[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]