[Senate Hearing 119-346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-346
HEARING ON EXAMINING THE BENEFICIAL USE
AND REGULATION OF CHEMICALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL SAFETY, WASTE
MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 23, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-292 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental
Justice, and Regulatory Oversight
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah, Chairman
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Ranking Member
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JON HUSTED, Ohio SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia (ex officio)
(ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 23, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Curtis, Hon. John R., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah........ 1
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........ 2
WITNESSES
Woodruff, Ph.D., MPH, Tracey, UCSF Professor and Director,
Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment............. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from Senator Merkley....... 11
Huntsman, Peter, President and CEO, Huntsman Corporation......... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Gross, Ph.D., Gwen, Senior Technical Fellow, The Boeing Company.. 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Chemistry Creates, America Competes: National Defense; Chemistry
Critical to National Priorities................................ 47
HEARING ON EXAMINING THE BENEFICIAL USE
AND REGULATION OF CHEMICALS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
room 562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John R. Curtis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Curtis, Capito, Merkley, Wicker, Boozman,
Husted.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. CURTIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Senator Curtis. Good morning and welcome to our
subcommittee hearing this morning.
I would like to begin by thanking our three witnesses. We
will talk a little bit more about you in a minute.
My thanks to the Ranking Member. I am not sure if you have
followed the news, but it is kind of a big deal he is here
today. He was a little bit busy yesterday, and we are going to
test his voice after speaking for almost 24 hours. Ranking
Member, thanks for being with us this morning.
Our hearing this morning impacts the regulation on
environment for new and existing chemicals, a subject that lies
at the intersection of innovation, safety, and U.S.
competitiveness.
Today we will hear from both sides of a chemical equation,
from the Huntsman Corporation, represented by their chief
executive officer, Mr. Peter Huntsman, and Boeing represented
by Dr. Gwen Gross, Senior Technical Fellow in Compositions and
Chemical Technology and Chief Chemist, and Dr. Tracey J.
Woodruff, Ph.D., MPH, UCSF, Professor and Director of Programs
on Reproductive Health and the Environment, and Member of the
National Academy of Medicine.
I will allow our Ranking Member perhaps to introduce her
just a little bit more in the remarks. I will just say a few
minutes myself about our other two witnesses.
Mr. Huntsman and Dr. Gross bring critical perspective. Mr.
Huntsman leads a company whose core business is the development
of new chemicals, that enables the development of safer, more
efficient and more effective products in the United States.
Dr. Gross represents a major customer of those materials,
an aerospace manufacturer whose ability to incorporate new
chemistries into aircraft is essential to maximizing the safety
and performance of aircraft and maintaining American
competitiveness.
Together, their perspectives embody the essential
relationship between chemical manufacturers and their
customers, those who depend on chemical innovation to drive
American industry forward. Every day, American chemical
manufacturers like Huntsman invest billions of dollars in
research and development to produce new materials that can
reduce emissions, improve safety, and maintain U.S. industrial
competitiveness. These new chemicals enable lighter, stronger,
and more efficient products to reach the market, from cars to
aircraft to medical devices.
However, regulatory delays and ambiguities in the chemical
approval process can stifle that innovation, forcing companies
to move research overseas or abandon promising materials
altogether. That is not good for our workers, our consumers, or
the environment.
On the other end of the supply chain are manufacturers like
Boeing, companies that rely on those new chemicals to build
world-class products that meet our highest safety standards.
Dr. Gross and her team work every day to integrate next-
generation replacement materials into aircraft, a lengthy
approval process, including in this example, EPA, in addition
to FAA and Department of Defense.
When the regulations guiding chemical approvals change
faster than the relevant agencies can deliver the chemical
approvals or certifications, companies like Boeing are caught
in a difficult position, hamstrung by a process that may
actually prevent safer or more effective replacement chemicals
from ever reaching the final products. Those regulatory
bottlenecks can ripple across the entire aerospace supply
chain, impacting thousands of suppliers and hundreds of
thousands of workers.
Our challenge, therefore, is not whether to regulate
chemicals. Of course, we must regulate. How do we do so in a
way that protects public health and the environment without
stifling American innovation? We must ensure that our
regulatory system keeps pace with modern science, supports
collaboration between EPA and other relevant agencies, and
gives both chemical manufacturers and their customers the
certainty that they need to invest, produce, and compete
globally.
America cannot lead in advanced manufacturing if our
innovators do not have a chemical approval process that works.
Thank you for joining us today, and I look forward to
hearing from all three of our witnesses. I will yield to the
Ranking Member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations on this first hearing of the subcommittee. You
are in your first term, so this is your first holding that
gavel.
[Sound of gavel; laughter.]
Senator Merkley. There we go, all right. It is a pleasure
to work with you.
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Today, we are here to discuss how we
regulate toxic substances and chemical safety. As public
servants, we have a responsibility to ensure that while we work
to create good-paying jobs for working families, our highest
priority must be protecting public health.
Americans need to be able to trust that the air they
breathe, the water they drink and the products they use in
their homes or workplaces, their communities, are safe for
themselves and their families, and that their long-term health
and safety takes priority over short-term profits.
Pollution is not partisan, and addressing it is our shared
responsibility. That trust is placed here with this
subcommittee and with the agency we oversee, the Environmental
Protection Agency. In 2016, I worked with members of this
committee to pass 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act, which we
know as TSCA. That legislation required the EPA to develop a
new framework to evaluate the risks of new and existing
chemicals and to regulate chemicals that present an
unreasonable risk to human or environmental health. That
process was implemented during the first Trump administration.
During that time, an industry-friendly EPA undermined
science, delayed action on chemicals like PFAS, missed
statutory deadlines for existing and new chemicals, according
to the EPA's own inspector general, and prioritized
deregulation over public health.
Now, the second Trump administration is picking up where
the first left off. It had been stating that it was planning to
reconsider a Biden-era ban on chrysotile asbestos. I was struck
by this, because basically every developed country in the world
has banned asbestos. We banned it, I believe initially in 1988,
overturned by a court in 1991 and it really was not until just
recently we finally managed to say the effects of asbestos and
black lung disease should not exist in the United States.
I was very pleased that there was a public outcry, saying,
really? This makes no sense at all. In July, the Trump
administration reversed course and said they were not going to
try to undo that ban. The ban actually is implemented over many
years, so it is not in place yet.
I have argued for a long time that if the rest of the world
can do without asbestos, I think we can figure it out as well.
America should be a leader, not a follower in protecting its
workers and the environment.
I have been concerned over plans of the administration to
dismiss the rules that regulate four of the PFAS chemicals
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I am concerned about the
restructuring of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention. It is being filled with lobbyists from chemical
corporations. There are plants to dismantle the Office of
Research and Development, which in my mind would be a big
mistake, things that our subcommittee should pay attention to.
At the same time that all that is going on, the Trump
administration has released two health reports, the Make
American Healthy Again, or MAHA, report, released in May, and
the Make Our Children Health Again report, released in
September. These reports lay out the risks associated with
plastics and PFAS and pesticide and other proprietary
chemicals.
The MAHA report said, ``The concentration of microplastics
found in America's brain tissue has increased 50 percent
between 2016 and 2024.'' That is something that I have raised
before. We held a series of six hearings last year on plastics,
the only six hearings that have ever been held on plastics in
Congress.
One of the reports that had come forward was based on
studying the brains of deceased individuals and finding that
information. I was pleased that it was repeated in the MAHA
report because what we know about plastics is that they carry
endocrine disrupting chemicals that interfere, and I am quoting
from the report again, ``endocrine disrupting chemicals that
interfere with hormonal development and potentially trigger
early puberty, especially in girls, and heighten the risk of
obesity, infertility, and hormone related cancers.''
These reports note that studies from chemical companies are
often biased compared to independent studies, and that chemical
corporations have often captured our Federal agencies. We have
chemicals that do amazing things. We need to be honest with the
American public when they affect human health.
TSCA is the best tool our government has to address these
chemical risks. Yet interestingly, it is not mentioned in the
MAHA report or its follow-on for children.
TSCA is not perfect. It can be improved. Let's work
honestly about how we can maximize the good, minimize the harm,
and I do not quote President Trump often, but I will today. On
May 22d, he said we need to ``protect our children, very
importantly, keep the dangerous chemicals out of our food
supplies, get toxic substances out of our environment, and
deliver the American people the facts.'' I agree completely.
This is not the time to loosen oversight or lower
standards. It is time to recommit ourselves to protecting the
health of the American public. I look forward to today's
discussion.
Senator Merkley. At what point would you like to me to
follow on comments to introduce?
Senator Curtis. Let's do that. We will start with Dr.
Woodruff, who is our first witness.
Senator Merkley. Okay. As Chair Curtis mentioned, Dr.
Tracey Woodruff currently serves as Director and Professor for
the University of California at San Francisco's Program on
Reproductive Health and the Environment. She is also a member
of the National Academy of Medicine.
Dr. Woodruff is an expert in chemical and regulatory policy
as well as a leading scientist investigating how toxic
chemicals can impact public health, with an emphasis on
pregnant women and childhood development.
We look forward to hearing from Dr. Woodruff today about
the critical role the Federal Government can play to protect
our children, to protect our adults, protect our communities
from toxic chemicals.
Senator Curtis. Dr. Woodruff, just before you jump in, let
me just say, we will roll from Dr. Woodruff to Mr. Huntsman and
then Dr. Gross. You each have 5 minutes, and we look forward to
each of your testimoneys.
STATEMENT OF TRACEY J. WOODRUFF, PH.D., MPH, UCSF PROFESSOR AND
DIRECTOR, PROGRAM ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
AND MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE
Ms. Woodruff. Thank you. Subcommittee Chairman Curtis,
Ranking Member Merkley and members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Tracey Woodruff, a
professor from the University of California, San Francisco, and
director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the
Environment, and a member of the National Academy of Medicine.
We conduct research to understand how industrial chemicals
and pollutants in the environment impact people's health.
Toxic chemicals take a measurable toll on people's health.
Toxic chemicals are widespread in our air, water, food, homes,
and workplaces, and consequently, human exposures begin before
birth and continue throughout life.
We know these exposures take a measurable toll on the
health of children and adults and can increase the risk of
cancer, infertility, neurological and cardiovascular disease,
low birth weight, birth defects, autism, and ADHD. These
conditions are increasing in the U.S. as documented in the
recent Make America Healthy Again Report.
Environmental regulations came about from necessity and
evidence shows they are enormously effective at improving
health, reducing health care costs, increasing life expectancy
and productivity. Research finds that reducing air pollution
during pregnancy and early childhood leads to higher earnings,
improved education, and better health later in life.
OMB documents that annual benefits to the American public
from major EPA rules ranged from $194 billion to $687 billion
per year; and EPA regulations yield the highest annual benefits
for Americans compared to any other Federal agency.
Protecting people from harmful chemicals is something
Americans agree on. In a recent nationwide survey, over 90
percent of voters, including Republicans, Democrats and
Independents, agreed the government should require they be
proven safe before companies are allowed to put them on the
market. Eighty-eight percent of voters support the goals of
TSCA to protect people from harmful chemicals.
As mentioned in TSCA's first 40 years, EPA struggled to ban
harmful chemicals, including asbestos, a known human carcinogen
causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. TSCA's failure led
Congress to update it in 2016 to ensure EPA could better
protect people from harmful chemicals.
One of the goals of TSCA amendments was to provide stronger
protections for highly exposed and susceptible populations like
pregnant women, children, workers, and people who live in areas
where polluting facilities have been sited. However, with the
chemical lobby pouring millions of dollars into influencing the
regulatory process, we have seen troubling patterns of EPA
brushing aside rigorous science showing health risks, ignoring
dangerous exposures to half of the exposed population and
weakening the rules for scientific assessments.
It is no secret that the chemical industry wants to reduce
the public health protections promised by TSCA in exchange for
less regulations and more profits. One of their criticisms is
that EPA is not approving new chemicals fast enough, yet TSCA
requires EPA to assess the safety of new chemicals and prevent
potential risks before these chemicals are allowed on the
market.
Congress was clear that EPA should not cut corners on the
thoroughness of reviews to serve industry demands for rush
approvals. Despite this, EPA has granted low-volume exemptions
for over 600 PFAS, a class of over 16,000 chemicals so
persistent they have been detected in nearly everyone tested.
A new report from NYU estimates the annual health care of
PFAS harms in the U.S. from $1 billion to over $60 billion, and
they also say the cost of destroying 1 year's worth of PFAS
releases exceeds annual global GDP.
Under the guise of supporting innovation, EPA also approved
a new chemical for use in jet and boat fuel that has caused
cancer risks so high nearly every person who is exposed to this
chemical through foreseeable uses is expected to develop
cancer. That is unacceptable.
While industry says faster, faster, and uses buzz words
like progress and innovation, it is essential that policymakers
understand the repercussions of unleashing new toxic chemicals
on the population. Once they are out, you can not take them
back, and the result is that people can get sick and die.
Instead, we need a stronger TSCA that creates incentives
for the industry to develop new chemicals that will not harm
health or the environment.
The chemical lobby is also attaching EPA's Office of
Research and Development because they do not like science that
finds that their chemicals and products are toxic. They are
attacking the TSCA risk assessment rule, because they do not
want EPA to consider all real-world chemical uses and exposures
or the full extent of human health hazards and risks for lethal
chemicals, like methylene chloride. They do not want EPA to
address cumulative impacts to fence line community residents
where rates of cancer and other chronic diseases are exceeding
the general population.
As you consider the next steps for TSCA, you should also
consider how polluting industries have lied about the harms of
their products to you, the public, even to their own employees.
Internal industry documents from PFAS manufacturers show the
industry knew about PFAS health harms decades before the
public.
EPA was established to protect the health of the public and
the environment, not to increase corporate profits. I urge you
to act in the best interests of the American people, and
preserve and strengthen TSCA's mission to protect the public's
health.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woodruff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Curtis. Mr. Huntsman?
STATEMENT OF PETER HUNTSMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUNTSMAN
CORPORATION
Mr. Huntsman. Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and
members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor for me to be here.
I am Peter Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Huntsman Corporation.
American prosperity, security, and power are entirely
dependent on a strong, thriving and properly regulated chemical
sector. Without it, modern life is not possible. That is not
hyperbole. It is a physical, immutable reality.
In the chemical industry, we take atoms and molecules,
break them apart, put them back together to create the building
blocks of nearly everything in modern society, automobiles and
airplanes, batteries and semiconductors, solar panels and wind
turbines, clean drinking water, pharmaceuticals and much more.
Innovation in chemistry drives solutions that improve
modern life. Realizing these benefits depends on a regulatory
system that is efficient, science-based, predictable, and that
encourages investment in innovation instead of creating
unnecessary delays and uncertainty.
If today we create a chemical that could eliminate
greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, there is no guarantee how
long it would take to get approved, even though it would be a
breakthrough for the environment and the world. This regulatory
uncertainty and delay hold back innovation, make it difficult
to invest in technologies we desperately need.
Fifteen to 20 years ago, the vast majority of new chemistry
science came from the United States and Europe. Today, we see
China, India, Southeast Asian countries and the Middle East
region investing billions to not just match our innovation, but
to exceed our capabilities. I want to be clear: we do not need
to be cutting corners. We do need to have better focus, speed,
transparency and reliable standards in order to compete.
If we do not get this right, I fear we will be here in five
or 10 years from now in the same situation we find ourselves
with critical minerals: dependent on others.
As a chief executive officer I am responsible for making
long-term investment decisions that impact thousands of
employees, billions in capital, and our ability to compete
globally. When regulations like the Toxic Substance Control
Act, TSCA, are applied unpredictably and without regard to real
world risk, it becomes nearly impossible to plan with
confidence when EPA's review process for new chemicals
routinely exceeds the 90 day timeline required by law, creating
unnecessary delays and uncertainty.
Without a clear sense of when or if a product will be
approved, innovation is put on hold, and companies are often
forced to consider moving research and development outside the
United States just to remain competitive. That is not just a
regulatory inefficiency, it is a strategic disadvantage to our
Country.
America should be leading the world in developing next
generation chemistries that drive economic growth and economic
well-being. That kind of leadership depends on a regulatory
system that is science-based, timely, and focused on real-world
exposures, not hypothetical hazards. Until we fix it, it is
simply impossible for any board of directors to approve
building new manufacturing facilities on a product that is
unapproved.
We do not need to look far to see the damaging impact of
bad policy around natural resources, energy and chemicals and
material innovation. The ongoing deindustrialization of Europe
is a clear example of what is happening when regulatory
burdens, high energy costs and supply constraints drive
investment and production elsewhere.
Congress has an opportunity to ensure that does not happen
here by improving TSCA with a durable policy solution that will
not seesaw depending on who is in office. This type of
certainty will not only help manufacturers make investment
decisions, but will benefit the general public by encouraging
innovation and will bring safer and more sustainable chemistry
to the market.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huntsman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
Dr. Gross?
STATEMENT OF GWEN GROSS, PH.D., SENIOR TECHNICAL FELLOW, THE
BOEING COMPANY
Ms. Gross. Good morning, Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member
Merkley, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
I am Dr. Gwen Gross, a Senior Technical Fellow at Boeing
for Composites and Chemical Technology. Boeing proudly
develops, manufactures, and services commercial airplanes,
defense products, and space systems.
Safety and quality are at the core of everything we do.
Boeing is committed to complying with environmental laws and
regulations, and creating economic opportunities and driving
industry innovation.
I serve as a chief chemist within Boeing's Advanced
Research and Development organization. I am an expert in the
formulation and production of critical aerospace materials. I
have worked the complete life cycle of materials integration
from idea to implementation, and I act as an intermediary
between Boeing and our suppliers.
Boeing is a downstream user of chemicals. We do not
manufacture the chemical formulations that we use. Instead, as
we develop new and innovative aerospace products, we rely on
our chemical suppliers to develop those new chemicals that meet
our stringent performance requirements.
Suppliers are responsible for obtaining those regulatory
approvals for new chemicals or new uses. Any delays that they
experience in obtaining approvals delays the aerospace
innovations that Boeing is working to advance.
Boeing uses chemical materials in a variety of ways in its
products, including composites, sealants, adhesives and
coatings. The aerospace industry faces unique challenges when
it comes to chemical material use and replacement due to
complex FAA certification requirements and military
specifications that govern our products and services.
To produce and sell a commercial aircraft, Boeing must
obtain type certification from the FAA by demonstrating that
the aircraft design, including all of its component parts,
meets all applicable FAA regulations. It can take 10 years or
more to design, build, test and receive type certification for
an aircraft model or new replacement parts.
This certification process, which is integral to aviation
safety, includes consideration of the performance of the
chemicals used in that design. Boeing must show that materials
are suitable and durable.
In practice, that means polymeric material, like the carbon
fiber composite used for wings, needs to be able to cycle from
a sweltering Phoenix runway in July to subzero temperatures at
30,000 feet just minutes later. It must maintain structural
performance while doing this multiple times a day, potentially
for decades.
If regulatory changes impacting chemical material use or
replacement, or changes in the marketplace happen too fast,
aerospace companies may not have sufficient time to find viable
alternatives and to demonstrate that they satisfy those
regulatory requirements. For example, finding a replacement for
a chemical used in the formulation of a polymer composite
system can be a challenging and lengthy process.
I began working on a new candidate for a next generation
carbon fiber composite material when my daughter was 2 years
old. Boeing is just now finishing the qualification of that
material, and my daughter is now 18.
Aerospace manufacturers are also impacted by delays in new
chemical reviews and new chemical restrictions. One example is
the replacement of the fire suppression chemicals used on board
aircraft. Boeing devoted 20 years and considerable resources to
developing alternatives to the industry standard agent halon.
It is an ozone-depleting substance that is widely used on
aircraft due to its unique performance attributes, and it has
proven difficult to replace.
Working with our suppliers, a replacement was approved
approximately 8 years ago by the EPA and FAA for use in
handheld fire extinguishers onboard aircraft. Boeing is
considering it for cargo compartment use but regulatory
uncertainty remains.
Boeing has also seen challenges when evaluating new
chemicals under TSCA research and development exemptions. It is
not uncommon for a new promising formulation to be removed from
consideration early in our technology development process due
to uncertainty about when and if an R&D chemical would be
approved by the EPA.
If there is a risk that the decision will not be made in
time to meet our internal milestones for certification, our
researchers may choose an existing chemical instead.
Unfortunately, this could limit new technologies that may
provide significant performance improvements, such as new
lightweight materials. Regulatory changes to reduce this
uncertainty would be helpful.
In closing, thank you again for the opportunity to speak
with you today. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gross follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Curtis. Thank you, to all three.
I will begin with questions for the first few minutes. I
would like to start with you, Mr. Huntsman. Dr. Woodruff
appropriately pointed out that if we move too quickly with
reviews, that is not good. Yet you and I both know that during
the last administration, EPA met their statutory responsibility
exactly zero percent of the time for chemical approvals.
I am curious, from your perspective, if we had a better
process, if we had a process that yielded the right result, how
do you feel like that could better impact public health,
innovation, and at the same time rein in our bad actors?
Mr. Huntsman. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
comments made by both of the other witnesses that are before us
here today.
I am not sure that there is a whole lot of disagreement
here. We do need to have a well-regulated environment. The vast
majority of new chemistry development is developing to replace
past formulations and past applications to make things lighter
and stronger.
The reason why Boeing is able to make planes that can fly
nearly half way around the world non-stop is because they are
lighter, they are more fuel efficient, they are safer, better
built, lower maintenance than they were just 15 or 20 years
ago. This is all about innovation and about speed.
As we see this around the world, I do not mean to pick on
Boeing, I think they are a great company, but I imagine one of
their biggest competition next generation is going to be Comac,
the Chinese manufacturer. Now, we do not need to be cutting
corners to become like the Chinese in this area, but we do need
to be aware that we need to be able to compete on a playing
field where we can create the chemistry, we can go through the
regulatory process and make sure that it is thorough in order
to compete on a global basis.
The United States has the highest standards in chemical
manufacturing, not chemical approval. We need to keep this. We
need to keep innovating with that. As we do that, we will
continue to provide the jobs and the economic well-being and
the environmental stewardship that we all want.
Senator Curtis. Excellent. Along those lines, you do
business internationally, so you are familiar with the
regulations in Europe. What missteps has Europe taken that
might stifle innovation here in the United States if we are not
careful?
Mr. Huntsman. Well, I think about 70 percent, 65 percent of
our sales are international. We meet not only U.S. standards
but we meet standards all over the world.
A lot of this has to do with what I am seeing more and
more, particularly in Europe more so than in the U.S., is a lot
of these environmental standards are politically driven. They
are not science driven. You will see particular companies that
will retaliate against a particular company or against a
particular application, seemingly purely for political purposes
because a facility was to shut down or vacate that country.
I think the worst of all worlds is when we start to see
politics interfere with sound science.
Senator Curtis. I am going to paraphrase your words, and
you tell me if I am wrong. As far as the U.S. regulatory
environment that makes sure that you are protecting public
health and not cutting corners, you are okay with bring it on.
Can it be a bit more predictable and produce an outcome
quicker? Is that fair?
Mr. Huntsman. I think that is very fair.
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
Dr. Gross, thank you for being with us. Could you share how
those transitions that--well, let me go back. You have had a
front-row seat to the shifting regulatory landscape through
your work both at the EPA and FAA across multiple
administrations. Could you share how those transitions impacted
your work at Boeing, particularly in relation to chemical
approvals?
Ms. Gross. Thank you for the question, Senator.
Boeing uses a standardized development process with
internal milestones, very similar to what NASA uses in terms of
technology readiness levels. That duration of development that
we have very often spans multiple administrations, multiple
regulatory changes.
In each of those steps that we go through, through that
gated process, we take an assessment of the current regulatory
landscape. Whatever it happens to be, as that matures, we have
to address it at the time.
The challenge that a company like Boeing has where we have
these very long development timelines is that at the beginning
of a project and at the middle of a project we may see those
changes come up from the regulatory environment, from the
changes in administration.
It is not something I can give an example of particularly
for a current issue. It is something that we account for and
deal with in our day-to-day operations.
Senator Curtis. How did the approach to reviewing new
chemicals evolve over time? What lessons should we draw from
those shifts to create a more durable, consistent regulatory
framework?
Ms. Gross. Thank you for the question, Senator. Part of the
challenge, like I mentioned in my testimony, for companies like
Boeing, is that we do not hold the responsibility for the
application for a new chemical or for the extended use. We rely
on our supply base.
It almost becomes this game of telephone. Sometimes the
visibility of where a chemical is in the process or if there is
a bottleneck or a hangup, it is not always visible to us in our
own development cycle. That mismatch between what is going on
from a regulatory standpoint and our development cycle is where
we end up making those hard decisions about not to move
forward, say, with a new innovative chemical.
That is where that increased visibility or increased
understanding of the process would definitely help downstream
users like Boeing.
Senator Curtis. Thank you very much.
I yield to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes for his
questions.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Woodruff, in your testimony you note that there is a
new chemical for jet and boat fuel that has a cancer risk so
high that nearly every person who is exposed to the chemical
for foreseeable uses is expected to develop cancer. That is a
pretty powerful statement.
Can you, in very quick summary, because I have several
questions, how did such a chemical, if it has that kind of
risk, get approved?
Ms. Woodruff. Sometimes it gets through the process because
EPA has had some type of political interference, which was
documented in the previous administration.
Senator Merkley. It has some kind of--?
Ms. Woodruff. Political interference. It is not clear who
detected the people who are making the decisions.
Senator Merkley. My colleague accurately noted that it is
very rare to meet the timelines that we have in TSCA. My
understanding is, there are two main reasons for that. One is
vast understaffing for the number of chemicals to be reviewed.
I just want to make that point because to the degree that we
can properly staff EPA, it would help address that issue.
The second main reason is because the studies that are
submitted are often incomplete and it has to go back to the
industry to say, well, you can not approve it until you
actually get the study before us.
Do I have a correct understanding of that, or is there
other reasons that are more significant?
Ms. Woodruff. Yes, that is correct. Submitters, meaning
manufacturers, are responsible for most of the length of the
review of the new chemical. For example, there were 230 valid
cases submitted between October 2022 and October 2023. Half, 85
of these cases, as of February 2025, over half of them are
still waiting for more data from the submitter, or to sign the
TSCA Section 5 order.
Some of them are actually toxic, so they are actually
negotiating with the EPA and then 29 of the cases, they are
disagreeing with what EPA is finding.
Generally, and I also want to say that a lot of chemicals
are getting through the process and are being approved. EPA has
approved thousands of new chemicals under amended TSCA, 3,600
over the last 8 years.
What we are seeing is both, we need more people in there,
submitters need to submit all the information, and the EPA is
doing its job when it has the resources and information.
Senator Merkley. I do have a lot of concerns about many of
the EPA employees that have either been fired or put on
furlough. We may be losing a huge, vast brain trust to be able
to evaluate chemicals. The problem could get worse if we do not
get this addressed.
I wanted to turn to the plastics. We know that plastics
have incredible qualities. They are used in everything
everywhere. We also now have a better understanding of how they
break down to micro and nano plastics and end up in our bodies.
They have a series of impacts.
Can you just share some highlights of your research on the
risks involved, of the plastics themselves or the additives
that are put in to make the plastics suitable for different
purposes?
Ms. Woodruff. Right. Our research using high quality, the
best quality evidence reviews, has found that microplastics are
suspected to increase the risk of effects on the gut,
respiratory effects and also effects on reproductive health,
particularly affecting sperm quality, and could be increasing
the risk of colon and lung cancer.
That is just from microplastics. What we know about many of
the additives that are in plastics and microplastics, that is
phthalates, bisphenols, PFAS, flame retardants, there are like
16,000 chemicals that are used in plastics. We have good
information on less than 5 percent of them.
Let's just talk about phthalates. Phthalates can increase
the risk of adverse effects on male reproductive health, like
lower testosterone and sperm count, which can lead to
infertility, can increase the risk of pre-term birth, metabolic
disorders like diabetes. This is according to the best
available science, including high quality systematic reviews
conducted by both EPA's Office of Research and Development and
the National Academy of Sciences.
We also know similarly that bisphenols can affect female
reproductive toxicity as well as it can increase the risk of
neurodevelopmental toxicity. That is just for those few
chemicals. There are many more that are in plastics.
Senator Merkley. I think this is an area where we have to
spend a lot more attention, because it has received relatively
little. Since the 1950's, plastics started being used as a
coating on our cups for hot liquids. We have a huge exposure
through that and through plastic bottles.
I was stunned by our plastics testimony in the last cycle
of the amount of plastic that the average American now has the
equivalent, I think it was described as equal to a plastic
spoon in your brain, which is shocking.
I did want to ask you about the Office of Research and
Development. There are efforts to dissolve that. Is ORD
important to keep? If so, why?
Ms. Woodruff. ORD, the work that the scientists in ORD do
affects and really protects every person who lives in the
United States. ORD does the essential research that allows us
to understand what the toxicity of chemicals are.
They also are there when there is a spill or a terrorist
event. For example, when there was anthrax here in the Capitol,
ORD scientists were the ones who figured out how to clean it
up. They also were there on the ground in East Palestine. They
also identified the toxicity of many of these toxic substances
that we now know are affecting people's health.
They also developed the methods by which we figure out
whether there are toxic chemicals in the environment. For
example, ORD scientists were the ones who figured out that a
facility was dumping a PFAS chemical into the drinking water
supply of a residence in North Carolina. Once they measured
that and identified it and worked with the State, they were
able to stop that.
To dismantle that allows both less best available science
or less high quality science, less unbiased science as well as
less ability to respond to the many different types of
environmental needs that arise, consistently or episodically,
in the United States.
Senator Merkley. Thank you so much.
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Ranking Member.
I note the arrival of our Chair of the full committee, and
she has deferred to our other members to let them go first.
Senator Wicker, I yield 5 minutes to you.
Senator Wicker. I really do appreciate that.
Dr. Woodruff, my colleague and friend, Senator Merkley,
thinks I should not be drinking water out of a plastic bottle.
I note that I am drinking water today out of a glass pitcher
but regrettably, Senator Boozman, his water is out of plastic.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wicker. Should I quit drinking water out of a
plastic bottle?
Ms. Woodruff. Well, I do not think you should quit drinking
water.
Senator Wicker. Out of a plastic bottle?
Ms. Woodruff. Out of a plastic bottle; well, first of all,
there are plastic chemicals and microplastics in a water
bottle. Currently, I mean, it is your choice, but I have my own
reusable water bottle. It is up to you.
If you want to lower your levels of plastics and
microplastics, that is one source that you could stop.
Senator Wicker. Thank you for that testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent at this point
to add into the record a document entitled Chemistry Creates,
America Competes, concerning some of the great benefits of
chemicals.
Senator Curtis. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Huntsman, you have said there is much agreement in
the panel here. Is it fair to say that your position is that
without a regime that allows the reasonable manufacture of
chemicals, such as the ones you have, we would not be able to
defend our Country militarily? Also, we would not be able to
produce certain items and certain products that actually take
us off of using more dangerous products that Americans and
humans have used earlier.
Is that part of your position? Is that a good restatement
of your position?
Mr. Huntsman. I think that is absolutely correct. Again, I
think the vast majority of what is said here, we would agree.
The esteemed Dr. Woodruff here with her drinking container, I
notice you have a plastic cap that goes on the top of that.
Without that plastic, I am not sure that you would be able to
have the lightweight flexibility and so forth.
Look, it is a balance in so many of these areas and so many
of these things that we do. When it comes to defense, when it
comes to mechanization, computerization, aerospace, automobile
movement, any source of armor, it simply would not exist
without petrochemicals, none of it.
Senator Wicker. I spend a lot more of my committee time in
another building, on the Armed Services Committee. We know what
a dangerous world we are in. Actually, I have been saying all
year this is the most dangerous period we have had since World
War II. It is not just Iran with their nukes, it is China, it
is Russia and this crazy guy that runs North Korea.
When there are delays and the statutory deadlines are
missed for approval of certain of your applications, that harms
national defense, does it not?
Mr. Huntsman. Absolutely, it does. We are working on some
applications, for example, that will be going into some of the
surface, some of the technology that has come from the
aerospace industry on hypersonic missiles, for example. Delays
in those will obviously build a hypersonic missile without the
skin, without the coating on those missiles and without the
components to be able to withstand the heat and friction and so
forth, and the weight that is needed on those applications.
Absolutely, it all is intertwined with the supply chain.
Senator Wicker. By the same token, when there is an
invention by your company of something that actually takes us
away from a more harmful substance, and that is delayed by a
statutory deadline being missed, the public is harmed by that,
is it not?
Mr. Huntsman. I am a father of eight children, I have got
20 grandchildren. I do not want to see any chemicals in
anybody's drinking water any more than anybody else does. I
care a great deal. I have worked in chemical plants in my
career. Nobody wants to be exposed to any of these products.
Yes, as I said earlier, the vast majority of new
chemistries that we produce are to replace older chemistries or
to advance science or to advance the environmental stewardship
and so forth. It is good business, aside from just being on a
humanitarian front.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Huntsman, I was just presented with my
ninth grandchild, and people have remarked about that. I must
say, your testimony takes my breath away.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huntsman. Takes my wife's away as well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wicker. Congratulations.
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
I would like to now yield to the Chairman of the Ag
Committee, and I will note, just to show the importance of this
hearing, to my right are three chairs of different committees.
It shows the importance of this committee. Thank you for
joining us.
I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much. This has been tough
on the committee today; I got here and I could not get my seat
back. I think you did that on purpose to shame me. Then Senator
Wicker humiliated me for my plastic cup.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boozman. Rightfully so. Thank you all for being
here. This is important. I guess the crux is delays. Are the
delays that we have had in the past, where we are not meeting
any of the statutory guidelines, that is concerning.
Mr. Huntsman, what does that do as far as the consumer, as
we come out with new products and stuff that are put into other
products to make things better, more efficient, however we use
them, what does that have to do with the cost when you have
excessive time, sometimes years and years, to develop these
products?
Mr. Huntsman. Senator, there is certainly a cost. We are
seeing more and more that we are abdicating our lead in
chemistry to foreign players. The United States is not the only
market, nor is it the majority of the market of consumerism
around the world.
When new standards are set, oftentimes not nearly as
stringent as what we have here in the United States, as new
standards are set and new products are going into the
marketplace, that do not meet the stringent quality controls
and environmental controls the United States imposes, I think
that the rest of the world that should be following our lead
oftentimes suffers.
Product capabilities, whether it is the plastic that is
going into a drinking, bottled water and so forth, they are not
under, necessarily under U.S. standards. A lot of this is not
just about U.S. delays, but it is also about U.S. innovation,
U.S. standards and global standards. At one time we pretty much
dominated, and we are losing that.
Senator Boozman. Dr. Woodruff, you mentioned the jet fuel.
That was approved in the last administration, is that correct?
Ms. Woodruff. Yes.
Senator Boozman. I just want to be clear that we have had
these problem for years. I know you have had a great career, a
very interesting career, and I guess worked in a couple of
administrations.
Ms. Woodruff. Yes, and I would say that corporate influence
on how EPA makes decisions has been somewhat of a theme across
the administrations, as was noted in the Make America Healthy
Assessment. The first report, which noted that both, there is a
consistent revolving door between EPA and Federal agencies and
chemical industry and their front groups as well as extensive
lobbying.
Unfortunately, we do need a solution to remove that type of
corporate influence and decisionmaking in order to improve and
result in the best available science and sound science that can
protect the public's health as well as drive innovation.
Senator Boozman. Well, they are not doing too good of a job
on the lobbying front if none of the products are approved on
time.
Ms. Woodruff. EPA has been approving about a new chemical a
week. Or are you talking about the existing chemicals program?
I'm sorry.
Senator Boozman. My understanding is that the statutory
component was not met, presently met.
Ms. Woodruff. Under the existing chemicals program? Yes.
That has been delayed. In part because, there are a couple of
reasons. One is there is exceedingly pushback from the chemical
industry. Two, EPA does not have enough resources to staff that
office.
Three, I think that, and this is something that we have
been on the record about, I think there are ways that they
could upgrade to best available science and improve their
efficiency at the same time, which we have also been making
public comments about.
These are all opportunities for Congress to weigh in and
make sure that EPA is doing the best available science, which
the National Academy of Sciences actually provided a number of
different reports to recommend how EPA could do that. That
combination would really help them meet their statutory
deadlines.
Senator Boozman. My understanding is that we did give them
authority to hire new people, additional people in 2022, and so
far I do not think anybody has been hired.
Ms. Woodruff. Well, I can not speak to their hiring
process.
Senator Boozman. Well, you were part of the system.
Ms. Woodruff. I was part of the system, but I left in 2007,
just to be clear.
Senator Boozman. There were not any problems then?
Ms. Woodruff. Well, no, I am not saying there were not any
problems. That is why TSCA was amended in 2016.
Senator Boozman. No chemicals that have proved to be toxic
or whatever were not approve during that time?
I guess the point I am making is this has been going on for
a long time. It is something that we need to work together to
fix.
It is not fair. There are bad actors, certainly. There is a
lot of other stuff that is, the vast majority is good actors
trying to work through the system. When there is delay after
delay after delay, it does drive the cost, and it makes it very
difficult.
Ms. Woodruff. Right, it definitely drives the cost of
people continuing to be exposed to toxic chemicals. I totally
agree. We need faster action to protect people from exposures.
Senator Boozman. Well, and then too, if you have got a good
product that is going to help the people of America, sometimes
the world, then it needs to be done in a timely fashion.
Ms. Woodruff. Yes.
Senator Boozman. Right now, that is not happening.
Ms. Woodruff. Sometimes the chemical, many times the
chemical industry still needs to submit more data, or sign
pieces of paper.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Chair of the full committee, the
great Senator from West Virginia.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Curtis. Thank you for
having this hearing.
Mr. Huntsman, I am going to start with you. Kind of along
the lines that we actually were on when the confirmation
hearing for the Assistant Administrator of the EPA Chemical
Office, I raised concern both about the pace but also the
predictability of a new chemicals process. I think speed, you
know, we have talked about speed, that clearly matters.
Predictability matters as well, especially when you are making
large investments or trying to move science forward.
When the EPA consistently imposes restrictions that go well
beyond what is required in other nations, it can raise some
questions. We are seeing innovative chemicals approved in
countries, and you mentioned this, with robust safety programs
like the European Union or Japan, but they face burdensome
restrictions here. It can not be commercialized in the United
States.
From your perspective as a global manufacturer, when the
U.S. imposes more restrictive conditions than Europe or other
major markets, it takes longer to do it, how does that affect
where you choose to invest and to make your new chemical
developments?
Mr. Huntsman. Well, today, we have some 450, to the best of
my knowledge, about 450 products that are in the pipeline
waiting approval right now under TSCA. About 10 percent of
those are expected to be approved within the 90 day time
period.
About 40 percent of those will go longer than 1 year. Some
of those will go sometimes up to two to 3 years. You take some
of these same formulations and downstream applications and so
forth to a country like China, and they will put a high
priority, well, they will get it done within a 90 day time
period, the government will give you incentives to build,
innovate, and to invest locally.
Literally, the time that you can get approved in the United
States, you can be up and manufacturing that product in another
country. Again, I mentioned earlier, therein lies the new
standards of that finished application. Whether it is in
aerospace, or whether it is drinking water bottles and so
forth, that, it is an international race that we are in right
now, a competition that is real.
Senator Capito. To clarify, it is not an international race
to the bottom in terms of safety and innovation. It is really
the opposite, innovation can, and many times I think the goal
is more safety in developing new chemicals. Would you agree
with that?
Mr. Huntsman. Absolutely. The scrutiny that we are under
today in new chemical development, forget for just a second
about the issues around government approvals, but the trial
attorneys and the multi-hundred billion dollar industry that
exists on suing the chemical industry when it gets it wrong is
such an enormous incentive.
When we come up with new products today, I believe that in
my 40 years in this industry versus where we were 10 years, 20
years, 30 years, it is like everything else in our economy. It
is cleaner, it is more innovative, it is better, it is more
thorough. Our scientific data and analysis is better today than
it has ever been.
No, it is not a race to the bottom. It is a race on speed,
and it is a race on how quickly you can innovate and get to the
next phase.
Senator Capito. I think that is part of what Senator
Boozman was referring to. Several years ago we did make it
certain so that the Chemicals Office could hire more people,
could go off scale, could do it quicker than the normal
bureaucratic malaise of trying to get people hired into the
EPA.
It has not been successful, but that was part of the goal
that we had because they felt like they were understaffed.
Dr. Gross, let me ask you a question on obsolescence of new
chemicals. Have you ever seen where innovation moved so fast
but materials developed, maybe outdated in 5 years, have you
ever seen instances where the chemical approval process took so
long that a new beneficial chemical effectively became obsolete
before it could be used in the United States?
Ms. Gross. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am
actually going to take that and maybe turn on it a little bit.
Our experience is actually a little bit different. When you
talk material obsolescence, one of our biggest challenges is,
and I will use an example, for flame retardants. We have had
regulations that we need to comply with against flame
retardants where we have had to go in, reformulate material
systems, requalify them, go through that whole certification
process to get to the end and have new regulations pop up where
we have to repeat that again, because the substitute flame
retardant we picked is now newly regulated. We just go in and
we iterate.
Being in that iterative process is sometimes--it takes up a
lot of our resources that we could instead be using to look at
more innovative, newer chemicals instead. It is not necessarily
that timeframe, but it is so fast in terms of new changes, that
is where we struggle, obsolescence versus new choices.
It is a little different than your question, but that is
where we have experienced it.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
I will have to say, as Chair of the full committee, and
with our subcommittee chair here, I have over the years
expressed and had great concerns over PFAS in our drinking
water. It is something that we try to reach an agreement on. I
did with former Chair Carper last year, tried to get a
bipartisan bill to help with this issue. My State has been
affected by this.
Just for all of you, it can be very helpful to helping us
get a bipartisan agreement here, because this problem is not
going away. It has not been addressed, I do not think, as
aggressively as I think that we can and should.
I am publicly pledging, as I have many times in the past,
to work to make sure that your 20 grandchildren and my 9
grandchildren can have that safe drinking water that they
deserve. Thank you.
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Chair.
Senator Capito. How many do you have?
Senator Curtis. I have 18.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. Yes.
Senator Curtis. It is in the water.
[Laughter.]
Senator Curtis. I would like to yield to my colleague from
Ohio, Senator Husted.
Senator Husted. Mr. Chairman, thanks for helping with the
demographic challenges of our Nation. Appreciate that.
Senator Merkley, you look more well rested than I saw you
the other night. Good to see you this morning.
Thanks for all of you for coming today. I know that when
you are in business, time is money. The longer it takes to get
something approved, the less likely you are to do it. As a
matter of fact, if you can not rely on the American system to
do it, many manufacturers might choose to develop in China or
India or other places in which I think all of you would agree
the environmental standards are lower than what they are in
this Country.
I know that chemistry has provided us so many advances. We
tend to focus on the things that go wrong, but there are so
many examples about how our lives are better, it has improved
human flourishing and quality of life. I see it in my State, in
Ohio, where I know Mr. Huntsman has some companies that are
also working on it.
I will give you an example, tires. Akron, Ohio, is the
rubber capital of the world. Over the years, tire manufacturers
have tried to make tires more durable, as we have cars that are
heavier due to batteries and things like that, how do you build
tires that are more durable, but also you build those chemical
bonds so strong to make them more durable then how do you break
them down? How do you recycle them? Then you have these dual
goals sometimes.
Innovation is, it is an incredibly important thing to get
those approvals so that you can try new ways of accomplishing
things, but do it in a manner which allows you to do it in a
timeframe that will be viable for you as a business.
Mr. Huntsman, I just want you to reflect on the time is
money concept, how speed to market is important, how doing it
in an environmentally responsible fashion is important, and how
do you think that, have you seen, experienced circumstances in
which people do things in other countries because it is easier
to do it there than it is in America, and that is to the
detriment of the American economy and the American consumer?
Mr. Huntsman. Yes. I mean, all of that is true. I think
that it is a question, when I see what is going on, in the last
month, I have had the opportunity to visit many of our
facilities and leaders throughout Europea and also in China. It
is really not a question of speed, though that is very
important. It is question of priority.
The EPA has a budget of what, $11 billion, $12 billion? How
much of that is about innovation? Do we prioritize our latest
chemistries to replace yesterday's problems? Do we prioritize
those things around national defense and so forth?
The standards around TSCA were set 10 years ago almost. Yet
it probably was negotiated 15 years ago, many of these
processes. This ought to be a live piece of legislation that
continuously is bringing on new standards, better standards,
quicker standards, better prioritization, because I tell you,
the world is not sitting still on these sorts of things. They
want what we have. They are innovating, they are getting
cleaner. The world, from a CO2 emitting basis, is getting more
innovative and cleaner.
It is up to you, you are the ones that fund it and direct
it and so forth, to be able to see that we have a piece of
legislation here that continues to innovate, move and progress
as quickly as industry does.
Senator Husted. Dr. Woodruff, what Mr. Huntsman said seems
pretty reasonable, that the EPA should focus on, their
resources, on trying to improve, set priorities to improve the
way that we are approving approvals for chemicals, other
things. Is what he said unreasonable?
Ms. Woodruff. I think that regulation is an innovation
driver. I agree that we need the best available science and
that EPA should be well resourced in order to help create the
regulations that set the bar. EPA should not be deciding what
the innovations are. They should set the bar and then the
industry innovates, because that is the right set of rules. EPA
is not a manufacturer.
I just want to say, look at methylene chloride. Methylene
chloride, the industry is still fighting to implement the rules
around methylene chloride, which we know kills people, and
there is a substitute, a substitute that is less toxic.
I feel like EPA is hamstrung by the industry saying yes, we
want innovation but do not get rid of these toxic chemicals
that we are already using. I agree with you and I think that if
the industry is acting fairly, we can create innovation, like
in the Clean Air Act, where we had the catalytic converter,
cleaner air, no lead in gasoline. The Clean Air Act is a model
for TSCA.
Senator Husted. Yes. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, America
does innovation in an environmentally responsible way better
than any country that we compete with, particularly the ones
where these things happen, in India and China. A prioritization
toward progress on the speed in which we get these things
accomplished is very, very important.
Thank you.
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Senator.
With the Ranking Member's blessing, I would like to extend
a second round to both of us just for a couple more questions.
I would like to start, Mr. Huntsman, I could tell from your
action you wanted to respond to that comment. Do you want to
make any reaction?
Mr. Huntsman. No, I do not. We do not produce methylene
chloride, nor do we handle it.
I think that we can not let the instances of problems, and
there have been in this industry, they need to be cleaned up,
they need to be focused on, and so forth. We need to be able to
work together. We need to be able to move things along and it
is just--I mean, I have heard about asbestos. I do not know
anybody out here other than maybe a few people in this
administration that are advocating that we keep--nobody uses
asbestos anymore in chemical applications. I am not even sure
where that comes from.
We need to stay focused and we need to stay focused on the
vast, vast majority of what we produce, what we do, how we
innovate and how we apply things to society.
Senator Curtis. Good.
I might circle back here, but I would like to go to Dr.
Gross just really quickly. In your opening testimony, you
talked about this conundrum of being able to use a suppressant,
if I used the right word, in the cabin of an airplane where
passengers are, but that same suppressant is not approved for
the luggage department. Did I catch that right?
Ms. Gross. Yes, Senator, you caught that correctly. We
worked very hard to develop this new chemical with one of our
suppliers. We got it approved for use in handheld fire
suppressants and would like to extend that into the cargo hold
area. For whatever reason, that approval has not come, the
extended use approval has not come through yet.
Senator Curtis. Yes, and to be clear, it is not an FAA
restriction holding you back, it is an EPA restriction holding
you back?
Ms. Gross. My understanding is that, but I am not an expert
in that area. I can have someone followup.
Senator Curtis. Since this is beat up on EPA day, we will
go with that assumption.
[Laughter.]
Senator Curtis. Again, I will reiterate that is one of
those where I mentioned the clarity of where things fall in the
process to consumers like Boeing, this would be a great example
of where that would have benefited us.
Senator Curtis. Yes. I would also like to just address
something that has been brought up several times, it should be
a super-bipartisan issue, and that is just resources within
EPA. This has been something I have been tracking from my time
in the House, I will go back to the previous administration
when I would challenge them on this zero approval, which is
within statutory timeframes. The previous administrator would
point to staffing as well.
I kind of tend to think, this points to the priority issue,
because the money was appropriated for staff, they were not
hired. It just feels to me like we need to, and I told
Administrator Zeldin I will be as tough on him as I was on his
predecessor, in making this a priority. It feels to me a little
bit of a false choice that we have to choose between safety,
that we have to choose between public health and innovation and
speed.
To my colleague to my left, who I also believe to be very,
very genuine on this issue, I would love to two of us dig into
this, you heard the Chair's commitment from herself, and see if
we can prioritize and move away from the false narrative that
this is one or the other.
I will just say, Dr. Woodruff, I do not know you well, but
I will say, I love your passion. This world moves well on
people who have a passion. Mr. Huntsman, I actually know you
fairly well, and I do truly know you to be somebody that wants
to leave this earth as a better place for those 20 grandkids.
Dr. Gross, I believe you feel the same way.
I think we have had a lot of cross sections in this
hearing, and if not careful, it kind of breaks down into good
guys, bad guys. I will just end my remarks with say, look,
let's move forward with this commitment to protect the public,
to inform the public, to get our best product out there, to
certainly not let other countries allow chemicals that we would
not approve to come to the marketplace to beat us.
I will continue to remind the EPA that this needs to be a
priority and that we have to put the resources in place to make
this happen.
With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to turn to PFAS. I find it frustrating that PFAS
comes up so often. It is such an extensive family of chemicals.
We keep hearing how it has significant impacts on human health
but it is kind of everywhere.
I think about simple things like, does a frying pan with
that non-stick surface have PFAS, and should I still be using
it? I do not recommend this, but nightly microwaving of frozen
dinners, is the container they are in sprayed with PFAS, and
should I be eating that?
I wanted to ask, Dr. Woodruff, and I want to note that the
MAHA report calls out the fact that ``the PFAS industry focused
on suppressing unfavorable research and to starting public
discourse, delaying public awareness of its dangers.''
Is this something we should be able to tackle, at least for
people to know where it is? If it is having that much impact on
human health, how we can eliminate it from things that have
that direct contact with humans through our food and our
packaging and so forth?
Ms. Woodruff. You are right, PFAS, they are everywhere.
They are persistent chemicals. They are measured in everyone
around the globe. We know that they can increase the risk of
numerous health impacts, including cardiovascular impacts,
certain cancers, increased low birthweight, which can increase
the risk of infant mortality, make it that you are less
responsive to vaccines.
Your point is very well taken. We are not talking, that
there are a lot of uses of PFAS that we do not need to have
PFAS in. The most effective and efficient solution is to look
toward removing or banning the whole class of PFAS and to move
toward substitutes that are not persistent.
The report from NYU for the Institute for Policy Integrity
noted that narrowly targeting regulations encourages
substitutions of banned PFAS with structurally similar but
unregulated compounds, meaning that you can get replacements.
It is best to address the whole class.
Then I think your point about what we have found from
internal industry documents is that the industry knew that PFAS
was toxic in the 1970's, decades before the public knew that,
including their own employees who were exposed to PFAS and gave
birth to babies who had structural birth defects, that they
already knew were observed in animal studies.
I think the solution to this particular issue is to ensure
that, of course, we do not want anyone to lie or mislead the
public. There are some steps that can be taken to ensure that
we have the highest quality scienced that is free from bias,
including some recommendations that we have made about removing
corporate influence on the science process, making sure that
studies that are going to be done for the new chemicals program
could be, those studies could be preregistered so we know what
the industry is going to do and can evaluate and make sure that
everything is compliant with that. Then removing financial
conflicts of interest from the review bodies.
This is also recommended in the Gold Standard Science
Executive Order to remove conflicts of interest and in the Make
America Health reports.
Senator Merkley. When someone installs new carpeting and it
is the stain-resistant carpeting, is that treated with PFAS?
Ms. Woodruff. Some of them, yes.
Senator Merkley. Then, if I had a grandchild, which I do
not----
Ms. Woodruff. Me either.
[Laughter.]
Senator Merkley. If my children, when they were small or
crawling around before they were walking and their little noses
were right on the carpet, are they consuming PFAS through the
fibers like almost from the start of life?
Ms. Woodruff. Yes, unfortunately, this is an area that we
really need EPA to do a better job on, which is accounting for
the fact that when kids are, like you have these little
toddlers, they are so cute, they are crawling around, but they
are also collecting, they are also lower to the ground and then
putting their hands in their mouth, to feel things out.
If there are toxic chemicals like PFAS in the carpet or a
lot of toxic chemicals love to hang out in dust, they are
getting higher exposures to those chemicals that are in the
carpet, in the materials, in the dust. It has been well
documented that that is true. We see this with flame retardant
chemicals.
In California, they did a study where little toddlers had
the same levels of PBDE flame retardant chemicals as people who
worked in occupational settings. EPA can account for this in
their risk evaluations. That does not always happen.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, this area, the products where humans have the
most exposure, would be an area I would love to work with you
on.
Senator Curtis. Thank you. I will take you up on that. From
my days in the House, I remember this kind of, I will say
argument, and I would like to also acknowledge that some of our
heart valves use PFAS, for which there is no substitute, which
makes it difficult if you say, we are just going to attack all
of PFAS.
It seems to me that somehow we have to get a little bit
more granular with this conversation, and throw in, and I do
not know, but there is probably some element of safety from
fires and children whose lives are not lost because of the
chemicals as well and somehow factoring that in as well to
these decisions.
I will meet you on that. We will have that conversation.
I am going to volunteer Mr. Huntsman to come meet with us
as well, and Dr. Woodruff, we will invite you and Dr. Gross. We
will bore down into some of these topics.
Mr. Huntsman. I will even loan a couple of grandchildren to
Senator Merkley.
Senator Curtis. I was actually going to try to beat you to
that, because those of us with 18 or 20 know there is one or
two that we will send over there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Merkley. Send them right over.
Senator Curtis. Thank you all very much.
With no further questions, I would like to thank the
witnesses and all my colleagues for your participation in
today's hearing, especially my colleague, the Ranking Member.
It is actually no small thing that he is with us today.
Senators who wish to submit written questions for the
record will have until 5 p.m., Thursday, November 6th to do so.
The witnesses' responses to those questions are due back to the
committee no later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, November 20th, and
will be submitted for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]