    [Senate Hearing 117-660]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-660

                      EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF PLASTIC USE
              AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS FOR REDUCING PLASTIC WASTE

    =======================================================================

                                    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 SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 15, 2022
                                   __________

      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

    52-125PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                                  ----------

              Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
                Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight

                         JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi,
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts          Ranking Member
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    ALEX PADILLA, California             DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex       JONI ERNST, Iowa
        officio)                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
                                         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
                                             Virginia (ex officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               DECEMBER 15, 2022
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     1
    Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi...     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Myers, John Peterson "Pete'' Ph.D., Founder, CEO, and Chief
      Scientist, Environmental Health Sciences.......................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    17
    Enck, Judith, President, Beyond Plastics.........................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    47
    Seaholm, Matt, CEO, Plastics Industry Association................    65
        Prepared statement...........................................    67
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    69
    Hartz, Eric, Co-Founder and President, Nexus Circular............    78
        Prepared statement...........................................    80
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    84

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter to:.......................................................
        Senators Merkley and Wicker from Danimer Scientific, January
          10, 2023...................................................   109
        Senators Merkley and Wicker from the Portland Cement
          Association, December 15, 2022.............................   112
        Senators Carper and Capito from the PET Resin Association,
          December 20, 2022..........................................   114
        Senators Carper et al. from the Association of Plastic
          Recyclers, December 14, 2022...............................   116
    Here's Why Recycling Plastic Isn't a Panacea, Bloomberg, November
      11, 2022.......................................................   122
    Shocking amounts of fishing gear abandoned, lost and discarded
      every year wreak havoc on our oceans, Cosmos, October 13, 2022.   126
    380 million tons of plastic are made every year. None of it is
      truly recyclable, Grist, October 24, 2022......................   131
    The selective accounting behind the plastic industry's climate-
      friendly claims, Grist, October 20, 2022.......................   136
    `An invisible killer': how fishing gear became the deadliest
      marine plastic, TheGuardian.org, November 7, 2022..............   146
    A Gary, Indiana Plant Would Make Jet Fuel From Trash and Plastic.
      Residents Are Pushing Back, Inside Climate News, December 12,
      2022...........................................................   153
    A Houston Firm Says It's Opening a Billion-Dollar Chemical
      Recycling Plant in a Small Pennsylvania Town. How Does It Work?
      Inside Climate News, September 6, 2022.........................   175
    A New Plant in Indiana Uses a Process Called `Pyrolysis' to
      Recycle Plastic Waste. Critics Say It's Really Just
      Incineration, Inside Climate News, September 11, 2022..........   193
    Is `Chemical Recycling' a Solution to the Global Scourge of
      Plastic Waste or an Environmentally Dirty Ruse to Keep
      Production High? Inside Climate News, December 23, 2022........   205
    Indonesia is actually paying fishermen to pull trash out of its
      waterways: `This will raise awareness,' The Cool Down, November
      30, 2022.......................................................   218
    Blue whales `swallow ten million pieces of plastic a day,' The
      Times, November 1, 2022........................................   220
    [Due to size constraints the following document is not included
      in this hearing record but is available on the Web.]
        Circular Claims Fall Flat Again, Greenpeace, October 24,
          2022, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/circular-
          claims-fall-flat-again/

       EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF PLASTIC USE AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS FOR
                             REDUCING PLASTIC WASTE

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2022

                                   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 10:04 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Wicker, Carper, Whitehouse,
    Capito, Sullivan, and Ernst.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Senator Merkley. Good morning. Welcome to the final hearing
    of the Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
    Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight in the 117th
    Congress.
        To Ranking Member Wicker and the rest of the Committee
    members, I appreciate your work and partnership over these last
    2 years as we have examined a number of issues important to
    people here in the United States. Now, we are looking at
    another issue, the issue of plastics.
        I am going to ask my team to hold up, I will have them hold
    up first, this photo, which I took when I was out jogging along
    the Anacostia River. The river is just choked with plastic. I
    took some other pictures when I was running on the Potomac
    after a high tide event, and the entire running trail is
    covered with millions of pieces of little tiny pieces of
    plastic. It is what we would never see, except the river
    overflowed onto the running trail, and when the water receded,
    it left this deposit.
        On the day I was undertaking this marathon along the
    Potomac, there were people out there on teams, and they were
    picking up each little tiny bit of plastic because they were
    trying to separate them from all the leaves and all the grass
    and everything else. In the time that I was running the
    marathon and went down the Potomac and came back, each
    volunteer, in a couple hours, had cleared a 2 square foot
    section trying to pick all these little tiny bits out, all
    these millions of bits that would have been washed into the
    ocean, or are washed in, on every other hour of every other
    day.
        Another reason for us holding this hearing, I will have
    them hold up the other poster here, is that we have an emerging
    problem of microplastics. Plastics don't really degrade. They
    break down into tinier and tinier pieces. We are now seeing
    that these plastics are everywhere. As the headline says, baby
    poop is loaded with microplastics. The Antarctic, far away, has
    microplastics. Human breast milk has plastics. We find them
    deep in the lungs of living people.
        What we know is that plastics are loaded with thousands of
    chemicals with different effects, and that those chemicals are
    not even disclosed to the public. Here, we have thousands of
    chemicals deep in our lungs, in our breast milk, in our
    consumption, and we don't really understand all of the effects
    of those chemicals, but it is certainly a cause for concern.
    That is why we are holding this hearing.
        It is my sense that plastics may well pose a very
    significant risk to human health. I am struck by the fact that
    it is estimated that each of us consumes, in our food and in
    the air we breathe, the water we drink, the equivalent of a
    credit card worth of plastic every single week. Think about
    that of your children, consuming those, if you will, 52 credit
    cards a year, and all the chemicals that are embedded in that
    plastic, and ask yourself, do we need to thoroughly understand
    this issue as it affects human health? Certainly, I think we
    have a responsibility to our children, to the generations to
    come, to thoroughly understand this and address this challenge.
        Twenty-five percent of the more than 10,000 chemicals
    associated with plastics pose potential health or environmental
    damages, including chemicals that mimic, block, or alter the
    actions of hormones, that reduce fertility, and that damage the
    nervous system. Through every stage of its life cycle, plastic
    can release these toxins. From the petrochemicals used in their
    production that workers and frontline communities are exposed
    to, to the ones that are released through regular plastic use,
    and finally, to the toxins that make their way into the air,
    the soil, the water, when the plastics are thrown away.
        Most of us have heard of the three Rs: Reduce, reuse,
    recycle. It sounds like a magical way to address this
    challenge, but here is the story with plastics: It is not three
    Rs; it is three Bs. They are buried, they are burned, or they
    are borne out to sea. That is quite a different picture.
        Then, we have the notion that we have recycling bins, and
    we put plastic items into them, and yet very few people know
    that often, those recycling bins are simply combined with the
    trash. In many, many institutions, they are simply
    greenwashing, and if they are being brought to recycling
    operations, only about 9 percent gets recycled.
        That means just a fraction of the plastics recycled. Mostly
    what you do when you put something into a recycling bin with
    plastic, you are not recycling. You are wish-cycling. You are
    making a wish and a hope that somehow this plastic will be
    recycled when it is not going to be recycled.
        The risks and dangers associated with plastic production
    and pollution are not going away. In fact, they are going to
    get worse. Plastic doesn't break down; it just breaks up. In
    the last 60 years, the world has produced more than 8 billion
    tons of plastic, where 6 billion tons of that has become
    plastic pollution, meaning the plastic that has been produced
    has ended up in the environment, and it is still there,
    forevermore. The United States' rate of production is expected
    to triple over the next three decades, another reason this
    Committee should be taking a thorough examination of it.
        We have something that has caused a lot of concern, and yet
    we are blindly en route to tripling its presence. I think that
    that is not an acceptable formulation for the accountability
    that we bear as legislators to the people of the United States.
        Without serious changes to our recycling systems, such as
    proper labeling or requirements for companies to use recycled
    materials in their products, our Nation will continue, simply,
    to be wish-cycling.
        That is why we are here this morning, to see what options
    there are, to hear from our various folks testifying about
    approaches. I have introduced the Break Free from Plastic
    Pollution Act. It says, basically, yes, let us improve our
    recycling, to the degree that that will make a difference. Let
    us eliminate single use plastic that is absolutely unnecessary
    in the first place.
        Let us use more producer responsibility, such as we do with
    ink cartridges for printers, to have a system in place that
    ensures far more of the stream of waste actually gets recycled.
    Let us have a national bottle bill. The bottle bill in States
    like my State, Oregon, the first in the Nation to have a bottle
    bill, its recycling rate on plastic bottles is up around 90
    percent. Many States are closer to 15 or 20 percent without
    such a bottle bill.
        We are delighted to have this panel of experts, and now, I
    would like to turn things over to my colleague and Ranking
    Member, Senator Wicker.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling
    today's Subcommittee hearing.
        Today, we are here to consider the impact of plastic use as
    well as solutions for reducing plastic waste. I appreciate our
    witnesses for joining us this morning to discuss this important
    topic.
        I want to particularly thank Matt Seaholm, the CEO of the
    Plastics Industry Association, for being with us today. He will
    be able to share with the Subcommittee the importance of
    plastics in our modern economy. They are essential to our
    economy, and I think both sides of the dais will acknowledge
    that. He will also discuss steps that industry is taking to
    respond to concerns, such as the ones the Chairman mentioned.
        Eric Hartz, President and Co-Founder of Nexus Circular,
    will be able to share with the Committee some of the solutions
    being developed in the private sector to respond to plastic
    waste.
        The production of plastics has been pivotal for a number of
    advancements in our modern world, particularly for public
    health and hygiene. This was especially apparent during the
    COVID-19 pandemic. Front line workers and many others deemed
    essential relied on personal protective equipment, or PPE, that
    often contain plastics. Items such as gloves, gowns, and face
    shields are for protection for our most vulnerable and
    hardworking individuals.
        Single use plastics were also essential for creating COVID-
    19 vaccines and tests, two developments that allowed us to
    return to normal sooner. When considering the use of plastics,
    we should keep in mind the vast range of benefits that have
    been provided for public health because of plastics.
        As with aluminum and other products, the use of more
    plastics has led to discussions about their production and
    disposal. Some States and localities, as the Chairman has said,
    have taken steps to encourage shoppers to use reusable bags
    instead of single use plastic bags.
        Several States have established bottle buy back programs,
    encouraging customers to return their plastic bottles after
    being used. In addition, recycling and advanced recycling offer
    promising solutions for dealing with plastic waste.
        However, lack of demand and contamination issues have kept
    recycling from realizing its full potential. Access to
    recycling is a problem. It is limited, if not completely
    unavailable, in many parts of the country, including rural
    areas, such as many places in my home State of Mississippi.
        Congress has taken steps to tackle these issues. We
    addressed contamination concerns when we included Senator
    Portman's RECYCLE Act in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    This legislation, which is now in statute, creates a new grant
    program to fund recycling education, with a goal of reducing
    contamination.
        We also addressed recycling access issues when this
    Committee and the Senate passed Ranking Member Capito's
    Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act. This
    legislation seeks to make recycling easier and more accessible
    throughout the United States, particularly in underserved
    areas.
        Congress also passed Senator Sullivan's Save Our Seas 2.0
    Act in 2020, establishing a new grant to support improvements
    to municipal recycling programs.
        Advanced recycling is another potential solution for
    plastic waste. This method of recycling dismantles plastics
    into their constituent parts, allowing for more materials to be
    repurposed. Advanced recycling technology can also extend the
    life of existing materials so that fewer virgin materials have
    to be used.
        Notably, this method, advanced recycling, allows many
    previously unrecyclable plastics to be processed while also
    dealing with contamination issues. These advancements are
    important to keep in mind as we look to the future of plastics
    and continue to work to reduce plastic waste.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        We are going to turn now to our witnesses.
        I will first introduce Dr. Pete Myers, the founder, CEO,
    and Chief Scientist of the Environmental Health Services.
        We look forward to hearing your testimony. Mr. Myers, the
    floor is yours.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN PETERSON ``PETE'' MYERS, PH.D., FOUNDER, CEO,
           AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

        Mr. Myers. Thank you very much, Chairman Merkley, Ranking
    Member Wicker, Senator Whitehouse. It is an honor to be in
    front of you today to provide testimony.
        As you said, my name is Pete Myers. I am founder, board
    chair, and chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, a
    C3 that promotes public understanding of the intersection
    between health and the environment.
        I am also an adjunct professor of chemistry at Carnegie
    Mellon University and a founder and a board member of
    Sudoc.com, a chemical company building out sustainable
    chemistry.
        You have invited me here today to talk about plastics and
    human health, right in my sweet spot. I have been doing it for
    a long time. I will summarize some of the key concepts in the
    science and then provide specific examples of where chemicals
    leeching out of plastics have harmed human health. I can't
    cover it all in 5 minutes because there is so much more, so
    please look at my written testimony.
        Endocrine disrupting compounds, which Senator Merkley
    mentioned, are a key part of the story. They are not the only
    chemical hazard in plastics, but because they cause harm at
    such extraordinarily low doses, I will focus on them this
    morning.
        What are endocrine disrupting compounds, EDCs? They hack
    hormone signaling. Hormones are the messaging system that tells
    genes when to turn on and off. They affect literally all
    physiological processes throughout our bodies. They make sure
    the fetus grows up to a healthy adult. They also work to ensure
    that healthy adults age well.
        When hormone signals are hacked, bad stuff happens. That is
    what endocrine disruption is about. We are exposed to hundreds
    of endocrine disrupting compounds throughout our lives,
    including from plastics. Many chemicals leeching out of
    plastics are EDCs. That links them to a wide array of today's
    epidemics of non-communicable diseases, like breast cancer,
    prostate cancer, testicular cancer, infertility, immune
    disorders, and brain impediments, including ADHD and autism.
        Toxicity in plastics, you have to understand, comes from
    three different sources. One is the basic building block of
    plastics, what is known as the polymer, what becomes the chain
    that makes a plastic. Then you have the additives that are
    infused into the plastic that is composed of monomer. These
    molecules, like phthalates, alter the material characteristics
    of the plastic.
        Finally, you have chemicals that were not intentionally
    added, and these are really important, but most people are
    unaware of them. They are the result of impurities in the
    reagents that are used to make the plastics originally. Those
    impurities come from many different sources. They often can't
    be controlled, and it is really expensive to remove them. If
    you were to spend the money to remove them, plastic would be
    much more costly.
        Most chemicals in plastics have not been tested for safety.
    None have been tested thoroughly, but if you don't test, you
    don't know if they are safe. If you don't test, you don't know.
    That is one of my core messages: You must test. If you take a
    random sample of plastics from consumer shelves, about 75
    percent of them will show at least one toxic feature, 75
    percent, off the shelf.
        Also, you can't assume that bioplastics are safe. Some are
    definitely not. You have to test to determine what is safe and
    what is not.
        I studied endocrine disruption for 30 years. In 1991, I
    even gave it that name, endocrine disruption. In 1996, I
    coauthored the first book for the general public about
    endocrine disruption called Our Stolen Future. Since then, over
    a billion dollars and euros and yen and whatever need be, have
    been invested in EDC research around the world. Tens of
    thousands of scientific papers have been published in the peer
    reviewed literature. We know so much more now than we did in
    the early 1990s.
        Senator Merkley. Please feel free to hold on for a moment
    while we figure out what happened to the lights.
        Mr. Myers. I must have said something shocking.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley. Somebody doesn't like your testimony,
    apparently.
        There we go. Now we are all now collectively enlightened.
        Thank you, please continue.
        Mr. Myers. What we know now, after all that research, tells
    us that it is much worse than we thought when this discipline
    began, much worse. The ubiquity of EDCs in plastic and the
    abundance of plastic everywhere is a major factor in why it is
    worse.
        Let me give you four quick examples, or at least start on
    four quick examples before my time runs out. One: Data showed
    that, over the last five decades, there has been a 50 percent
    decline in sperm count in adult men. The original studies have
    only focused on men in the developed world, but just this past
    month, a new study came out that expanded it to the developing
    world also, and what it showed is the rate of decline is
    speeding up. It is not slowing down. It is global.
        It is not just sperm count. Other features of male and
    female infertility are worsening also. If the current rate of
    sperm count decline continues, the average sperm count will
    decline asymptotically toward zero by the 2040s. That is not
    very far off. Reproducing the old fashioned way will become
    much less common. It just won't work.
        To add injury to injury, some plastic chemicals interfere
    with artificial reproduction technologies, which, to begin
    with, are quite expensive. That is one.
        Two: Brains are being rewired by certain plastic chemicals.
    This has been proven definitively in animal experiments where
    you can take the brain apart. Epidemiological studies of kids
    whose mothers were monitored for chemicals during pregnancy
    shows patterns predicted by these experiments. Not always, but
    most of the evidence is consistent. ADHD and autism are part of
    the picture.
        I will end with this. One expert in how thyroid hormone is
    key to proper brain wiring and how EDCs hack thyroid hormone
    has written that ``Unless the long term exponential increase in
    autism is stopped by 2045, one in two children born in the U.S.
    will be on the autism spectrum.'' Think about what that means
    for society.
        I have several other examples I could go on about why do so
    many men have trouble peeing in the bathroom as they grow old,
    or some really interesting work on how chemicals interfere with
    breast cancer treatment, but I will stop here.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
    do encourage people to read your full written testimony.
        We are now going to turn to Ms. Enck.
        You serve as President of Beyond Plastics, and former EPA
    Regional Administrator for Region 2. The microphone is yours.

                       STATEMENT OF JUDITH ENCK,
                       PRESIDENT, BEYOND PLASTICS

        Ms. Enck. Good morning, Senators. What an honor to be with
    you. Thank you for holding this hearing. It is so timely, and
    so vitally important that we get to solutions.
        I am Judith Enck. I use she/her pronouns, former EPA
    regional administrator, founder of Beyond Plastics, and I am on
    the faculty at Bennington College in Vermont.
        On the off chance that you are not riveted by my 22 page
    testimony today, I want to direct you to page 8, with a great
    cartoon by Liza Donnelly. There is a guy or a gal looking out
    the window with their daughter, saying, ``Someday, daughter,
    all of this will be yours, and you will just have to deal.''
        I included that cartoon because it is a reminder of what is
    at stake, that we cannot leave our kids and our grandchildren
    with this enormous problem of plastic pollution. There are
    solutions. I can go on forever with solutions we can grab off
    the shelf today.
        There are also false solutions being promoted by the
    plastics industry, which I hope we can get into, which is
    chemical recycling, or advanced recycling. You all know, you
    open a package that you order on Amazon, for instance, it
    arrives really over packaged, so much stuff you don't need. And
    in fact today, the prestigious national group, Oceana, put out
    a report on how much plastic packaging is produced by Amazon.
        Amazon, we need you to do much, much better.
        Oceana also commissioned a poll. Eighty-two percent of
    voters want you to adopt laws to reduce plastics. The poll
    results were bipartisan, Republicans, Democrats, Independents.
    When I served at the EPA, I met many people who were climate
    change deniers. I have never met a plastic pollution denier,
    because the evidence is everywhere. You walk down the street,
    you see plastic bags in the trees.
        I also want to go on the record by saying, there are some
    uses of plastic. But we don't see medical waste hanging from
    trees. And medical waste, by the way, is a small percentage of
    plastic production.
        Cars are more efficient if they have some plastic, making
    them lighter. I don't see car bumpers in my local park. I see a
    lot of single use plastics.
        This is a climate change issue. My organization did a
    report called The New Coal: Plastics and Climate Change. We
    looked at production, use, and disposal of plastics, and
    learned that in the next decade, greenhouse gas emissions from
    plastics will exceed that of coal.
        I support recycling. I started my town's recycling program
    over 30 years ago. Everyone should keep recycling metal, glass,
    cardboard, aluminum. However, plastic recycling has been an
    abysmal failure. It clocks in at under 10 percent.
        I quickly want to explain why. If you take a newspaper, and
    you put it in the recycling bin, it can then be recycled into a
    new newspaper. There are many, many different plastic resins,
    as Dr. Myers said, thousands of different plastic chemical
    additives in plastics, and many different colors.
        In your own home, your washing machine probably has on top
    of it a bright orange detergent, hard plastic. In your
    refrigerator, you have a clear squeezable plastic. Those two
    cannot be recycled together. And when the plastics industry
    says they can use chemical recycling and create new plastics,
    that is not true. What they are mostly producing is fossil
    fuel. That is the last thing we need, is more climate warming
    fossil fuel.
        Also, it is just not dealing with a large percentage of
    plastics that are out there. This is very much an environmental
    justice issue. Plastics are produced in environmental justice
    communities, places like Cancer Alley in Louisiana, where there
    is a concentration of petrochemical facilities.
        These communities, typically low income communities of
    color, are so overburdened on both the production side, and
    then because so little plastics actually get recycled, when it
    comes to disposal it is these same communities that are homes
    to landfills and incinerators.
        We need to cut plastic production by 50 percent in the next
    10 years. We can do it. Pass the Break Free from Plastic
    Pollution Act, pass the National Bottle Bill, pass a sensible
    law called the Plastic Reduction and Recycling Act, also known
    as EPR, which has been introduced in State legislatures around
    the country. We don't need a magical breakthrough. We need
    reduction, refill, and re-use. And if you absolutely cannot
    reduce or refill and re-use, then rely on paper, metal, glass.
    Get the toxics out, particularly out of the paper. And make
    sure that material is made from recycled content and are easily
    recyclable.
        Local governments are drowning in plastics that you can't
    recycle. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should embrace
    plastics reduction. We have got to be honest: Plastics
    recycling isn't working. It is having a devastating impact on
    health in the communities where it is manufactured. Reduction
    is the way to go.
        The Federal Government could start using real dishes in all
    of all of its facilities, rather than single use plastics.
    Schools need funding to install dishwashing equipment, to stop
    serving children on single use, for instance polystyrene trays.
    How about public drinking water fountains everywhere you go, so
    you can fill this up rather than wasting your money on plastic
    water bottles?
        Funding is key. When you look at infrastructure, I urge you
    to think about putting funding for States and local governments
    into a re-use, refill infrastructure. Right now, local
    governments can't control everything that is coming at them.
    But packaging companies have choices to make. Are they going to
    provide sustainable packaging, or more and more multi-material
    packaging, that is either littered, buried, or burned?
        You and I don't want to use so much plastic. But we have
    little choice, which is why extended producer responsibility
    with teeth goes a long, long way.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Enck follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Each of our first two witnesses went 2 minutes over their
    time, so we will establish the same possibility, should you
    wish to use it.
        We will next turn to Mr. Matt Seaholm, who serves as CEO of
    the Plastics Industry Association.
        Senator Wicker. But in 5 minutes, we are going to turn the
    light out.
        [Laughter.]

                      STATEMENT OF MATT SEAHOLM,
                   CEO, PLASTICS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Seaholm. Any distraction is welcome.
        Good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Wicker, and
    esteemed members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        My name is Matt Seaholm, and I am the President and CEO of
    the Plastics Industry Association. Founded in 1937, we
    represent the entire supply chain of the plastics industry in
    which nearly 1 million Americans are employed. Our membership
    includes material suppliers, equipment manufacturers,
    processors, and recyclers.
        Let me first say we appreciate the commitment of this
    Committee to pursue solutions that reduce waste. There is a
    saying in our industry, we love plastic, we hate plastic waste.
    The way we see it, any molecule of plastic material that leaves
    the economy is truly a waste. We need to collect, sort, and
    ultimately reprocess more material. And that goes for all
    substrates, not just plastic.
        But today's hearing is first about the impacts of plastic
    use. So I would like to discuss a few of those, more
    importantly, the variety of people impacted.
        A husband hit head on at 50 miles per hour, and even though
    they had to cut him out of the car with the jaws of life, he
    surprised even the medics onsite as the deployment of air bags
    made from plastic fibers left him unharmed. A teenager who only
    has access to nutrition thanks to plastic packaging because he
    lives in a food desert right here in our Nation's capital.
        A retiree with Type 1 diabetes since childhood who remains
    active because of the sterile, interchangeable plastics used to
    support decades of treatments through the loss of kidney
    function. A young family without running water for an entire
    week because a hurricane flooded their neighborhood along the
    Gulf Coast, but were not thirsty because of plastic water
    bottles delivered to them in their time of need. A single
    mother who, during a crucial time of the baby formula shortage,
    was able to utilize pre-sterilized plastic milk collection bags
    to safely store breast milk for her baby.
        The list can go on and on. And before it is suggested,
    these aren't the types of applications truly at the heart of
    the discussion, I would point to three pieces of proposed
    legislation in this Congress that have called for the stoppage
    of production of plastics used in each of these scenarios.
        If there is one thing a pandemic and now war on the
    European continent has taught us, stable supply chains are
    imperative. Producing plastic in America is a good thing and
    something that I believe should be embraced as essential, not
    abruptly stopped.
        Plastic has become a preferred material in most
    applications because it uses the least number of resources to
    manufacture and transport as well as providing greater
    performance. However, we must also acknowledge that the
    incredible innovations in plastic materials and products have
    outpaced our ability to recycle them because infrastructure has
    not kept up. Our Nation's recycling rates are too low. That is
    why companies across our supply chain work tirelessly to
    improve recyclability and invest billions of dollars into the
    prevention of waste and the technologies to recycle.
        However, our industry does not control the entire value
    chain of recycling in America. And that is why we need partners
    to help get these rates where we all want them to go.
        We see Congress as a very important partner in that
    process, and appreciate this hearing for the opportunity to
    talk about solutions to reduce plastic waste. A few policy
    approaches I might suggest: Increase investments in critical
    recycling infrastructure to ensure the collection, sortation,
    processing that can keep up with the complexities of all
    materials in the marketplace. The EPA has started their process
    for granting resources included in the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act that stem from Save Our Seas 2.0
    legislation passed in 2020. It is a great start, but certainly
    more is needed.
        Promote end market development for the variety of plastic
    resins to ensure demand remains for recycled materials.
    Reasonable and attainable recycled content requirements can
    help spur investment and guarantee markets for recyclable
    material.
        Encourage innovations in recycling technologies to ensure
    materials that cannot economically be recovered through
    traditional methods can still be recycled, moving us toward a
    more circular economy. But perhaps more importantly, I urge
    Congress to avoid stifling innovation and promising new
    technologies that are absolutely needed.
        There is already real value in post-consumer plastic. These
    policies will help us better capture it and keep it in our
    economy. At the end of the day, plastic is essential, plain and
    simple. We need it in our lives. But America does not recycle
    enough of it. Our industry wants to recycle more, and that is
    why every day we recycle more than we did the day before.
        Working together, I know we can get these rates up. And
    together is the most important word in that sentence. I hope
    that is the spirit of today's discussion.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to offer testimony on
    behalf of our industry. I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Seaholm follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you for your testimony.
        Now, I would like to introduce our final witness, Mr. Eric
    Hartz, the co-founder and CEO of Nexus Circular.

                       STATEMENT OF ERIC HARTZ,
                CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, NEXUS CIRCULAR

        Mr. Hartz. Good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
    Wicker, Senator Whitehouse, and other members of the
    Subcommittee.
        My name is Eric Hartz. I am co-founder and President of
    Nexus Circular. We are an advanced recycler that transforms
    used plastics for re-use with the objective of reducing plastic
    waste. While there are a variety of companies that process used
    plastics, Nexus Circular is unique. I am here to discuss what
    Nexus does and appropriately, what it does not.
        I appreciate the opportunity to provide information to
    Subcommittee members regarding our real, proven solution to the
    challenge of used plastics. Nexus Circular is a commercial
    scale solution today that handles a wide array of plastics,
    including hard to recycle films that most recyclers cannot.
        We convert these plastics in one single heating and cooling
    cycle to produce products that our partners can convert into
    virgin equivalent plastics using the same equipment they use to
    produce plastics today. Nexus does this without chemicals,
    catalysts, water, special treatments, or burning.
        Since our founding by Jeff Gold, our team has been laser
    focused on taking used plastics and turning them into circular
    products safely, economically, and with the ability to scale in
    a way that has a positive impact on the environment and the
    communities we serve. We have an experienced, passionate team
    that is literate in chemistry, operations, engineering,
    logistics, safety, and finance.
        Our philosophy from the start has always been, if our
    technology is not economical, environmentally friendly and
    scalable, then it will fail to provide the solution to the
    plastics challenge we all seek.
        The used plastics we accept are not waste. They are
    materials that have been segregated from the waste stream and
    are often bound for landfills. We do some light sorting for
    suitability. We cover a broad array of plastics: Polyethylene,
    polypropylene, polystyrene, and as mentioned, an expertise in
    handling hard to recycle, films. All can be mixed together, and
    there is no special recipe.
        We heat the used plastics in the absence of oxygen at 580
    to 750 Fahrenheit. At this temperature, the plastics not only
    melt but they depolymerize, breaking down at the molecular
    level. Turning into vapors, they are then cooled into circular
    liquids in an entirely closed system. These liquids are then
    made into new, virgin equivalent plastics by our partners.
        It is also why advanced recycling is referred to as
    molecular recycling. Because we recycle at the molecular level,
    these plastics can go through this process again and again,
    indefinitely. Our products and those of our partners represent
    a true circular plastics economy.
        There is no burning, gasification, nor incineration, which
    all occur in the presence of oxygen at much higher temperatures
    of 1,800 to 2,700 Fahrenheit. Some mistakenly equate advanced
    recycling to incineration. Besides being three to four times
    hotter, incineration requires oxygen, whereas our process has
    practically none. Actually, our process would fail with oxygen
    present, since it would not yield sellable circular outputs.
        Our land facility operates in compliance with all Federal
    and State laws in an industrial park in Fulton County, Georgia,
    a Clean Air Act non-attainment area under the purview of the
    EPA at the Federal level, and permits from the State of
    Georgia. We and our partners are ISCC Plus certified and follow
    audit procedures ensuring all materials are recycled. Our
    operating footprint is small, so we can site our facilities in
    similar areas across the Nation.
        Advanced recycling complements mechanical recycling. It
    does not compete. The recycling hierarchy remains the same: Re-
    use, repurpose, if necessary, mechanically recycle, which is
    melting and reforming of plastics, now, if able, advanced
    recycling, which is recycling at the molecular level, and if
    absolutely necessary, landfill.
        Further, this is not an either-or solution. It is a both-
    and, meaning our approach supports both converting used
    plastics into new ones and finding ways to reduce plastics
    where merited.
        The demand for Nexus Circular's output far outstrips
    supply, because plastics producers have set ambitious recycled
    content goals to meet the demand of their own customers who
    ultimately down the line make products for consumers. We are
    proud to provide all of them an environmentally friendly, job
    creating approach while concurrently addressing the plastics
    challenge that impacts us all.
        In short, our advanced molecular recycling process is an
    elegant solution to a seemingly intractable problem. It is
    lights out. But please, don't just take my word. We cordially
    invite all of you, any time, to visit our commercial scale
    operation in Atlanta, just 20 minutes from the airport or
    downtown. Once you see first hand what we are doing, how we are
    doing it, and most importantly how it differs from what some
    think, we believe it will clear up any confusion about our
    approach.
        Better yet, we expect it will generate true excitement
    about the potential of providing a real solution to addressing
    the used plastics problem.
        Innovation is never easy. And Chairman Merkley, as you will
    appreciate, this is a marathon. We have started this run
    together, and we are here to solve it together as well.
        I appreciate the opportunity to share our on the ground
    experience. I look forward to your questions and comments.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hartz follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        We will now have 5 minute rounds of questions. We might be
    able to get through a couple rounds if we are fortunate. I
    encourage you to keep your responses as succinct as you can so
    that we can get through as many points as possible.
        Mr. Myers, I am going to start with you. You made reference
    to the endocrine disrupting chemicals in plastics. Are plastic
    producers required by law to inform the public of all the
    chemicals that are in the different plastics they produce?
        Mr. Myers. Not only are they not required by law, but it
    would be physically impossible. Because many of the compounds
    in plastics are what are called non-intentionally added
    substances, which get there basically by accident. They get
    there because they are impurities.
        Senator Merkley. In terms of the chemicals that are added
    deliberately, for flexibility, for hardness, for colors, are
    those required to be disclosed to the public?
        Mr. Myers. To my knowledge, they are not. It would be a
    good move if they were required.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Seaholm, do you support full
    transparency for the chemicals that are added to the plastics
    that go into the public realm?
        Mr. Seaholm. We have full faith in the FDA's approval and
    decisionmaking process. When it comes to food contact in
    particular, we never cut corners when it comes to safety.
        Senator Merkley. So you support full disclosure of all the
    chemicals that go into the plastics that go into the public
    realm?
        Mr. Seaholm. I guess it depends on which kind of plastics
    you are referring to. But if you are talking about food
    contact, which is really where safety comes first and foremost,
    I think the FDA approval process is certainly sufficient. We
    participate and fully support it.
        Senator Merkley. OK. I appreciate your point about those
    things that come in contact with food. But certainly, one of
    the challenges we have is all the other plastics degrade and
    have a huge impact that aren't touching food as they become
    microplastics, as they release chemicals over time.
        I want to go to the impact that you noted, Mr. Myers, over
    the question of those specific chemicals that affect human
    reproduction. During my lifetime, we have seen a big increase
    in breast cancers, a big increase in prostate cancers. You
    noted a 50 percent decline in male sperm production.
        Now, are all three of those related to the presence of
    endocrine disrupters in the products that are released into the
    public realm?
        Mr. Myers. Those, all three are predictable consequences of
    being exposed to certain endocrine disruptors. But they aren't
    all three due to the same endocrine disruptor. It is a very
    complicated system. There are hundreds if not thousands of
    EDCs. And they all have their unique characteristics of harm.
        Senator Merkley. A few years ago, there was a whole
    movement across the country saying, well, one in particular,
    not being a chemist, maybe I will mispronounce it, bisphenol A?
        Mr. Myers. Bisphenol A.
        Senator Merkley. Bisphenol A, or BPA, as it came to be
    called in the public realm, it was like, wow, we have to get
    this out of the lining of our tuna cans, and oh, my goodness,
    how about out of water bottles too. Has that actually changed
    by law, or is it just that some makers of water bottles now
    advertise that they are BPA free?
        Mr. Myers. One BPA product that has been eliminated by the
    FDA in the market is baby bottles. But that was done at the
    behest of the manufacturers of baby bottles, because they were
    getting such bad press from all the big stories about BPA harm.
    Most products that include BPA have not been removed from the
    market.
        Senator Merkley. So what about the water bottles that we
    buy in the store?
        Mr. Myers. Those are largely motivated by marketers, by
    companies who have an alternative to BPA and want to advertise
    that they are BPA free. The problem is that most common
    replacement for BPA in water bottles is BPS, which is a minor
    variant on BPA. And subsequent research since that substitution
    became known has shown it is just as bad, if not worse, than
    BPA.
        Senator Merkley. So you also mentioned in your written
    testimony phthalates and perfluorinated compounds. Is that the
    same as PFAS?
        Mr. Myers. Yes, it is.
        Senator Merkley. So we have PFAS in plastics, we have
    phthalates. But I can't pick up a piece of package recycling
    that is going to exist in the universe for thousands of years
    to come and find out how much PFAS is in it, or phthalates are
    in it, because that disclosure is not required, isn't that
    right?
        Mr. Myers. That disclosure is not required. Actually, there
    are loopholes in the FDA requirements for what you disclose in
    food packaging content. The common practice of fluorinating
    high density polypropylene with fluorination is not widely
    known, but is very common.
        Senator Merkley. I have 1 second left, so I am stopping,
    and I am going to encourage my colleagues to please stop at 5
    minutes, since we have quite a few members who are here to ask
    questions.
        Senator Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Myers, some very startling testimony about male sperm
    count basically being ineffective by 2040, brain wiring, autism
    being caused by this.
        Is it your testimony that there is scientific documentation
    that lower sperm count is being caused by plastic waste?
        Mr. Myers. There is extensive scientific documentation. I
    would refer you to a book called Count Down by one of the
    principal scientists involved in those studies, which not only
    documents the study, which is published in the peer reviewed
    literature, but also the book explains what is the basis of the
    evidence for including plastic chemicals as part of the
    causation.
        Senator Wicker. And the same for autism?
        Mr. Myers. Yes.
        Senator Wicker. OK, now, Ms. Enck, is it your testimony
    that plastic production should be cut by 50 percent in 10
    years, or plastic pollution?
        Ms. Enck. Production.
        Senator Wicker. Production, OK.
        Ms. Enck. Yes, because of the impact in low income and
    minority communities where the production is taking place. If
    you cut the production, we will get what we all want, the
    reduction of pollution.
        Senator Wicker. Mr. Seaholm, how about that? How practical
    is that? And what do you say to the testimony that there is
    scientific documentation, peer reviewed, concerning autism and
    sperm count?
        Mr. Seaholm. Thank you, Senator. First, on the production
    question. If we don't produce plastic in the United States, it
    is going to be produced elsewhere. The likelihood that it is
    going to be produced with some sort of better environmental
    standards is unrealistic.
        So the best thing for us to do is actually produce the
    plastic here. We can certainly talk about reduction, recycling,
    and re-use all day long. But actually stopping the production
    of it is really going to be detrimental.
        Senator Wicker. What about 50 percent reduction?
        Mr. Seaholm. One, it is not attainable. Nor should it be.
    It would absolutely cripple supply chains and economic progress
    in the United States.
        On your second question, I think Dr. Myers in his opening
    statement actually said, most have not been tested, few have
    been tested thoroughly. I think to respond to that with, has
    there been significant scientific evidence, I think for the
    vast majority of the discussion on chemicals, no.
        One thing I would say is in Senator Merkley's recently
    introduced bill, there are studies that would be funded for it,
    and we would welcome studies to be done looking at things like
    microplastics. Because there isn't sufficient scientific
    evidence to report the claims.
        Senator Wicker. Mr. Hartz, with regard to your high
    temperature procedure that doesn't include oxygen, has that
    been peer reviewed? Has anyone reviewed that and what do
    outside sources and scientists say about what you are doing?
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you, Ranking Member Wicker, I appreciate
    the question. I think first we are talking about a two tier
    problem here. One is plastics production, the impacts that it
    has, how it ends up in oceans, coming from land, of course.
        Then the second is what we do with the plastics that are
    there. With all due respect, we don't actually run at a high
    temperature, relatively speaking. We actually, incineration
    occurs at a much higher temperature, so pyrolysis, the concept
    has been around since the 1960s. It has been something that has
    been involved.
        The challenge has been doing it efficiently and doing it
    environmentally. That is beyond kind of peer reviewed in that
    we are judged by the marketplace. The companies that we work
    with are also sincere about addressing this issue as well. They
    want to make sure we are doing it the right way.
        So there are a couple of things that come into play. First,
    the efficiency side is we only heat once and cool once. We do
    it at a lower temperature that doesn't incinerate. And we make
    a product that is clean and pure enough to run through the
    current plastics production system. That is the best review you
    can get. We have a very tight spec we have to meet.
        Then second, on the environmental side, our footprint is
    quite small as a result. This has been something that has been
    scientifically reviewed for some time. But you have to go
    beyond the technology, because it is really about how you do it
    economically, or else we are not going to have an answer that--
    --
        Senator Wicker. Are you able to scale it yet?
        Mr. Hartz. We are actually able to scale. We are running a
    commercial scale operation today, and again, invite anyone in
    this room to please come visit us and see it.
        Senator Wicker. Ms. Enck, have you visited them, and what
    is wrong with what Mr. Hartz said?
        Ms. Enck. I have not visited. What is wrong is they are
    super-heating or almost boiling plastics. There is very little
    plastic actually being handled by chemical recycling
    facilities. Currently only 0.26 percent of the plastic waste is
    handled by this technology. The plastics industry has suggested
    they want to have 150 plants in the U.S. That would only handle
    5 percent.
        Senator Wicker. Mr. Hartz, what do you say to that?
        Mr. Hartz. Without being flip, any innovation has to start
    somewhere. Low flow toilets, when they started, had to be
    produced at small volumes to get to larger ones. When you can
    prove scalability, that is the cusp that we are on now. That is
    the job we have made about being efficient and environmentally
    friendly. That is where we are headed now.
        So we actually believe, our footprint is quite small. We
    can go near the feedstock; we can multiply the plants that we
    have, and we can process that material. I agree with Ms. Enck,
    this is a problem that is enormous. Even if we are successful
    on our own, we are not going to solve it alone. Our cohort
    needs to solve it together. There is a way to do that.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
        Let me first welcome the witnesses and agree with our
    Chairman, that plastics in the environment is an under-
    appreciated threat to wildlife, to the quality of life, and to
    human health. So I am really pleased that we are having this
    hearing to elucidate those things.
        Senator Sullivan is here, and he and I have worked together
    to get some bipartisan legislation done with respect to marine
    ocean plastic. We have done, I think, extremely well
    considering the constraints we began with, which is, Congress
    had never regulated in this space before, and we are going to
    have to pass our bill by unanimous consent. Considering that, I
    think we have actually gotten a lot done, and I look forward to
    continuing to work with Senator Sullivan on Save Our Seas 3.0,
    which our staffs are in discussion on right now.
        Particularly 2.0 also created a platform that allowed the
    United States to move forward in the international arena. I
    think the Nairobi deal is positive. The U.N. process is very
    promising. We need to lean in very hard, because I am sick to
    death of reports coming out of the ocean plastics meetings that
    the U.S. was the weak link and the laggard. We need to move
    from being laggards to leaders. I am hoping that with Secretary
    Medina's initiative, we will be doing that.
        I share Ms. Enck's view that plastic recycling is
    essentially phony. As Mr. Hartz said, even if we can get to
    something effective with high temp or chemical recycling, it is
    still only a very small piece of a much broader solution that
    we need.
        So it is not a panacea that allows us to take our eye off
    the ball, the fact that we are flooding our work with plastics.
    And there may be no constituency for the albatross here or
    other seabirds, but when essentially every caught seabird has
    plastic in its gut, it is a signal from Mother Nature that we
    need to pay attention here.
        I offer anybody the chance to respond to my comments in the
    way of response or a question for the record. I would flag that
    in addition to the plastics problem on the land and in the
    human environment, we also have a really significant ghost
    fishing gear problem. Because plastic fishing gear lasts
    forever, and after people lose it, the long lines keep catching
    fish, the nets keep catching fish. They are just massacres
    flowing through the ocean.
        We need to make sure that it is very lucrative for a
    fisherman, when they get near ghost gear, to haul it out of the
    water and have that be their catch for the day. Because that
    will help clean up our oceans a lot.
        The last thing I think I will mention is that we can do a
    lot more here. And the industry can do a lot more here,
    particularly if you look at the areas of industry leadership.
    You know that it is feasible when industry is already doing it.
        I was in Norway at the Our Oceans conference when Unilever
    announced its pledge, it is a major seller of goods, major
    distributor of plastic and packaging, and they made the pledge
    that for every pound of plastic that they put out into the
    economy, they were going to find a pound of plastic in the
    ocean or in the environment, and get it back and dispose of it
    properly.
        To me, at the moment, I think that is the corporate high
    point for responsibility. I would like to see every major
    plastics manufacturer make that exact same commitment, and then
    we can look on what else needs to be done.
        But it is to me a little bit ridiculous when we have a
    problem of this magnitude and an industry that is responsible
    for it that when the industry sets a high water mark of good
    behavior, the rest of the industry isn't already there with
    them right away.
        So I think we need to take this a lot more seriously. I am
    very grateful to Chairman Merkley for having this hearing.
    Again, I have used my limited time here to make those points. I
    encourage anyone who has a response to them to feel free to
    respond to me in the nature of a response to a question for the
    record, because my time is out. QFR responses have to be
    written.
        So I see your hand up, Mr. Myers, but I am afraid I have
    run out of time.
        Senator Merkley. You can respond in 10 seconds, then it is
    Senator Capito's turn.
        Mr. Myers. Senator Whitehouse, we are a both-and solution.
    We agree that it is a large problem, and that we can do it that
    way.
        Second, Judith, I think you quoted Mario Bono, and I agree
    with the quote, that zero waste done perfectly by a few is not
    enough. But zero waste done by millions imperfectly would be
    great. Regulatory and other behaviors that we can incent would
    be great to do that.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Myers, you are at 20 seconds.
        Mr. Myers. I think it would be useful if members of the
    Committee, if they are not already familiar with it, examine
    the chemical strategy for sustainability in implementation in
    the European Union. It answers a lot of the questions that we
    have been talking about today. It is the best thing that is
    happening in the world right now on these issues.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
    witnesses for being here today.
        I have a big interest in recycling. We have had hearings on
    recycling in more general terms, not just focused on plastic.
    We see some other industries have been very successful in
    recycling for many, many years. I will use the paper industry
    as an example of that.
        Chairman Carper and Senator Boozman are the Senate
    Recycling cochairs. Senator Lummis and Senator Merkley and I
    are members of that. We also have two recycling bills; I am
    going to shout out to the House and ask them to try to get
    those moved.
        Some people would say that recycling is kind of a myth and
    sort of a scam. So Mr. Seaholm, I would like to hear what your
    response is to that.
        In terms of one of the comments that I heard, Ms. Enck, to
    stop the production of plastics. You look around, I am sure
    this sweater probably has some, certainly this has. You can't
    even look anywhere without seeing plastic somewhere.
        Is there a movement in your business to even consider this?
    Let's talk recycling first, and then manufacturing.
        Mr. Seaholm. Thank you, Senator. No, recycling is not a
    myth. Nor is it phony. I think Mr. Hartz would probably take
    umbrage to that as well.
        But we don't do enough of it. We recognize that. Recycling
    is not a single act. It is a system. It is a process.
        But I have got to tell you, I have been to dozens of
    facilities where they are actually reprocessing the material. I
    ask them all the same question: What is keeping you from
    expanding? The answer is always availability of material.
    Availability of feedstock. They can't get enough material. That
    means there is a breakdown in the system of just getting the
    material there.
        So to the thousands, tens of thousands of hardworking men
    and women in the recycling industry, absolutely not a myth. But
    we have to grow it.
        Senator Capito. I would say too, that is a point of several
    of our bills, is to get recycling into smaller and more rural
    areas. We have heard this, you said it nicely, we need more
    materials. Some people say we need more trash.
        If I look at just computers alone, the old computers that
    we had back when our kids were going through school, what do
    you do with all of that.
        I don't know, Mr. Hartz, is that the type of recycling that
    you are doing? Why is your technique called advanced recycling,
    as opposed to just recycling?
        Mr. Hartz. Senator, to answer the second question first,
    thank you, by the way, Senator Capito. Advanced recycling is a
    nomenclature I think that kind of became what it was. The
    reason I refer to it as molecular recycling, I think that makes
    it sound really complex. But the fact that we are operating at
    the molecular level allows this to be done repeatedly over and
    over. These plastics can come back.
        I share that in theory, all plastic currently above ground
    is all we would ever need if we do this properly. And to
    Senator Whitehouse's point, that doesn't solve the production
    issue, that doesn't solve the size of the problem. If we can do
    that concurrently, back to the both-and point, I think that
    would be great.
        In terms of types of plastic that can go through, there are
    also some misnomers sometimes. The chemistry is that
    polypropylene, polyethylene, and polystyrene are the ideal
    plastics to go through the system. And there are ample amounts.
    Films are also incredibly difficult for mechanical recyclers.
    It fouls their equipment. They don't want to see it, which is
    why we complement what we are doing.
        But if someone says, gee, we take all plastics, PET is an
    oxygenated plastic. You are going to get char, you are going to
    get benzoic acids, other things that clog your system. PVC has
    chlorides in it. We have to meet a parts per million spec, so
    we want to avoid those as well.
        So you can't just say, gee, we will take all plastics. But
    the system is such that we can get the plastics we need, and
    concurrent with that, build an infrastructure and habit set
    that allows the plastics to come to us, and we have an answer
    to the problem.
        Senator Capito. Well, I would encourage this. What is the
    percentage now of plastics that are recycled? Was that the
    .026?
        Ms. Enck. It is 5 to 6 percent.
        Senator Capito. Five to six. I will go back to the paper
    industry. I think they testified 80 percent. I might be wrong
    on that.
        Ms. Enck. About 65.
        Senator Capito. They have been doing it a lot longer, too.
        So I think that goes to your point, Mr. Hartz, you have to
    start small before you can get big. So I appreciate you all
    coming in today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Merkley. We are checking on our supply stream of
    Senators here.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley. Senator Sullivan was here; is he ready to
    step in? Senator Duckworth is not on right now, and Senator
    Carper is on his way. So if Senator Sullivan would like to step
    in, if not, I am happy to ask a question. Senator Carper is
    here?
        While we are waiting for Senator Carper to arrive, Mr.
    Hartz, you have a permit to, you sought through Georgia
    Environmental Protection Division to be able to emit
    hydrochloric acid, is that correct?
        Mr. Hartz. I am not sure when you are saying emit
    hydrochloric acid. We have a general permit for air, for water,
    and that may be part of that.
        Senator Merkley. It is. I just wanted to note that, because
    it sounded from your testimony like it is a closed loop,
    nothing escapes. Were you not cited for violations in your
    emissions in two quarters of the last year, 2021?
        Mr. Hartz. Actually, it was in the last two quarters, and
    the actual violation by definition was a flow meter on a
    device. It had nothing to do with the system. We built our
    system out, we obviously went through all the permitting
    process. When they came back and revisited, they actually
    requested a flow meter on the system, which we rapidly
    repaired.
        But I would not consider that a violation of our system as
    much as a violation, if you will, of a rule about the flow.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Carper is now here. So we will turn this over to
    him.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        I want to thank our Chairman, I want to thank our Ranking
    Member, Senator Wicker, for holding this hearing, a really
    important hearing today. I want to welcome our panel of guests,
    and I want to thank our Ranking Member of the full Committee,
    Senator Capito, for her support, not just in discussing this
    topic, but addressing this challenge. And we thank all of our
    witnesses, again, for joining us.
        As some of you know, this is something I care deeply about,
    have forever. I am 75 years old, and I have been working as a
    private citizen on recycling for, gosh, ever since I was a
    lieutenant JG in the Navy a million years ago in Palo Alto,
    California, during the Vietnam war. I have never stopped caring
    about it. I was a treasurer of Delaware, Congressman, Governor
    of Delaware, and I think we have made real progress in our
    State.
        I like to run, I like to exercise, a bunch of us like to
    exercise. We have folks who were walking not too far from where
    we live, and there is too much litter, everywhere. It is not
    just in the areas, the part of the State where we live, it is
    all over our State. It is other States, it is in neighboring
    States, it is all over the country.
        Sometimes people think I go to run just to pick up
    recyclables. The good news is, I do. And I can recycle that
    stuff. But there is a lot of stuff that I pick up that can't be
    recycled, and it is going to end up in the trash, in a landfill
    some place in my State.
        Anyway, I am going to ask unanimous consent to enter for
    the record a statement if I could.
        Senator Merkley. I hear no objection.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Carper was not received
    at time of print.]
        Senator Carper. And I would like to turn to my first of 12
    questions.
        Senator Merkley. You are the Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I promise you it is not 12.
        Mr. Seaholm, as a Navy guy, I like your name.
        Mr. Hartz, nice meeting with you briefly earlier today.
        I have heard concerns from the plastics recycling community
    that increasing the number of chemical recycling facilities in
    the U.S. could hurt the financial liability of mechanical
    recycling facilities, as increased demand would restrict access
    to plastic feedstocks. This could further reduce our already
    very low plastic recycling rate.
        Question, if I could, Mr. Seaholm, for you. Would you
    discuss this concern, please?
        Mr. Seaholm. Sure. Our belief is that it should be an all
    of the above approach. In order for us to get where we want to
    go, it should be mechanical and molecular recycling as part of
    the solution. There are certainly applications that molecular
    recycling does better in terms of purity, in particular, and
    when it comes to food contact, it is actually presenting us
    with some fantastic options.
        So our belief is the demand is going to be there. And we
    strongly support both types.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Mr. Hartz, would you identify any backstops that the
    industry has in place to make sure that as chemical recycling
    grows, the industry does not take feedstock from the mechanical
    recycling facilities? And do we need for the Government to
    provide those backstops?
        Mr. Hartz. Chairman Carper, thank you again for your
    questions. In terms of backstops, I was mentioning earlier that
    mechanical recycling is actually less work, if you will. There
    is some heat, you cut plastics up, you reform them. There is a
    lot of plastics that can go there. Those are not the plastics
    we seek.
        So we do not see ourselves going after the plastics. The
    numbers we hear, 5 to 8 percent, are mechanically recycled
    today, and there is a reason for that, because those are the
    ones that work. So the other materials that are flowing by,
    those are the ones that we are interested in. Those are the
    ones that work.
        So the other materials that are flowing by, those are the
    ones that we are interested in. Particularly, we are interested
    in those plastic films.
        The other part of the economics of this, it is generally
    just cheaper to mechanically recycle. You shouldn't be doing
    advanced recycling if you can mechanically recycle. We actually
    support that.
        So the backstop is going to be the marketplace that allows
    for that to happen. If we find ourselves in a situation that we
    are all going after the same material, then to Senator
    Whitehouse's earlier point, we are not solving the problem in
    the first place.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Seaholm, back to you. Last fall, we held a roundtable
    series and a Committee hearing on the concept of a circular
    economy. We heard from stakeholders from a variety of
    industries and organizations, as well as State and local
    governments about what it would take to transition to an
    economy that values and promotes circularity at every step of
    the industrial process, including in the plastics industry.
        Senator Merkley's bill, the Break Free from Plastics Act,
    includes several policies that are designed to help reduce
    plastic pollution, as you know. My question is, would you
    elaborate on why the plastic industry has advocated for
    recycled content mandates, extended producer responsibility
    laws, and bottle bills to be implemented together? And could
    you explain how these policies could interact with one another
    to improve overall plastic recycling rates?
        Mr. Seaholm. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. Everything you
    just described falls into two categories. One is demand, and
    the other is supply. Recycled content requirements, done
    reasonably, actually can help spur investment in the
    infrastructure side of things, because the demand is guaranteed
    to be there. So increasing demand is most important for the
    value to be ensured.
        Then on the extended producer responsibility component of
    it, the industry has come to a point of accepting a fee on
    products in order to fund recycling infrastructure, because at
    the heart of the matter is the infrastructure has simply not
    kept up. That is what we have to fund.
        Senator Carper. Good.
        My time is expired. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Enck, I have a question I am going to submit for the
    record, and you would take the time to respond to it, regarding
    turning plastics into fuel should not be considered recycling
    on that particular issue. If you would respond, I would
    appreciate it.
        Ms. Enck. Could I just say no and then respond for the
    record?
        Senator Carper. If you could, that would be great.
        Mr. Myers, we look forward to having a question for you
    next time, maybe later today.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for a timely and
    important hearing. And for those on our Committee that have
    worked on this as well, you know who you are, thank you very
    much.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Greetings to our witnesses on this very important topic. I
    appreciate your holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Whitehouse mentioned already the work that he and I
    have been doing for a number of years now on the Save Our Seas
    Acts, Save Our Seas 2.0 and following up on that. We will
    continue to work on it.
        One of the reasons this is so important to me and my State
    on the ocean debris issue is Alaska has more coastline than the
    rest of the country combined. People don't know that. We have a
    very important fishing industry where we care deeply about
    sustainable fisheries and healthy fisheries. Two-thirds of all
    seafood harvested in America, commercial, sport, recreational,
    subsistence, comes from Alaska. Two-thirds. So these are big
    issues for my constituents and my State.
        One question I want to ask all four of the panelists is
    this issue, at least for remote communities like mine in remote
    States, we do these big beach cleanups of ocean debris and
    waste. NOAA estimates that after the Japan tsunami, some of the
    worst affected beaches in Alaska had 30 tons of waste per mile.
    So we get this enormous amount of waste and plastic, and to
    Senator Whitehouse's point, derelict fishing gear that winds up
    on our shores. Mostly it is from Asia, not from Alaska.
        Once the marine debris is collected, there is no place to
    put it. Most landfills in Alaska can't accept it. So we have to
    then ship it to the lower 48. By the way, this is the same
    issue with PFAS. We ship PFAS to Oregon. None of this makes
    sense, particularly when most building materials that we get in
    Alaska are imported, mostly from Asia.
        So the technology now exists to have a local solution,
    convert some of this plastic waste into components for building
    materials. So that is just one idea.
        Given this situation in Alaska and other remote
    communities, how would you help to solve this problem? It is a
    big problem for my State, but I am sure it is a big problem for
    other States as well.
        Why don't we just go down the line, starting with you, Mr.
    Hartz?
        Mr. Hartz. Sure, Senator Sullivan. Thanks for your
    question. I share your concern as well. I am an avid outdoor
    person, and I see the same things that you do.
        I think at the end of the day it is a question of
    aggregation of plastics. I think the statistics you are talking
    about are very concerning. What we have found is when you have
    a good answer to a problem, like water, it finds the lowest
    point.
        So even today we have materials usually within a 150, 250
    mile radius that we source from. But we actually have materials
    coming much further away to us because they say they cannot
    find a place to properly recycle it, and we can.
        Senator Sullivan. Right.
        Mr. Hartz. So to your point, I think it is getting the
    right answer out there. That will attract the plastics we need.
    And frankly, it will motivate all of us if there is an answer.
    So that is how we approach it.
        Senator Sullivan. And to be able to do it in places that
    aren't big cities and stuff like that.
        Mr. Hartz. We actually have a relatively small footprint.
    But you can't go against the gravity of economics. So often you
    have to have a certain scale, but it doesn't have to be
    oversized. We have designed our operations to be a small
    footprint because it is better to be closer to the feedstock.
    Because there is less density, if you will, than the material
    we produce, which is easier then to transport to make new
    plastics.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Seaholm, how about you?
        Mr. Seaholm. I think everything that Mr. Hartz just
    referenced on the economies of plastic and recycling I would
    agree with 100 percent. In addition, I would say that
    accessibility is an important issue across the entire country.
    We want to make it as easy as possible for that waste to get to
    where it needs to be. But a lot of times, that is the consumers
    getting it into the stream. Senate Bill 3742 by Senator Capito
    and Senator Carper is something we wholeheartedly support, in
    order to increase accessibility for rural communities.
        But without a doubt, in those situations, especially with
    marine debris, by all means, let's figure out the best way to
    get it to where it needs to go.
        Senator Sullivan. Good.
        Ms. Enck.
        Ms. Enck. Hi, Senator. Scientists tell us that within the
    next decade, for every 3 pounds of fish in the ocean there will
    be 1 pound of plastic. Once it is in the ocean, it is virtually
    impossible to get it back. Most of it falls down to the sea
    floor, not the surface.
        The solution is making less plastic.
        Senator Sullivan. Right, no, I know. But I just want to
    give you, if you can answer my question that I posed to you,
    which is, if we collect a lot, we have to ship it, what do you
    think? I understand. I have seen your testimony.
        But my direct question, if you can try to answer that, that
    is the reality my State deals with today. Our Save Our Seas Act
    tries to deal with this. But I just want, you guys are the
    experts. So if you can just answer that question.
        Mr. Chairman, sorry I am going over. I just want to see if
    they have a quick answer.
        Ms. Enck. Well, there is very little you can recycle. I
    started my town's rural recycling program in upstate New York.
    There is just so much.
        So if you are collecting all of this, the only thing you
    can do, which is a bad option, is ship it to a distant landfill
    or even worse, a garbage incinerator.
        Senator Sullivan. OK.
        Dr. Myers.
        Mr. Myers. You describe a really important issue and
    challenge to us. When I think about using marine plastics as
    building material, I think about what happens when that
    building burns. That means the people living in it or working
    in it will be exposed to very serious toxins.
        And I don't know what the solution is. But I know that we
    can't contribute to tomorrow's problems with solutions today
    that ultimately don't make sense.
        Senator Sullivan. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks. I have additional questions I will
    submit for the record.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. I will follow up with
    you. I think the point you are making is that the landfills
    that you are shipping to are because you can't open similar
    landfills in Alaska. I would be happy for you to open those
    landfills in Alaska and not ship it to Oregon.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sullivan. We ship PFAS contaminated soil to Oregon.
    And we could do it in Alaska.
        Senator Merkley. More discussion to come. If we can keep
    the PFAS out of products, that would be helpful as well.
        Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you very much, Chairman Merkley, and
    to as well Ranking Member Wicker, for having this Subcommittee
    hearing. This is a very important topic for all of us. I am
    grateful for the work that has been done on Save Our Seas.
        Iowa does not have seas. But we care about it as well.
        Mr. Hartz, let's start with you. Some of the opponents of
    advanced recycling have called it basically an unproven
    technology that is unable to operate at scale. Can you talk a
    little bit about some of the investments that you see being
    made in advanced recycling?
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you, Senator Ernst. I appreciate it.
        I was talking earlier that we are here really to talk about
    nexus, in terms of how the industry goes. But we are inviting
    anyone to come see what we are doing. So in terms of showing
    scale and showing something that is commercially viable, our
    plant in Atlanta is that. It is not a lab scale; it is not a
    pilot scale. It is a commercial scale plant.
        So we ourselves have through sweat equity as well as
    financial investment built a plant that is doing just that, and
    are now looking to proliferate that. But you are correct, there
    are other investments being made elsewhere. The term advanced
    recycling is kind of an umbrella term. You can have various
    types of technologies under that.
        We always push that economic and environmental footprint
    come first. The technology could work great, but if it can't
    scale in those ways, and I feel a little bit like a broken
    record, and I apologize, but that is how innovation happens.
        So that is where the investments are being made. And like
    any new industry, there are going to be successes and failures.
    That is also kind of what we do here in this country, is try to
    create new things that way.
        Senator Ernst. I appreciate that, because just as Senator
    Sullivan was saying, we have this problem, it is here, it is
    now. We can't just look toward the future with maybe not having
    different types of plastics out there. But we have to deal with
    what we have now. So I appreciate that.
        Can you also talk, Mr. Hartz, about the environmental
    standards and safeguards that your particular facility in
    Georgia operates under?
        Mr. Hartz. Sure. So we are in a non-attainment area, under
    Federal purview by the EPA. We also obviously have State
    permits as well. We meet all air, water requirements, and we
    actually, in some areas are permit by rule.
        Our footprint is actually smaller. For a non-attainment
    area, as you are well aware, it is very tight. We are actually
    tighter beyond that still.
        And then we also manage very carefully. We try to keep a
    closed system. Of course, you are always going to potentially
    have, at valve points, you are going to have some VOCs that
    make it out. You manage for that as well. But we are very
    diligent about that. Because again, if we can't prove the
    point, this is not going to grow. We will be here trying to
    discuss regulation otherwise if we are not doing our job right.
        Senator Ernst. Ok, very good. So I am from Iowa, wonderful
    home State. Eddyville, Iowa, is home to construction of the
    world's first bio BDO facility. GENO Technology will power the
    Qore and Cargill facility to produce bio BDO single use
    plastics, in addition to electronics, apparel, auto parts, and
    other consumer goods.
        And notably, compared to conventional BDO produced using
    fossil fuels, bio BDO offers 90 percent greenhouse gas
    emissions savings.
        Bio BDO is not only better for the environment, but
    producing it in the U.S. also supports our local farmers right
    there in Iowa. When the Eddyville facility comes online and in
    active production, it will process about 30,000 bushels of corn
    every single day, which is great for our farmers.
        Mr. Seaholm, what role do you see the bio economy play in
    furthering this type of innovation with bio based plastic
    products?
        Mr. Seaholm. Thank you, Senator. Similar to my previous
    answer, it is an all of the above. There are opportunities to
    use all sorts of different types of original feedstock, and
    bioplastics are a growing part of the marketplace.
        We have members who are in the bioplastics division, and we
    strongly support bio as an option, especially for many of the
    restaurant type applications, where you have compostable
    streams, and it does present a good opportunity.
        Senator Ernst. Very good. What have the consumer and
    markets reaction to these types of alternatives been?
        Mr. Seaholm. I think it has been great. I think everybody
    is looking to use an environmentally beneficial product. I
    always say, people don't feel guilty when they use plastic,
    they feel guilty when they are done using plastic if they feel
    like it doesn't ultimately go where it is supposed to go. And
    that is why recycling is so important.
        The same thing goes for bio-based. If it goes into a
    compostable stream, fantastic.
        Senator Ernst. Yes, wonderful. Well, we wish great success
    to our folks in Iowa, and congratulations to our farmers that
    engage in this.
        I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our
    witnesses.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        A few decades ago, a scheme was developed regarding
    triangles printed on products with different numbers
    representing the different basic types of plastics. The idea
    was that oh, if we know the basic category of each plastic,
    each article can be grouped accordingly, and then an
    appropriate system can be found to recycle it.
        We now hear that this system basically doesn't work. How
    many plastic forks do you put into your system, Mr. Hartz?
        Mr. Hartz. Excuse me, Chairman Merkley, how many plastic
    forks?
        Senator Merkley. Forks. Utensils.
        Mr. Hartz. I would not know the answer to that.
        Senator Merkley. Isn't the answer none?
        Mr. Hartz. No, sir. Forks can be made from polypropylene;
    they can be made from other plastic materials.
        Senator Merkley. Sure, but you don't have an industrial
    stream feeding your plant. And forks are contaminated with
    food, so they go into the garbage bin, not even the recycling
    bin.
        Mr. Hartz. Actually, Chairman Merkley, we do actually take
    consumer type materials as well. It is not a large part of our
    stream, but we do take materials from grocery stores, for
    instance. We also take, we are part of the Energy Bag program,
    and we handle it that way, too.
        Senator Merkley. OK, I am going to have some questions for
    you for the record. Because I am probably the only person up
    here who has actually visited a chemical recycling site. And in
    this site, they said, hey, we have a particular stream that we
    need to take advantage of, because we know what those chemicals
    are, we know what we are going to reduce. The purchaser of the
    oil that they were producing wants to make sure they know what
    that stream is.
        If you go down to the cafeteria down below here, you will
    find that every piece of plastic that touches food is directed
    to be put into the waste stream, not into the recycling stream.
    And if you follow the recycling stream, it is probably dumped
    in with the rest of the garbage as well, as opposed to actually
    sent anywhere.
        So one of the questions I will ask you is exactly how many
    pounds of forks or straws or plastic lids. Because that model
    does not fit with what I witnessed when I visited a chemical
    recycling site.
        I think another interesting piece of that puzzle is going
    back to these triangles. Ms. Enck, why has the triangle system
    fallen apart? Why does it not work?
        Ms. Enck. Well, it was originally created just to identify
    the resin. And it doesn't work because plastic recycling is a
    failure. It is only 5 to 6 percent recycling.
        So consumers are always flipping it over, the numbers seem
    to get smaller and smaller. You really should only put number 1
    and number 2 into your recycling bin. That leaves the majority
    of plastics as non-recyclable.
        It is even worse when companies put the iconic recycling
    logo on their packaging, a plastic bag film, and that will
    contaminate the waste stream. In fact, the California attorney
    general, Rob Banta, has launched an investigation around
    deceptive advertising around plastic recycling.
        So people want to recycle. Americans really want to get it
    going. But other than bottle bills, where you have the deposit,
    the material is kept separate, you get a high recycling rate,
    other than plastics from bottle bill States, plastics recycling
    is a dead end. We should just call it that and move on to
    reduction.
        Senator Merkley. Ms. Enck, I went to a hardware store
    recently, I needed to buy a hammer. I don't know why I
    misplaced my hammer. I had had it for 40 years. But I lost it.
        I was fascinated to see that a hammer, which is designed
    for beating up on things, was wrapped at the hardware store in
    a plastic bag. Are we not using plastic in all kinds of
    settings where it is absolutely unnecessary?
        Ms. Enck. Yes, and it is because the company that packaged
    it has no skin in the game in terms of what happens to it after
    you buy the product. They will use different materials. They
    are not thinking in a circular way.
        That is why we need strong, some call it extended producer
    responsibility, I call it packaging reduction and re-use
    requirements. Just like we have fuel efficiency standards for
    cars and appliances, we need environmental standards for
    packaging so things are not so overpackaged.
        Senator Merkley. So I recently was given a gift box from a
    wonderful company, not from my home State. It had a nice little
    glass jar of peanut butter and a couple of jams in it. All
    nestled into this beautiful little nest of straw. And I
    thought, that is really cool.
        I picked up the straw, and underneath it was plastic
    noodles. I thought, why are these plastic noodles in here? It
    didn't go with the whole theme of this nice package.
        I have noticed that in a variety of packaging, as more and
    more of us order things online, and are brought into the
    Amazon-esque, you see a lot of different packaging coming in
    your front door. And I have noticed in some settings various
    strategies for corrugated cardboard to replace what was
    previously either Styrofoam or plastic noodles.
        Is it possible to pack most things without using plastics?
        Ms. Enck. Yes. New York State has banned polystyrene for
    food packaging and also banned the little polystyrene peanuts.
    We are doing OK in New York not getting massive amounts of
    polystyrene peanuts with our packaging.
        Another world is possible. But it was because the State
    legislature adopted a law. The voluntary initiatives just are
    not working.
        Senator Merkley. So we have interstate commerce. Producers
    tell me, we want consistency as we move our products from State
    to State. New York doesn't ban products from out of State that
    are packed in plastic noodles, right?
        Ms. Enck. No, the industry is doing just fine.
        Senator Merkley. But my point is that your State can change
    what you produce, but you can't change what you receive?
        Ms. Enck. Oh, no, it includes shipping into the State. You
    are prohibited from using plastic peanuts in shipping.
        Senator Merkley. So this company I was just referring to
    that does these gift packages and ships them all over the
    Nation, it is actually illegal for them to ship to New York?
        Ms. Enck. Correct. I doubt there is an enforcement action
    being taken, but they are out of compliance with the New York
    law.
        Senator Merkley. Wouldn't it make more sense for us to
    support the producers by not having a 50 State pattern and
    actually having packing rules that support replacing plastics
    with corrugated cardboard or so forth, rather than doing it
    State by State?
        Ms. Enck. We would welcome that, as long as--yes.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I do hope we will continue in this
    Subcommittee to examine these issues. Because it seems like
    there is a lot that can be done, apart from plastics
    disappearing.
        It has been pointed out on the panel today that there are
    advantages for plastics in medical gear, that there are
    advantages in certain other settings, perhaps in lighter weight
    automobile components or compression zones that makes cars
    safer. I am sure one could find an additional list, including
    in medical vaccine applications that have been mentioned and so
    forth.
        But I think it also becomes clear from the testimony that
    there is a whole lot of plastic that is absolutely unnecessary
    to have in our economy. I have received interest for bottlers
    in saying, we know that our plastic bottles get a bad rap; we
    would like to see some recycling. I sat in, in 1976, on a
    Senate debate on the floor of the Senate, where Senator
    Hatfield had a national recycling bill based on the Oregon
    bottle bill. Of course, it was ferociously opposed.
        But I think we are at a different point in starting to
    understand the impacts of plastic on human health and on the
    health of animals and our environment. There is no way to get
    those microplastics out of the ocean, those that Senator
    Sullivan was concerned about and many of us are concerned
    about.
        The idea that we now have plastics inhabiting basically,
    like anywhere you test, you find microplastics. We are starting
    to be aware that microplastics are produced including by
    washing our clothes, and plastic fibers being flushed into our
    streams.
        Mr. Myers, you brought your scientific knowledge of the
    impact on human health, reproductive health. And I read that in
    detail in your extended testimony, and I encourage others to do
    so as well. Because the more you read about it, the scarier it
    gets.
        If I read your testimony correctly, you noted that because
    of the way that these chemicals disrupt the way genes are
    turned on and off, that in studies of animals, that even after
    a second generation, where the DNA itself, the gene order has
    not been changed, but you see the impacts of these endocrine
    disruptors having changed how the genes are turned on and off
    affecting health, so that even a child of a child, if you will,
    could potentially in theory, in animal studies.
        Did I understand this correctly that, there are effects
    that persevere beyond just the immediate health effects of the
    individual?
        Mr. Myers. You read correctly, and thank you for doing
    that. That phenomenon is called transgenerational epigenetic
    inheritance. And it has now been seen in multiple types of
    organisms. Lots of laboratory experiments have established it
    clearly. We don't know the detailed mechanisms by which it
    works, but it definitely works.
        In animal experiments, we see effects down four
    generations. And it is too expensive to do tests on the fifth
    generation.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Seaholm, I know that you
    professionally represent the plastics industry. But when you
    hear about plastics appearing in human breast milk, and when
    you are aware of the impacts of endocrine disruptors as
    chemicals, do you have any concerns at all about the impact of
    plastics on human health?
        Mr. Seaholm. Absolutely. Like I said earlier, the most
    important thing that our members, especially those
    manufacturing anything that is going to come in contact with
    the human body, care about, is safety. If they don't have a
    safe product, they don't have a sustainable business.
        So safety is at the forefront of everything they do.
        Senator Merkley. And you mentioned recycling. Is your
    industry supportive of nationwide strategy such as a bottle
    recycling bill to try to greatly reduce the amounts of bottles?
        Can we hold up that picture behind me again, of those
    bottles that were in the Anacostia River?
        This is not rare. I could take you out tomorrow, this is a
    couple of years ago, we would find the same thing. It is in our
    streams, it is being flushed out, it is becoming microplastics.
        Would your industry support a national recycling bill for
    bottles?
        Mr. Seaholm. Specific to bottles?
        Senator Merkley. I say that because it is considered one of
    the easier things to do, the plastic is more consistent, about
    what is put into those bottles, States that have a bottle bill
    like mine, they basically recycle all the bottles that come
    through the system. The kids' clubs collect the bottles in blue
    bags and submit them, and they raise money for their Boy Scout
    troop or their swimming club or whatever.
        It works. So we have a model that works, and it is a more
    consistent form of plastic than the huge variety of things that
    have different hardeners, different other colors, additives and
    so forth. So it is considered the lowest fruit. So that is why
    I am asking, on this lowest fruit, would you support a strong
    strategy to reach a very high level of national bottle
    recycling?
        Mr. Seaholm. There is no doubt that bottle bills work.
    Bottle deposits work. We have seen it. Would the industry
    support a bottle bill, crafted correctly? I think it certainly
    would be open to that on a national scale. Again, crafted
    correctly.
        Senator Merkley. Well, the details matter. But if crafted
    correctly means that we recycle a high amount, certainly my
    door is open. I would like to work with you all.
        Mr. Hartz, when you hear about plastics being in breast
    milk and that some of the ingredients have these hormone
    disrupting impacts, and there is a close correlation and
    perhaps causation according to various studies, these
    chemicals' impact on human health reproduction, be it prostate
    cancer, breast cancer, low sperm counts, and so forth, do you
    share that concern? Is that concern a part of what has
    propelled you into the business you are in now, of trying to
    find a solution?
        Mr. Hartz. Chairman Merkley, I smile when you ask the
    question, it is the whole reason we got into this. All the team
    has had a history of wanting to address these kinds of issues.
    This particular one, the facts bear out.
        I think there are two threads of discussion here. One is
    the problem of plastics as frankly, you are defining it, but
    there are also the benefits. I am not here to defend or not
    what the benefits are, but that is a thread of discussion that
    needs to be addressed.
        Then there is the solution. That is why I am trying to
    offer today, is a real solution to that issue. So absolutely, I
    am concerned about these things.
        To your earlier point, just for clarification, we do
    tolerate reasonable amounts of contamination, because you can't
    expect a clean stream of plastics to come in. We live in a very
    complex world. I just want to share that we do see those
    things, and we try to work with that. Again, any time, please
    come by and see us, because there are different ways to do
    this.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Yes, Mr. Myers.
        Mr. Myers. Thank you. I want to return to something I
    mentioned briefly, the chemical strategy for sustainability in
    Europe. One of the key concepts they are introducing is the
    importance of distinguishing between essential uses of plastic
    and uses that are not essential, and using that as a priority
    way to decide which ones you are going to work first to reduce.
    And once you reduce those, then you can focus on the other
    types of plastics that are essential and find other ways to do
    the same thing that aren't plastic.
        Europe is thinking very logically and very big about how to
    approach this question.
        Senator Merkley. OK, essential versus non-essential.
        Ms. Enck.
        Ms. Enck. On chemical recycling, Senator, I think it is
    important for you to know that the American Chemistry Council
    has gotten 20 States to adopt laws to exempt chemical recycling
    from some important environmental laws at the State level.
        Then second, looking for public subsidies. I don't think it
    is a solution. It is not going to solve the problem.
        I think we may have heard breaking news from Mr. Seaholm on
    a national bottle bill. We need a national bottle bill. If you
    just look at PET plastic beverage bottles in the 10 States that
    have bottle bills, the PET recycling rate is 63 percent.
    Without a deposit it is only 17 percent. Bottle bills not only
    prevent litter, but they work.
        Senator Merkley. What was that again for the States that
    have it, the recycling rate is what?
        Ms. Enck. Bottle bill States for PET, if you have a
    deposit, 63 percent recycling rate. No deposit, 17 percent
    recycling rate. So having the plastics industry support a
    national bottle bill and getting the details right would be
    really helpful.
        Senator Merkley. Are you going on to say Oregon is one of
    the highest recyclers of bottles?
        Ms. Enck. Oregon and Michigan, because you have had it a
    long time. I understand you championed it when you were in the
    State legislature there. Having a 10 cent deposit rather than 5
    cents really works.
        Then it is crucial to make it easy for consumers. If you
    pay the deposit, you should be able to return the container to
    the store. The redemption centers and the depots are nice
    supplements to return to retail. But I am super busy. In New
    York, I return my containers right to the supermarket where I
    shop. It is easy.
        Senator Merkley. I will tell you, in Oregon it is much
    harder to return to stores now. However, there is an
    interesting model that has been developed by the State of green
    bags and blue bags. So you get these green bags, unless you are
    a non-profit, you put a quick response code on the sack.
        When the sack is full, you throw it through the door at the
    recycling center. And it is then automatically sorted by
    computers that take a picture of all the bottles that were in
    that bag, immediately credits your bank account. And it does
    the same for non-profits.
        Much easier than sticking a bottle one bottle at a time
    through a hole and having a machine try to register it and
    having the machine break down and all the other challenges.
        I think we should explore the best strategies from around
    the country, what works and what doesn't. I think Maine is also
    very high and sometimes beats Oregon, and I am told that is
    because they recycle liquor bottles, which we do not. But more
    work to be done.
        I think at least we need to take the pieces of this where
    we can find some common ground, and move forward while
    recognizing that that will help, but it will only modestly help
    against the massive amounts of plastics that are finding their
    way to being burned overseas.
        We were shipping a ton of plastics overseas where it was
    often burned for power. China now says, we don't want that
    anymore. It was so polluting, thank you very much. That
    disrupted a lot of the strategies that we had here.
        So we have a lot of work to do on this. I appreciate you
    all bringing your insights and perspectives to bear.
        With that, I need to read the formal comments for
    adjourning. I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for
    the record a variety of materials that include letters from
    stakeholders and other materials that relate to today's
    hearing.
        I hear no objections. So ordered.
        [The referenced information follows. Due to size
    constraints the following document is not included in this
    hearing record but is available on the Web.]
         Circular Claims Fall Flat Again, Greenpeace, October 24,
    2022, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/circular-claims-
    fall-flat-again/

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Additionally, Senators will be allowed to
    submit written questions for the record through close of
    business on Thursday, December 29th. We will compile the
    questions, send them out to all of you. We ask that you try to
    get replies in by Thursday, January 12th, in the new year of
    2023, a year in which we will all dedicate ourselves to make
    our communities, our States, our country and the world a better
    place.
        With that, I adjourn the last hearing of 2022.
        [Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                     [all]