeline required by law, creating489unnecessary delays and uncertainty.490    Without a clear sense of when or if a product will be491approved, innovation is put on hold, and companies are often492forced to consider moving research and development outside the493United States just to remain competitive. That is not just a494regulatory inefficiency, it is a strategic disadvantage to our495Country.496    America should be leading the world in developing next497generation chemistries that drive economic growth and economic498well-being. That kind of leadership depends on a regulatory499system that is science-based, timely, and focused on real-world500exposures, not hypothetical hazards. Until we fix it, it is501simply impossible for any board of directors to approve502building new manufacturing facilities on a product that is503unapproved.504    We do not need to look far to see the damaging impact of505bad policy around natural resources, energy and chemicals and506material innovation. The ongoing deindustrialization of Europe507is a clear example of what is happening when regulatory508burdens, high energy costs and supply constraints drive509investment and production elsewhere.510    Congress has an opportunity to ensure that does not happen511here by improving TSCA with a durable policy solution that will512not seesaw depending on who is in office. This type of513certainty will not only help manufacturers make investment514decisions, but will benefit the general public by encouraging515innovation and will bring safer and more sustainable chemistry516to the market.517    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.518    [The prepared statement of Mr. Huntsman follows:]519520[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]521522    Senator Curtis. Thank you.523    Dr. Gross?524525 STATEMENT OF GWEN GROSS, PH.D., SENIOR TECHNICAL FELLOW, THE526                         BOEING COMPANY527528    Ms. Gross. Good morning, Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member529Merkley, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the530opportunity to testify.531    I am Dr. Gwen Gross, a Senior Technical Fellow at Boeing532for Composites and Chemical Technology. Boeing proudly533develops, manufactures, and services commercial airplanes,534defense products, and space systems.535    Safety and quality are at the core of everything we do.536Boeing is committed to complying with environmental laws and537regulations, and creating economic opportunities and driving538industry innovation.539    I serve as a chief chemist within Boeing's Advanced540Research and Development organization. I am an expert in the541formulation and production of critical aerospace materials. I542have worked the complete life cycle of materials integration543from idea to implementation, and I act as an intermediary544between Boeing and our suppliers.545    Boeing is a downstream user of chemicals. We do not546manufacture the chemical formulations that we use. Instead, as547we develop new and innovative aerospace products, we rely on548our chemical suppliers to develop those new chemicals that meet549our stringent performance requirements.550    Suppliers are responsible for obtaining those regulatory551approvals for new chemicals or new uses. Any delays that they552experience in obtaining approvals delays the aerospace553innovations that Boeing is working to advance.554    Boeing uses chemical materials in a variety of ways in its555products, including composites, sealants, adhesives and556coatings. The aerospace industry faces unique challenges when557it comes to chemical material use and replacement due to558complex FAA certification requirements and military559specifications that govern our products and services.560    To produce and sell a commercial aircraft, Boeing must561obtain type certification from the FAA by demonstrating that562the aircraft design, including all of its component parts,563meets all applicable FAA regulations. It can take 10 years or564more to design, build, test and receive type certification for565an aircraft model or new replacement parts.566    This certification process, which is integral to aviation567safety, includes consideration of the performance of the568chemicals used in that design. Boeing must show that materials569are suitable and durable.570    In practice, that means polymeric material, like the carbon571fiber composite used for wings, needs to be able to cycle from572a sweltering Phoenix runway in July to subzero temperatures at57330,000 feet just minutes later. It must maintain structural574performance while doing this multiple times a day, potentially575for decades.576    If regulatory changes impacting chemical material use or577replacement, or changes in the marketplace happen too fast,578aerospace companies may not have sufficient time to find viable579alternatives and to demonstrate that they satisfy those580regulatory requirements. For example, finding a replacement for581a chemical used in the formulation of a polymer composite582system can be a challenging and lengthy process.583    I began working on a new candidate for a next generation584carbon fiber composite material when my daughter was 2 years585old. Boeing is just now finishing the qualification of that586material, and my daughter is now 18.587    Aerospace manufacturers are also impacted by delays in new588chemical reviews and new chemical restrictions. One example is589the replacement of the fire suppression chemicals used on board590aircraft. Boeing devoted 20 years and considerable resources to591developing alternatives to the industry standard agent halon.592It is an ozone-depleting substance that is widely used on593aircraft due to its unique performance attributes, and it has594proven difficult to replace.595    Working with our suppliers, a replacement was approved596approximately 8 years ago by the EPA and FAA for use in597handheld fire extinguishers onboard aircraft. Boeing is598considering it for cargo compartment use but regulatory599uncertainty remains.600    Boeing has also seen challenges when evaluating new601chemicals under TSCA research and development exemptions. It is602not uncommon for a new promising formulation to be removed from603consideration early in our technology development process due604to uncertainty about when and if an R&D chemical would be605approved by the EPA.606    If there is a risk that the decision will not be made in607time to meet our internal milestones for certification, our608researchers may choose an existing chemical instead.609Unfortunately, this could limit new technologies that may610provide significant performance improvements, such as new611lightweight materials. Regulatory changes to reduce this612uncertainty would be helpful.613    In closing, thank you again for the opportunity to speak614with you today. I look forward to your questions.615    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gross follows:]616617[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]618619    Senator Curtis. Thank you, to all three.620    I will begin with questions for the first few minutes. I621would like to start with you, Mr. Huntsman. Dr. Woodruff622appropriately pointed out that if we move too quickly with623reviews, that is not good. Yet you and I both know that during624the last administration, EPA met their statutory responsibility625exactly zero percent of the time for chemical approvals.626    I am curious, from your perspective, if we had a better627process, if we had a process that yielded the right result, how628do you feel like that could better impact public health,629innovation, and at the same time rein in our bad actors?630    Mr. Huntsman. Thank you very much. I appreciate the631comments made by both of the other witnesses that are before us632here today.633    I am not sure that there is a whole lot of disagreement634here. We do need to have a well-regulated environment. The vast635majority of new chemistry development is developing to replace636past formulations and past applications to make things lighter637and stronger.638    The reason why Boeing is able to make planes that can fly639nearly half way around the world non-stop is because they are640lighter, they are more fuel efficient, they are safer, better641built, lower maintenance than they were just 15 or 20 years642ago. This is all about innovation and about speed.643    As we see this around the world, I do not mean to pick on644Boeing, I think they are a great company, but I imagine one of645their biggest competition next generation is going to be Comac,646the Chinese manufacturer. Now, we do not need to be cutting647corners to become like the Chinese in this area, but we do need648to be aware that we need to be able to compete on a playing649field where we can create the chemistry, we can go through the650regulatory process and make sure that it is thorough in order651to compete on a global basis.652    The United States has the highest standards in chemical653manufacturing, not chemical approval. We need to keep this. We654need to keep innovating with that. As we do that, we will655continue to provide the jobs and the economic well-being and656the environmental stewardship that we all want.657    Senator Curtis. Excellent. Along those lines, you do658business internationally, so you are familiar with the659regulations in Europe. What missteps has Europe taken that660might stifle innovation here in the United States if we are not661careful?662    Mr. Huntsman. Well, I think about 70 percent, 65 percent of663our sales are international. We meet not only U.S. standards664but we meet standards all over the world.665    A lot of this has to do with what I am seeing more and666more, particularly in Europe more so than in the U.S., is a lot667of these environmental standards are politically driven. They668are not science driven. You will see particular companies that669will retaliate against a particular company or against a670particular application, seemingly purely for political purposes671because a facility was to shut down or vacate that country.672    I think the worst of all worlds is when we start to see673politics interfere with sound science.674    Senator Curtis. I am going to paraphrase your words, and675you tell me if I am wrong. As far as the U.S. regulatory676environment that makes sure that you are protecting public677health and not cutting corners, you are okay with bring it on.678    Can it be a bit more predictable and produce an outcome679quicker? Is that fair?680    Mr. Huntsman. I think that is very fair.681    Senator Curtis. Thank you.682    Dr. Gross, thank you for being with us. Could you share how683those transitions that--well, let me go back. You have had a684front-row seat to the shifting regulatory landscape through685your work both at the EPA and FAA across multiple686administrations. Could you share how those transitions impacted687your work at Boeing, particularly in relation to chemical688approvals?689    Ms. Gross. Thank you for the question, Senator.690    Boeing uses a standardized development process with691internal milestones, very similar to what NASA uses in terms of692technology readiness levels. That duration of development that693we have very often spans multiple administrations, multiple694regulatory changes.695    In each of those steps that we go through, through that696gated process, we take an assessment of the current regulatory697landscape. Whatever it happens to be, as that matures, we have698to address it at the time.699    The challenge that a company like Boeing has where we have700these very long development timelines is that at the beginning701of a project and at the middle of a project we may see those702changes come up from the regulatory environment, from the703changes in administration.704    It is not something I can give an example of particularly705for a current issue. It is something that we account for and706deal with in our day-to-day operations.707    Senator Curtis. How did the approach to reviewing new708chemicals evolve over time? What lessons should we draw from709those shifts to create a more durable, consistent regulatory710framework?711    Ms. Gross. Thank you for the question, Senator. Part of the712challenge, like I mentioned in my testimony, for companies like713Boeing, is that we do not hold the responsibility for the714application for a new chemical or for the extended use. We rely715on our supply base.716    It almost becomes this game of telephone. Sometimes the717visibility of where a chemical is in the process or if there is718a bottleneck or a hangup, it is not always visible to us in our719own development cycle. That mismatch between what is going on720from a regulatory standpoint and our development cycle is where721we end up making those hard decisions about not to move722forward, say, with a new innovative chemical.723    That is where that increased visibility or increased724understanding of the process would definitely help downstream725users like Boeing.726    Senator Curtis. Thank you very much.727    I yield to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes for his728questions.729    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.730    Dr. Woodruff, in your testimony you note that there is a731new chemical for jet and boat fuel that has a cancer risk so732high that nearly every person who is exposed to the chemical733for foreseeable uses is expected to develop cancer. That is a734pretty powerful statement.735    Can you, in very quick summary, because I have several736questions, how did such a chemical, if it has that kind of737risk, get approved?738    Ms. Woodruff. Sometimes it gets through the process because739EPA has had some type of political interference, which was740documented in the previous administration.741    Senator Merkley. It has some kind of--?742    Ms. Woodruff. Political interference. It is not clear who743detected the people who are making the decisions.744    Senator Merkley. My colleague accurately noted that it is745very rare to meet the timelines that we have in TSCA. My746understanding is, there are two main reasons for that. One is747vast understaffing for the number of chemicals to be reviewed.748I just want to make that point because to the degree that we749can properly staff EPA, it would help address that issue.750    The second main reason is because the studies that are751submitted are often incomplete and it has to go back to the752industry to say, well, you can not approve it until you753actually get the study before us.754    Do I have a correct understanding of that, or is there755other reasons that are more significant?756    Ms. Woodruff. Yes, that is correct. Submitters, meaning757manufacturers, are responsible for most of the length of the758review of the new chemical. For example, there were 230 valid759cases submitted between October 2022 and October 2023. Half, 85760of these cases, as of February 2025, over half of them are761still waiting for more data from the submitter, or to sign the762TSCA Section 5 order.763    Some of them are actually toxic, so they are actually764negotiating with the EPA and then 29 of the cases, they are765disagreeing with what EPA is finding.766    Generally, and I also want to say that a lot of chemicals767are getting through the process and are being approved. EPA has768approved thousands of new chemicals under amended TSCA, 3,600769over the last 8 years.770    What we are seeing is both, we need more people in there,771submitters need to submit all the information, and the EPA is772doing its job when it has the resources and information.773    Senator Merkley. I do have a lot of concerns about many of774the EPA employees that have either been fired or put on775furlough. We may be losing a huge, vast brain trust to be able776to evaluate chemicals. The problem could get worse if we do not777get this addressed.778    I wanted to turn to the plastics. We know that plastics779have incredible qualities. They are used in everything780everywhere. We also now have a better understanding of how they781break down to micro and nano plastics and end up in our bodies.782They have a series of impacts.783    Can you just share some highlights of your research on the784risks involved, of the plastics themselves or the additives785that are put in to make the plastics suitable for different786purposes?787    Ms. Woodruff. Right. Our research using high quality, the788best quality evidence reviews, has found that microplastics are789suspected to increase the risk of effects on the gut,790respiratory effects and also effects on reproductive health,791particularly affecting sperm quality, and could be increasing792the risk of colon and lung cancer.793    That is just from microplastics. What we know about many of794the additives that are in plastics and microplastics, that is795phthalates, bisphenols, PFAS, flame retardants, there are like79616,000 chemicals that are used in plastics. We have good797information on less than 5 percent of them.798    Let's just talk about phthalates. Phthalates can increase799the risk of adverse effects on male reproductive health, like800lower testosterone and sperm count, which can lead to801infertility, can increase the risk of pre-term birth, metabolic802disorders like diabetes. This is according to the best803available science, including high quality systematic reviews804conducted by both EPA's Office of Research and Development and805the National Academy of Sciences.806    We also know similarly that bisphenols can affect female807reproductive toxicity as well as it can increase the risk of808neurodevelopmental toxicity. That is just for those few809chemicals. There are many more that are in plastics.810    Senator Merkley. I think this is an area where we have to811spend a lot more attention, because it has received relatively812little. Since the 1950's, plastics started being used as a813coating on our cups for hot liquids. We have a huge exposure814through that and through plastic bottles.815    I was stunned by our plastics testimony in the last cycle816of the amount of plastic that the average American now has the817equivalent, I think it was described as equal to a plastic818spoon in your brain, which is shocking.819    I did want to ask you about the Office of Research and820Development. There are efforts to dissolve that. Is ORD821important to keep? If so, why?822    Ms. Woodruff. ORD, the work that the scientists in ORD do823affects and really protects every person who lives in the824United States. ORD does the essential research that allows us825to understand what the toxicity of chemicals are.826    They also are there when there is a spill or a terrorist827event. For example, when there was anthrax here in the Capitol,828ORD scientists were the ones who figured out how to clean it829up. They also were there on the ground in East Palestine. They830also identified the toxicity of many of these toxic substances831that we now know are affecting people's health.832    They also developed the methods by which we figure out833whether there are toxic chemicals in the environment. For834example, ORD scientists were the ones who figured out that a835facility was dumping a PFAS chemical into the drinking water836supply of a residence in North Carolina. Once they measured837that and identified it and worked with the State, they were838able to stop that.839    To dismantle that allows both less best available science840or less high quality science, less unbiased science as well as841less ability to respond to the many different types of842environmental needs that arise, consistently or episodically,843in the United States.844    Senator Merkley. Thank you so much.845    Senator Curtis. Thank you, Ranking Member.846    I note the arrival of our Chair of the full committee, and847she has deferred to our other members to let them go first.848Senator Wicker, I yield 5 minutes to you.849    Senator Wicker. I really do appreciate that.850    Dr. Woodruff, my colleague and friend, Senator Merkley,851thinks I should not be drinking water out of a plastic bottle.852I note that I am drinking water today out of a glass pitcher853but regrettably, Senator Boozman, his water is out of plastic.854    [Laughter.]855    Senator Wicker. Should I quit drinking water out of a856plastic bottle?857    Ms. Woodruff. Well, I do not think you should quit drinking858water.859    Senator Wicker. Out of a plastic bottle?860    Ms. Woodruff. Out of a plastic bottle; well, first of all,861there are plastic chemicals and microplastics in a water862bottle. Currently, I mean, it is your choice, but I have my own863reusable water bottle. It is up to you.864    If you want to lower your levels of plastics and865microplastics, that is one source that you could stop.866    Senator Wicker. Thank you for that testimony.867    Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent at this point868to add into the record a document entitled Chemistry Creates,869America Competes, concerning some of the great benefits of870chemicals.871    Senator Curtis. Without objection, so ordered.872    [The referenced information follows:]873874[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]875876    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.877    Now, Mr. Huntsman, you have said there is much agreement in878the panel here. Is it fair to say that your position is that879without a regime that allows the reasonable manufacture of880chemicals, such as the ones you have, we would not be able to881defend our Country militarily? Also, we would not be able to882produce certain items and certain products that actually take883us off of using more dangerous products that Americans and884humans have used earlier.885    Is that part of your position? Is that a good restatement886of your position?887    Mr. Huntsman. I think that is absolutely correct. Again, I888think the vast majority of what is said here, we would agree.889The esteemed Dr. Woodruff here with her drinking container, I890notice you have a plastic cap that goes on the top of that.891Without that plastic, I am not sure that you would be able to892have the lightweight flexibility and so forth.893    Look, it is a balance in so many of these areas and so many894of these things that we do. When it comes to defense, when it895comes to mechanization, computerization, aerospace, automobile896movement, any source of armor, it simply would not exist897without petrochemicals, none of it.898    Senator Wicker. I spend a lot more of my committee time in899another building, on the Armed Services Committee. We know what900a dangerous world we are in. Actually, I have been saying all901year this is the most dangerous period we have had since World902War II. It is not just Iran with their nukes, it is China, it903is Russia and this crazy guy that runs North Korea.904    When there are delays and the statutory deadlines are905missed for approval of certain of your applications, that harms906national defense, does it not?907    Mr. Huntsman. Absolutely, it does. We are working on some908applications, for example, that will be going into some of the909surface, some of the technology that has come from the910aerospace industry on hypersonic missiles, for example. Delays911in those will obviously build a hypersonic missile without the912skin, without the coating on those missiles and without the913components to be able to withstand the heat and friction and so914forth, and the weight that is needed on those applications.915    Absolutely, it all is intertwined with the supply chain.916    Senator Wicker. By the same token, when there is an917invention by your company of something that actually takes us918away from a more harmful substance, and that is delayed by a919statutory deadline being missed, the public is harmed by that,920is it not?921    Mr. Huntsman. I am a father of eight children, I have got92220 grandchildren. I do not want to see any chemicals in923anybody's drinking water any more than anybody else does. I924care a great deal. I have worked in chemical plants in my925career. Nobody wants to be exposed to any of these products.926    Yes, as I said earlier, the vast majority of new927chemistries that we produce are to replace older chemistries or928to advance science or to advance the environmental stewardship929and so forth. It is good business, aside from just being on a930humanitarian front.931    Senator Wicker. Mr. Huntsman, I was just presented with my932ninth grandchild, and people have remarked about that. I must933say, your testimony takes my breath away.934    [Laughter.]935    Mr. Huntsman. Takes my wife's away as well.936    [Laughter.]937    Senator Wicker. Congratulations.938    Senator Curtis. Thank you.939    I would like to now yield to the Chairman of the Ag940Committee, and I will note, just to show the importance of this941hearing, to my right are three chairs of different committees.942It shows the importance of this committee. Thank you for943joining us.944    I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.945    Senator Boozman. Thank you very much. This has been tough946on the committee today; I got here and I could not get my seat947back. I think you did that on purpose to shame me. Then Senator948Wicker humiliated me for my plastic cup.949    [Laughter.]950    Senator Boozman. Rightfully so. Thank you all for being951here. This is important. I guess the crux is delays. Are the952delays that we have had in the past, where we are not meeting953any of the statutory guidelines, that is concerning.954    Mr. Huntsman, what does that do as far as the consumer, as955we come out with new products and stuff that are put into other956products to make things better, more efficient, however we use957them, what does that have to do with the cost when you have958excessive time, sometimes years and years, to develop these959products?960    Mr. Huntsman. Senator, there is certainly a cost. We are961seeing more and more that we are abdicating our lead in962chemistry to foreign players. The United States is not the only963market, nor is it the majority of the market of consumerism964around the world.965    When new standards are set, oftentimes not nearly as966stringent as what we have here in the United States, as new967standards are set and new products are going into the968marketplace, that do not meet the stringent quality controls969and environmental controls the United States imposes, I think970that the rest of the world that should be following our lead971oftentimes suffers.972    Product capabilities, whether it is the plastic that is973going into a drinking, bottled water and so forth, they are not974under, necessarily under U.S. standards. A lot of this is not975just about U.S. delays, but it is also about U.S. innovation,976U.S. standards and global standards. At one time we pretty much977dominated, and we are losing that.978    Senator Boozman. Dr. Woodruff, you mentioned the jet fuel.979That was approved in the last administration, is that correct?980    Ms. Woodruff. Yes.981    Senator Boozman. I just want to be clear that we have had982these problem for years. I know you have had a great career, a983very interesting career, and I guess worked in a couple of984administrations.985    Ms. Woodruff. Yes, and I would say that corporate influence986on how EPA makes decisions has been somewhat of a theme across987the administrations, as was noted in the Make America Healthy988Assessment. The first report, which noted that both, there is a989consistent revolving door between EPA and Federal agencies and990chemical industry and their front groups as well as extensive991lobbying.992    Unfortunately, we do need a solution to remove that type of993corporate influence and decisionmaking in order to improve and994result in the best available science and sound science that can995protect the public's health as well as drive innovation.996    Senator Boozman. Well, they are not doing too good of a job997on the lobbying front if none of the products are approved on998time.999    Ms. Woodruff. EPA has been approving about a new chemical a1000week. Or are you talking about the existing chemicals program?1001I'm sorry.1002    Senator Boozman. My understanding is that the statutory1003component was not met, presently met.1004    Ms. Woodruff. Under the existing chemicals program? Yes.1005That has been delayed. In part because, there are a couple of1006reasons. One is there is exceedingly pushback from the chemical1007industry. Two, EPA does not have enough resources to staff that1008office.1009    Three, I think that, and this is something that we have1010been on the record about, I think there are ways that they1011could upgrade to best available science and improve their1012efficiency at the same time, which we have also been making1013public comments about.1014    These are all opportunities for Congress to weigh in and1015make sure that EPA is doing the best available science, which1016the National Academy of Sciences actually provided a number of1017different reports to recommend how EPA could do that. That1018combination would really help them meet their statutory1019deadlines.1020    Senator Boozman. My understanding is that we did give them1021authority to hire new people, additional people in 2022, and so1022far I do not think anybody has been hired.1023    Ms. Woodruff. Well, I can not speak to their hiring1024process.1025    Senator Boozman. Well, you were part of the system.1026    Ms. Woodruff. I was part of the system, but I left in 2007,1027just to be clear.1028    Senator Boozman. There were not any problems then?1029    Ms. Woodruff. Well, no, I am not saying there were not any1030problems. That is why TSCA was amended in 2016.1031    Senator Boozman. No chemicals that have proved to be toxic1032or whatever were not approve during that time?1033    I guess the point I am making is this has been going on for1034a long time. It is something that we need to work together to1035fix.1036    It is not fair. There are bad actors, certainly. There is a1037lot of other stuff that is, the vast majority is good actors1038trying to work through the system. When there is delay after1039delay after delay, it does drive the cost, and it makes it very1040difficult.1041    Ms. Woodruff. Right, it definitely drives the cost of1042people continuing to be exposed to toxic chemicals. I totally1043agree. We need faster action to protect people from exposures.1044    Senator Boozman. Well, and then too, if you have got a good1045product that is going to help the people of America, sometimes1046the world, then it needs to be done in a timely fashion.1047    Ms. Woodruff. Yes.1048    Senator Boozman. Right now, that is not happening.1049    Ms. Woodruff. Sometimes the chemical, many times the1050chemical industry still needs to submit more data, or sign1051pieces of paper.1052    Senator Boozman. Thank you.1053    Senator Curtis. Thank you.1054    The Chair recognizes the Chair of the full committee, the1055great Senator from West Virginia.1056    Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Curtis. Thank you for1057having this hearing.1058    Mr. Huntsman, I am going to start with you. Kind of along1059the lines that we actually were on when the confirmation1060hearing for the Assistant Administrator of the EPA Chemical1061Office, I raised concern both about the pace but also the1062predictability of a new chemicals process. I think speed, you1063know, we have talked about speed, that clearly matters.1064Predictability matters as well, especially when you are making1065large investments or trying to move science forward.1066    When the EPA consistently imposes restrictions that go well1067beyond what is required in other nations, it can raise some1068questions. We are seeing innovative chemicals approved in1069countries, and you mentioned this, with robust safety programs1070like the European Union or Japan, but they face burdensome1071restrictions here. It can not be commercialized in the United1072States.1073    From your perspective as a global manufacturer, when the1074U.S. imposes more restrictive conditions than Europe or other1075major markets, it takes longer to do it, how does that affect1076where you choose to invest and to make your new chemical1077developments?1078    Mr. Huntsman. Well, today, we have some 450, to the best of1079my knowledge, about 450 products that are in the pipeline1080waiting approval right now under TSCA. About 10 percent of1081those are expected to be approved within the 90 day time1082period.1083    About 40 percent of those will go longer than 1 year. Some1084of those will go sometimes up to two to 3 years. You take some1085of these same formulations and downstream applications and so1086forth to a country like China, and they will put a high1087priority, well, they will get it done within a 90 day time1088period, the government will give you incentives to build,1089innovate, and to invest locally.1090    Literally, the time that you can get approved in the United1091States, you can be up and manufacturing that product in another1092country. Again, I mentioned earlier, therein lies the new1093standards of that finished application. Whether it is in1094aerospace, or whether it is drinking water bottles and so1095forth, that, it is an international race that we are in right1096now, a competition that is real.1097    Senator Capito. To clarify, it is not an international race1098to the bottom in terms of safety and innovation. It is really1099the opposite, innovation can, and many times I think the goal1100is more safety in developing new chemicals. Would you agree1101with that?1102    Mr. Huntsman. Absolutely. The scrutiny that we are under1103today in new chemical development, forget for just a second1104about the issues around government approvals, but the trial1105attorneys and the multi-hundred billion dollar industry that1106exists on suing the chemical industry when it gets it wrong is1107such an enormous incentive.1108    When we come up with new products today, I believe that in1109my 40 years in this industry versus where we were 10 years, 201110years, 30 years, it is like everything else in our economy. It1111is cleaner, it is more innovative, it is better, it is more1112thorough. Our scientific data and analysis is better today than1113it has ever been.1114    No, it is not a race to the bottom. It is a race on speed,1115and it is a race on how quickly you can innovate and get to the1116next phase.1117    Senator Capito. I think that is part of what Senator1118Boozman was referring to. Several years ago we did make it1119certain so that the Chemicals Office could hire more people,1120could go off scale, could do it quicker than the normal1121bureaucratic malaise of trying to get people hired into the1122EPA.1123    It has not been successful, but that was part of the goal1124that we had because they felt like they were understaffed.1125    Dr. Gross, let me ask you a question on obsolescence of new1126chemicals. Have you ever seen where innovation moved so fast1127but materials developed, maybe outdated in 5 years, have you1128ever seen instances where the chemical approval process took so1129long that a new beneficial chemical effectively became obsolete1130before it could be used in the United States?1131    Ms. Gross. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am1132actually going to take that and maybe turn on it a little bit.1133Our experience is actually a little bit different. When you1134talk material obsolescence, one of our biggest challenges is,1135and I will use an example, for flame retardants. We have had1136regulations that we need to comply with against flame1137retardants where we have had to go in, reformulate material1138systems, requalify them, go through that whole certification1139process to get to the end and have new regulations pop up where1140we have to repeat that again, because the substitute flame1141retardant we picked is now newly regulated. We just go in and1142we iterate.1143    Being in that iterative process is sometimes--it takes up a1144lot of our resources that we could instead be using to look at1145more innovative, newer chemicals instead. It is not necessarily1146that timeframe, but it is so fast in terms of new changes, that1147is where we struggle, obsolescence versus new choices.1148    It is a little different than your question, but that is1149where we have experienced it.1150    Senator Capito. Thank you.1151    I will have to say, as Chair of the full committee, and1152with our subcommittee chair here, I have over the years1153expressed and had great concerns over PFAS in our drinking1154water. It is something that we try to reach an agreement on. I1155did with former Chair Carper last year, tried to get a1156bipartisan bill to help with this issue. My State has been1157affected by this.1158    Just for all of you, it can be very helpful to helping us1159get a bipartisan agreement here, because this problem is not1160going away. It has not been addressed, I do not think, as1161aggressively as I think that we can and should.1162    I am publicly pledging, as I have many times in the past,1163to work to make sure that your 20 grandchildren and my 91164grandchildren can have that safe drinking water that they1165deserve. Thank you.1166    Senator Curtis. Thank you, Chair.1167    Senator Capito. How many do you have?1168    Senator Curtis. I have 18.1169    [Laughter.]1170    Senator Capito. Yes.1171    Senator Curtis. It is in the water.1172    [Laughter.]1173    Senator Curtis. I would like to yield to my colleague from1174Ohio, Senator Husted.1175    Senator Husted. Mr. Chairman, thanks for helping with the1176demographic challenges of our Nation. Appreciate that.1177    Senator Merkley, you look more well rested than I saw you1178the other night. Good to see you this morning.1179    Thanks for all of you for coming today. I know that when1180you are in business, time is money. The longer it takes to get1181something approved, the less likely you are to do it. As a1182matter of fact, if you can not rely on the American system to1183do it, many manufacturers might choose to develop in China or1184India or other places in which I think all of you would agree1185the environmental standards are lower than what they are in1186this Country.1187    I know that chemistry has provided us so many advances. We1188tend to focus on the things that go wrong, but there are so1189many examples about how our lives are better, it has improved1190human flourishing and quality of life. I see it in my State, in1191Ohio, where I know Mr. Huntsman has some companies that are1192also working on it.1193    I will give you an example, tires. Akron, Ohio, is the1194rubber capital of the world. Over the years, tire manufacturers1195have tried to make tires more durable, as we have cars that are1196heavier due to batteries and things like that, how do you build1197tires that are more durable, but also you build those chemical1198bonds so strong to make them more durable then how do you break1199them down? How do you recycle them? Then you have these dual1200goals sometimes.1201    Innovation is, it is an incredibly important thing to get1202those approvals so that you can try new ways of accomplishing1203things, but do it in a manner which allows you to do it in a1204timeframe that will be viable for you as a business.1205    Mr. Huntsman, I just want you to reflect on the time is1206money concept, how speed to market is important, how doing it1207in an environmentally responsible fashion is important, and how1208do you think that, have you seen, experienced circumstances in1209which people do things in other countries because it is easier1210to do it there than it is in America, and that is to the1211detriment of the American economy and the American consumer?1212    Mr. Huntsman. Yes. I mean, all of that is true. I think1213that it is a question, when I see what is going on, in the last1214month, I have had the opportunity to visit many of our1215facilities and leaders throughout Europea and also in China. It1216is really not a question of speed, though that is very1217important. It is question of priority.1218    The EPA has a budget of what, $11 billion, $12 billion? How1219much of that is about innovation? Do we prioritize our latest1220chemistries to replace yesterday's problems? Do we prioritize1221those things around national defense and so forth?1222    The standards around TSCA were set 10 years ago almost. Yet1223it probably was negotiated 15 years ago, many of these1224processes. This ought to be a live piece of legislation that1225continuously is bringing on new standards, better standards,1226quicker standards, better prioritization, because I tell you,1227the world is not sitting still on these sorts of things. They1228want what we have. They are innovating, they are getting1229cleaner. The world, from a CO2 emitting basis, is getting more1230innovative and cleaner.1231    It is up to you, you are the ones that fund it and direct1232it and so forth, to be able to see that we have a piece of1233legislation here that continues to innovate, move and progress1234as quickly as industry does.1235    Senator Husted. Dr. Woodruff, what Mr. Huntsman said seems1236pretty reasonable, that the EPA should focus on, their1237resources, on trying to improve, set priorities to improve the1238way that we are approving approvals for chemicals, other1239things. Is what he said unreasonable?1240    Ms. Woodruff. I think that regulation is an innovation1241driver. I agree that we need the best available science and1242that EPA should be well resourced in order to help create the1243regulations that set the bar. EPA should not be deciding what1244the innovations are. They should set the bar and then the1245industry innovates, because that is the right set of rules. EPA1246is not a manufacturer.1247    I just want to say, look at methylene chloride. Methylene1248chloride, the industry is still fighting to implement the rules1249around methylene chloride, which we know kills people, and1250there is a substitute, a substitute that is less toxic.1251    I feel like EPA is hamstrung by the industry saying yes, we1252want innovation but do not get rid of these toxic chemicals1253that we are already using. I agree with you and I think that if1254the industry is acting fairly, we can create innovation, like1255in the Clean Air Act, where we had the catalytic converter,1256cleaner air, no lead in gasoline. The Clean Air Act is a model1257for TSCA.1258    Senator Husted. Yes. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, America1259does innovation in an environmentally responsible way better1260than any country that we compete with, particularly the ones1261where these things happen, in India and China. A prioritization1262toward progress on the speed in which we get these things1263accomplished is very, very important.1264    Thank you.1265    Senator Curtis. Thank you, Senator.1266    With the Ranking Member's blessing, I would like to extend1267a second round to both of us just for a couple more questions.1268I would like to start, Mr. Huntsman, I could tell from your1269action you wanted to respond to that comment. Do you want to1270make any reaction?1271    Mr. Huntsman. No, I do not. We do not produce methylene1272chloride, nor do we handle it.1273    I think that we can not let the instances of problems, and1274there have been in this industry, they need to be cleaned up,1275they need to be focused on, and so forth. We need to be able to1276work together. We need to be able to move things along and it1277is just--I mean, I have heard about asbestos. I do not know1278anybody out here other than maybe a few people in this1279administration that are advocating that we keep--nobody uses1280asbestos anymore in chemical applications. I am not even sure1281where that comes from.1282    We need to stay focused and we need to stay focused on the1283vast, vast majority of what we produce, what we do, how we1284innovate and how we apply things to society.1285    Senator Curtis. Good.1286    I might circle back here, but I would like to go to Dr.1287Gross just really quickly. In your opening testimony, you1288talked about this conundrum of being able to use a suppressant,1289if I used the right word, in the cabin of an airplane where1290passengers are, but that same suppressant is not approved for1291the luggage department. Did I catch that right?1292    Ms. Gross. Yes, Senator, you caught that correctly. We1293worked very hard to develop this new chemical with one of our1294suppliers. We got it approved for use in handheld fire1295suppressants and would like to extend that into the cargo hold1296area. For whatever reason, that approval has not come, the1297extended use approval has not come through yet.1298    Senator Curtis. Yes, and to be clear, it is not an FAA1299restriction holding you back, it is an EPA restriction holding1300you back?1301    Ms. Gross. My understanding is that, but I am not an expert1302in that area. I can have someone followup.1303    Senator Curtis. Since this is beat up on EPA day, we will1304go with that assumption.1305    [Laughter.]1306    Senator Curtis. Again, I will reiterate that is one of1307those where I mentioned the clarity of where things fall in the1308process to consumers like Boeing, this would be a great example1309of where that would have benefited us.1310    Senator Curtis. Yes. I would also like to just address1311something that has been brought up several times, it should be1312a super-bipartisan issue, and that is just resources within1313EPA. This has been something I have been tracking from my time1314in the House, I will go back to the previous administration1315when I would challenge them on this zero approval, which is1316within statutory timeframes. The previous administrator would1317point to staffing as well.1318    I kind of tend to think, this points to the priority issue,1319because the money was appropriated for staff, they were not1320hired. It just feels to me like we need to, and I told1321Administrator Zeldin I will be as tough on him as I was on his1322predecessor, in making this a priority. It feels to me a little1323bit of a false choice that we have to choose between safety,1324that we have to choose between public health and innovation and1325speed.1326    To my colleague to my left, who I also believe to be very,1327very genuine on this issue, I would love to two of us dig into1328this, you heard the Chair's commitment from herself, and see if1329we can prioritize and move away from the false narrative that1330this is one or the other.1331    I will just say, Dr. Woodruff, I do not know you well, but1332I will say, I love your passion. This world moves well on1333people who have a passion. Mr. Huntsman, I actually know you1334fairly well, and I do truly know you to be somebody that wants1335to leave this earth as a better place for those 20 grandkids.1336Dr. Gross, I believe you feel the same way.1337    I think we have had a lot of cross sections in this1338hearing, and if not careful, it kind of breaks down into good1339guys, bad guys. I will just end my remarks with say, look,1340let's move forward with this commitment to protect the public,1341to inform the public, to get our best product out there, to1342certainly not let other countries allow chemicals that we would1343not approve to come to the marketplace to beat us.1344    I will continue to remind the EPA that this needs to be a1345priority and that we have to put the resources in place to make1346this happen.1347    With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member.1348    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1349    I want to turn to PFAS. I find it frustrating that PFAS1350comes up so often. It is such an extensive family of chemicals.1351We keep hearing how it has significant impacts on human health1352but it is kind of everywhere.1353    I think about simple things like, does a frying pan with1354that non-stick surface have PFAS, and should I still be using1355it? I do not recommend this, but nightly microwaving of frozen1356dinners, is the container they are in sprayed with PFAS, and1357should I be eating that?1358    I wanted to ask, Dr. Woodruff, and I want to note that the1359MAHA report calls out the fact that ``the PFAS industry focused1360on suppressing unfavorable research and to starting public1361discourse, delaying public awareness of its dangers.''1362    Is this something we should be able to tackle, at least for1363people to know where it is? If it is having that much impact on1364human health, how we can eliminate it from things that have1365that direct contact with humans through our food and our1366packaging and so forth?1367    Ms. Woodruff. You are right, PFAS, they are everywhere.1368They are persistent chemicals. They are measured in everyone1369around the globe. We know that they can increase the risk of1370numerous health impacts, including cardiovascular impacts,1371certain cancers, increased low birthweight, which can increase1372the risk of infant mortality, make it that you are less1373responsive to vaccines.1374    Your point is very well taken. We are not talking, that1375there are a lot of uses of PFAS that we do not need to have1376PFAS in. The most effective and efficient solution is to look1377toward removing or banning the whole class of PFAS and to move1378toward substitutes that are not persistent.1379    The report from NYU for the Institute for Policy Integrity1380noted that narrowly targeting regulations encourages1381substitutions of banned PFAS with structurally similar but1382unregulated compounds, meaning that you can get replacements.1383It is best to address the whole class.1384    Then I think your point about what we have found from1385internal industry documents is that the industry knew that PFAS1386was toxic in the 1970's, decades before the public knew that,1387including their own employees who were exposed to PFAS and gave1388birth to babies who had structural birth defects, that they1389already knew were observed in animal studies.1390    I think the solution to this particular issue is to ensure1391that, of course, we do not want anyone to lie or mislead the1392public. There are some steps that can be taken to ensure that1393we have the highest quality scienced that is free from bias,1394including some recommendations that we have made about removing1395corporate influence on the science process, making sure that1396studies that are going to be done for the new chemicals program1397could be, those studies could be preregistered so we know what1398the industry is going to do and can evaluate and make sure that1399everything is compliant with that. Then removing financial1400conflicts of interest from the review bodies.1401    This is also recommended in the Gold Standard Science1402Executive Order to remove conflicts of interest and in the Make1403America Health reports.1404    Senator Merkley. When someone installs new carpeting and it1405is the stain-resistant carpeting, is that treated with PFAS?1406    Ms. Woodruff. Some of them, yes.1407    Senator Merkley. Then, if I had a grandchild, which I do1408not----1409    Ms. Woodruff. Me either.1410    [Laughter.]1411    Senator Merkley. If my children, when they were small or1412crawling around before they were walking and their little noses1413were right on the carpet, are they consuming PFAS through the1414fibers like almost from the start of life?1415    Ms. Woodruff. Yes, unfortunately, this is an area that we1416really need EPA to do a better job on, which is accounting for1417the fact that when kids are, like you have these little1418toddlers, they are so cute, they are crawling around, but they1419are also collecting, they are also lower to the ground and then1420putting their hands in their mouth, to feel things out.1421    If there are toxic chemicals like PFAS in the carpet or a1422lot of toxic chemicals love to hang out in dust, they are1423getting higher exposures to those chemicals that are in the1424carpet, in the materials, in the dust. It has been well1425documented that that is true. We see this with flame retardant1426chemicals.1427    In California, they did a study where little toddlers had1428the same levels of PBDE flame retardant chemicals as people who1429worked in occupational settings. EPA can account for this in1430their risk evaluations. That does not always happen.1431    Senator Merkley. Thank you.1432    Mr. Chairman, this area, the products where humans have the1433most exposure, would be an area I would love to work with you1434on.1435    Senator Curtis. Thank you. I will take you up on that. From1436my days in the House, I remember this kind of, I will say1437argument, and I would like to also acknowledge that some of our1438heart valves use PFAS, for which there is no substitute, which1439makes it difficult if you say, we are just going to attack all1440of PFAS.1441    It seems to me that somehow we have to get a little bit1442more granular with this conversation, and throw in, and I do1443not know, but there is probably some element of safety from1444fires and children whose lives are not lost because of the1445chemicals as well and somehow factoring that in as well to1446these decisions.1447    I will meet you on that. We will have that conversation.1448    I am going to volunteer Mr. Huntsman to come meet with us1449as well, and Dr. Woodruff, we will invite you and Dr. Gross. We1450will bore down into some of these topics.1451    Mr. Huntsman. I will even loan a couple of grandchildren to1452Senator Merkley.1453    Senator Curtis. I was actually going to try to beat you to1454that, because those of us with 18 or 20 know there is one or1455two that we will send over there.1456    [Laughter.]1457    Senator Merkley. Send them right over.1458    Senator Curtis. Thank you all very much.1459    With no further questions, I would like to thank the1460witnesses and all my colleagues for your participation in1461today's hearing, especially my colleague, the Ranking Member.1462It is actually no small thing that he is with us today.1463    Senators who wish to submit written questions for the1464record will have until 5 p.m., Thursday, November 6th to do so.1465The witnesses' responses to those questions are due back to the1466committee no later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, November 20th, and1467will be submitted for the record.1468    With that, this hearing is adjourned.1469    [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]14701471                                  [all]