    [Senate Hearing 118-752]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-752

                         UNDERSTANDING THE PRESENCE OF
                             MICROPLASTICS IN WATER

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

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL SAFETY,
                    WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
                            AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

                                     AND THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER,
                                  AND WILDLIFE

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 27, 2024

                                   __________

      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
    62-353                    WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                                  ----------

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

                         JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman
                   MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma, Ranking Member

    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex           Virginia (ex officio)
        officio)
                                  ----------

                 Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife

                       ALEX PADILLA, California, Chairman
                   CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex           Virginia (ex officio)
        officio)
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               FEBRUARY 27, 2024
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     1
    Padilla, Hon. Alex, U. S. Senator from the State of California...     3
    Lummis, Hon. Cynthia, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming.....     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Mullin, Hon. Markwayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Brander, Susanne M., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Oregon State
      University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of
      Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences.................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Mason, Sherri A., Ph.D., Director of Sustainability, Penn State
      Behrend........................................................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Alspach, Brent, P.E., Vice President and Director of Applied
      Research, Arcadis..............................................    28
        Prepared statement...........................................    30

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter to Senator Merkley, Senator Padilla, Senator Mullin and
      Senator Lummis from the International Bottled Water Association
      (IBWA).........................................................    52

              UNDERSTANDING THE PRESENCE OF MICROPLASTICS IN WATER

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2024

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
             Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
                Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight
                                 joint with the Subcommittee on
                                Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley
    (chairman of the subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste
    Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Carper, Padilla, Mullin, Lummis,
    Whitehouse, Sullivan.

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

        Senator Merkley. Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone. This
    joint hearing of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittees
    on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice,
    and Regulatory Oversight and Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife on
    understanding the presence of microplastics in water will come
    to order.
        As one of our witnesses today, Dr. Sherri Mason, said,
    normal humans looking at a sample of water, if there is visible
    plastic in it, they will be turned off. They do not realize it
    is actually the invisible plastics present that are the biggest
    concern. Thank you for sharing that line and allowing me to
    steal it from you. Those invisible plastics are why we are here
    today.
        Like people shed skin cells, plastics shed particles of
    plastics. These can be big microplastics, which range from half
    a centimeter down to a micrometer, a micrometer being less than
    one-70th the size of a human hair, or they can be as small as
    nano plastics, which are even smaller than a micrometer.
        Not surprisingly, we are finding microplastics everywhere:
    on top of mountains, at the bottom of the sea, in the food we
    eat, in the air we breathe, in drops of rain, and even drops of
    our own blood. Microplastics have been found in our livers, our
    lungs, and the breast milk we feed our babies.
        Even when folks try to avoid using plastics, products like
    paper cups and aluminum cans now have plastic linings. This
    should set off public health alarm bells for everyone, because
    microplastics leech chemicals, chemicals like endocrine
    disruptors that affect the reproductive system and are a major
    suspect in the decline of male fertility worldwide, chemicals
    that lead to weight gain, chemicals that lead to insulin
    resistance, chemicals that cause cancer.
        Congress has taken important first steps to address
    plastics in our water, like the Microbead-Free Waters Act of
    2015, based on the research of one of our witnesses, Dr. Mason.
    This legislation banned cosmetics with intentionally added
    plastic microbeads that did nothing for consumers but did
    pollute our waterways.
        Since then, we have learned that the problem of plastic
    pollution is so much more extensive than microbeads, and so
    much smaller, too, in terms of micro and nano plastics.
        Microplastics shed into our water every time we use plastic
    water bottles, every time we wash clothing made from a whole
    series of products that we may not even think of as plastics,
    but are plastics, nylon, polyester, other synthetic materials.
    Every time, it seems that water interacts with plastic.
        Our water treatment systems filter out many harmful
    contaminants, but the filters have plastic components that
    could be inadvertently polluting the water with microplastics.
    We can not forget that biosolids from wastewater treatment and
    agricultural fertilizer also contain microplastics, and when
    those biosolids are put onto lands, they can run off into our
    streams and waterways, creating additional plastic challenges,
    which is why I have introduced the Research for Healthy Soils
    Act to make this a high priority research area for the
    Department of Agriculture.
        We need to think better; we need to think bigger. We need
    to think about how to stop micro and nano plastics from getting
    into the water in the first place and how to filter them out
    when they already exist. Thanks to current research on
    microplastics and microfibers, including work led by one of our
    witnesses today, Dr. Brander, from Oregon State University,
    States are starting to act. Legislation was recently introduced
    in my home State of Oregon that would require all new washing
    machines sold in Oregon to include a built-in microfiber
    filtration system.
        State-led efforts are important, but microplastics do not
    stop at the State border, so we also need national attention.
    Fortunately, we have been joined by a panel of experts today
    who can help us understand what those national solutions might
    look like.
        Dr. Susanne Brander is an ecotoxicologist and Associate
    Professor at Oregon State University whose research focuses on
    microplastics and how they affect behavior and growth in fish
    and other water organisms. She is also a co-leader of the
    Pacific Northwest Consortium on Plastics.
        Also joining us today is Dr. Sherri ``Sam'' Mason,
    Associate Research Professor and Director of Sustainability at
    Penn State Behrend in Erie, Pennsylvania. Her research on
    freshwater microplastics has led to plastics legislation here
    in the United States, as well as other places around the world.
        We are also joined by Brent Alspach, Vice President and
    Director of Applied Research at Arcadis, where he oversees
    their water division's research on drinking water, recycled
    water, wastewater, and stormwater.
        Thank you all for taking the time to share your expertise
    with us.
        We will reserve the opportunity for Senator Mullin as
    Ranking Member to give his opening remarks, so when he is able
    to get here. I hear that he is on his way. He will also be
    followed by opening remarks from our colleagues on the
    fisheries subcommittee, and let me turn this over to Chairman
    Padilla.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Good
    afternoon, everybody, and thank you to my colleagues on both
    sides of the aisle for participating in this joint hearing
    between our respective subcommittees, mine being the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water,
    and Wildlife.
        Today, we have the privilege of co-chairing this hearing,
    along with our Republican colleagues. This is going to be a
    substantive and important discussion. We are teaming up to
    examine the issue of microplastics, including nano plastics in
    our drinking water and in wastewater.
        I want to just not brag too much, but call attention to my
    involvement in the issue since before I even joined the Senate.
    In fact, I was serving as California's Secretary of State in
    the year 2020 when I joined Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska at
    a virtual event hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of
    Technology, focused on the dangers of plastic pollution, each
    of us sharing our work experience and legislative experience at
    that point.
        As Senator Sullivan so eloquently articulated then, we knew
    that the issue truly can be an opportunity for bipartisan
    cooperation, especially as we support this emerging area of
    research. While the study of microplastics is in fact still
    emerging, one thing we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is
    where we can find microplastics, because the answer is
    everywhere. It is all around us.
        These tiny, sometimes microscopic shards and fragments of
    plastic less than 5 millimeters in length have been found in
    the clouds above our skies, in the depths of the oceans, and
    literally everywhere in between.
        Just last summer, here is another, I am not trying to brag
    too, too much, but I participated in the 27th Annual Lake Tahoe
    Summit where the Governors and senators from both California
    and Nevada convened at the lake to talk about cooperation
    between our States and the Federal Government to protect this
    tremendous jewel, this tremendous natural resource.
        I was reminded that even in a natural wonder like Lake
    Tahoe, given its high elevation, given its pristine, clear blue
    water, surrounded by nothing but scenic mountaintops and trees,
    with all the multi-State, multi-jurisdictional environmental
    protections, even there, microplastics is a problem. It is no
    surprise that if you can find them there, then you will find
    them in everyday products like plastic water bottles with
    ``hundreds of thousands of bits of plastic per liter of
    water.''
        These findings should alarm us, folks. They should alarm us
    into action. Just how pervasive are microplastics in the water
    that we drink?
        Well, I am proud to say that in California, we are trying
    to lead the way in trying to answer the question as the first
    government in the world to set requirements for testing
    microplastics in drinking water. Our State is trying to lead
    the way. This serves as a model, by the way, that other States,
    as well as the Federal Government, can follow in the coming
    years.
        We also know that microplastics are already so common that
    increasingly, we have found them in stomachs of sea animals, in
    our own food and water, and yes, even in human lungs and
    bloodstreams. While we continue to learn more and more about
    the presence of microplastics on the planet, the question must
    also become, what are the potential impacts of microplastics on
    human health?
        To explore just that, I want to thank all of our witnesses
    for being here today. I am certainly looking forward to hearing
    more about the State of your research and how Congress can help
    protect the health of not just our environment, but our
    constituents and the future generations.
        With that, thank you again, Senator Merkley. If I can now
    hand it over to the Ranking Member of our subcommittee, my
    friend and colleague, Senator Lummis.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
                 U.S.SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, and thank you,
    Chairman Padilla.
        As you were talking, I had a recollection and a mental
    image. I got to fly over Lake Tahoe in a very small plane back
    in 1977 when I was working for a rodeo contractor in Northern
    California. The plane was piloted by Joe Alexander, who was the
    world champion bareback bronco rider in the world, and we flew
    over and we buzzed Lake Tahoe.
        It was unforgettable, unforgettable. You have such a
    beautiful State, and it is such a privilege for me to serve
    with you as Ranking Member on the Fisheries, Water, and
    Wildlife Subcommittee. Thank you as well, Chairman Merkley. We
    all come from the west, beautiful States, and this is an
    important topic to all of us.
        Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA set regulations
    for over 90 different contaminants in public water. These
    supplies have such contaminants as arsenic, asbestos, lead,
    mercury, and many other substances that are proven to harm
    human health. The contaminants on this list did not appear
    overnight.
        Generally, the process of adding contaminants to the
    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations is thorough,
    rigorous, and multifaceted. It is a years-long process based on
    solid, scientific data. Today's hearing focuses on the
    potential presence of microplastics in drinking water and
    wastewater. I am glad we have convened a panel of academic
    witnesses to discuss this topic.
        The consensus on microplastics and their effect on human
    health is that there really is no consensus. We need to start
    diving into this and understanding it better, as members of the
    U.S. Senate. According to the American Water Works Association,
    while we are aware of the existence of microplastics in the
    environment, their occurrence in drinking water sources is not
    well defined.
        Additionally, the effectiveness of treatment processes and
    removing them is not well understood, certainly by me, and
    perhaps by others. Assessing the associated health effects has
    proven challenging.
        Despite the large number of unknowns, there continues to be
    considerable public interest in this topic. While water
    utilities have their hands full with numerous challenges,
    including PFAS, lead contamination, infrastructure repair, and
    many others, I applaud the industry for continuing to further
    its research on microplastics.
        Again, thanks to all our witnesses. I really appreciate
    your being here. I really appreciate the fact that I am going
    to get to learn a lot from you, and I look forward to this
    conversation.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Lummis.
        Senator Mullin has offered to enter his statement for the
    record. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Mullin follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. We are now going to turn to our experts to
    actually get some insights here. We are going to start with Dr.
    Brander.

     STATEMENT OF SUSANNE M. BRANDER, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
      OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
      DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND CONSERVATION SCIENCES

        Ms. Brander. Thank you, Chairmen Merkley and Padilla, and
    Ranking Members Lummis and Mullin for the opportunity to
    testify today on the potential for microplastics in drinking
    and wastewater to have repercussions for environmental and
    human health.
        I am an associate professor at Oregon State University and
    have been conducting research on microplastics and plastic
    pollution for nearly a decade, and on endocrine disrupting
    chemicals for over a decade. The issue of plastic pollution is
    a great environmental challenge, as has been mentioned.
        It is also an expensive problem, estimated at about $13
    billion annually. Fragmentation of plastic products and waste
    into microplastics is of substantial concern to the Nation's
    water treatment sector, where contamination is widely
    documented.
        Microplastics are now broadly defined by California as a
    solid polymeric material to which chemical additives or other
    substances may have been added. These are particles having at
    least three dimensions greater than one nanometer and less than
    five millimeters.
        Formulations of plastics are estimated to use upwards of
    13,000 chemicals, and microplastics are widely documented to
    harm aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. They can slow growth,
    alter behavior, and cause reproductive disruption. They also
    cause adverse effects in mammals, and particle presence is now
    confirmed in the human heart, placenta, and lung tissues, as
    well as in circulation in the bloodstream.
        Microplastics in wastewater and in drinking water are, of
    course, originating from multiple sources. Influent to
    treatment plants contains synthetic microfibers shed from our
    laundry, breakdown of plastics from dishwashers, and plastic
    detergent pods.
        Washing of one synthetic garment is estimated to generate
    over 100,000 microfibers, and an average load produces upwards
    of 9 million, and dryers emit them too, potentially on a larger
    scale. Dishwashers can also generate thousands of microplastics
    per cycle. A medium-sized town could emit over 300 million
    microplastics on a daily basis from a recent study.
        The burden of dealing with these has really shifted to
    wastewater treatment plants and drinking plants. Wastewater
    treatment plants tend to retain most of these particles in the
    sludge, which is sterilized into biosolids and, as Senator
    Merkley mentioned, these are used as fertilizers, and those
    particles can be washed back. All of these discharges are
    unregulated.
        While drinking water in the U.S. does contain fewer
    microplastics in comparison to wastewater, the U.S. does have
    among the highest prevalence of microfibers in its drinking
    water and the highest number of particles detected per liter,
    currently. Results on studies in rodents, which are used as
    human health models, suggests the potential for impacts of this
    long-term exposure to markers like reproductive and microbiome
    health.
        Far less is known about the occurrence and effects of
    tinier particles, which were also mentioned in the introductory
    remarks, these nano plastics. Tap water, like bottled water,
    was recently shown to contain high levels of nano plastics, but
    the methods for detecting these smaller sized fractions are
    expensive and limited, currently. The smaller particles have
    the capability to move around within the body following
    ingestion, and they can also potentially accumulate. Bottled
    water, which contains higher levels of microplastics, is
    disproportionately consumed by marginalized communities, as
    well.
        Experts agree that source reduction of plastics is needed,
    but of course, this is challenging, given that these are deeply
    embedded as far as use goes in our daily lives, and that the
    shedding of microplastics is challenging to control. This
    challenge must be addressed across multiple sectors for
    progress to be made. We have accumulating evidence that as
    these microplastics degrade into smaller sizes, they can elicit
    inflammation, cellular toxicity, and myocardial damage.
        A next step would be to take action to limit their presence
    in our waterways and in our bodies. Potential solutions include
    requiring microfiber filters on washing machines, as a bill has
    been introduced in Oregon and in California, as well. Also,
    catchments and rain gardens can significantly reduce plastic
    pollution from stormwater runoff.
        Our Nation's waterways are intended to be protected by the
    Clean Water Act (CWA), which in 1972 established a framework
    for regulating pollutant discharges. However, the CWA has not
    yet been used, of course, as you know, to limit the discharge
    of microplastics. Given that microplastics and their precursors
    could be defined as originating from point sources, such as
    pellets, discharge of microplastics from treatment plants, or
    the recent vinyl chloride spill, the CWA provides the most
    direct route for potential regulation.
        Long-term solutions are greatly needed, including better
    waste management strategies and a move toward globally touted
    approaches for circularity.
        With that, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify
    today. I am pleased to answer any questions that may come up.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Brander follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Dr. Brander.
        Dr. Mason?

           STATEMENT OF SHERRI A. MASON, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF
                   SUSTAINABILITY, PENN STATE BEHREND

        Ms. Mason. Thank you, subcommittee Chairmen Merkley and
    Padilla, and Ranking Members Mullin and Lummis, and other
    subcommittee members for the opportunity to speak at this
    hearing.
        My name is Dr. Sherri Mason. I am a chemist and currently
    the Director of Sustainability at the Erie Campus of Penn
    State.
        When many think of plastic pollution as an issue, they
    think of mass collections of debris in the oceans. While oceans
    are certainly important, science has made it clear over the
    past decade that this is not an oceans-only problem; it is a
    water problem.
        My research group was among the first to study plastic
    pollution in freshwater ecosystems. Our study formed the basis
    of the science upon which the Microbeads-Free Water Act of 2015
    was based. Years later, we would also be the first research lab
    to examine wastewater treatment plant effluent, as well as tap
    water and bottled water.
        While our results were surprising, just last month we
    learned that bottled water has even higher concentrations of
    even smaller particles called nano plastics. My work in this
    field of research started in the Great Lakes, the largest
    freshwater ecosystem on the planet, holding 90 percent of the
    United States' freshwater supply and 20 percent of the world's
    freshwater supply.
        Our economy and our Country are exceedingly fortunate to
    have this freshwater resource right in our backyard. Yet, over
    the 5-years that I sailed and sampled all five of the Great
    Lakes, we established a hard and sad truth. As the water flows
    from one lake to another, the amount of plastic within that
    water increases. Each Great Lake now harbors between one and
    five billion pieces of plastic each. Each lake has that much.
        Ninety-seven percent of those plastics are what are
    classified as microplastics, whose origins are larger
    macroplastic items. The dominant degradation pathway of
    plastics is mechanical, not chemical nor biological. This makes
    plastics unique among other materials and is a primary driver
    for its ecological and human health impact. Plastics are
    synthetic. They are man-made, and as a consequence, they do not
    readily biodegrade, and so they linger in the natural
    environment.
        As they linger, they are baked by the sun and pummeled by
    wind, water, cars, and the like, causing them to break into
    ever-smaller pieces. One macroplastic item can form millions of
    microplastics, which break into billions of nano plastics,
    particles so small they can easily move across the
    gastrointestinal tract, be carried by the blood, end up in our
    livers, kidneys, brains, even crossing the placental boundary
    into embryos.
        There are about 13,000 different chemicals used during the
    manufacture of various plastic products. Many of these are
    known to be carcinogens or endocrine disrupting chemicals,
    which mean that they mimic hormones, the chemical messengers of
    the body. By affecting the endocrine system, these chemicals
    within plastics are linked to fertility issues, including
    decreased sperm counts, as well as being associated with
    obesity rates, autism, and other developmental issues.
        Understanding the impacts of the plastic polymers
    themselves is the real knowledge gap currently that initial
    studies have shown connections to inflammation, oxidative
    stress, Alzheimer's, and other neurological diseases.
        While we do not know everything, what we do know is
    concerning. Water, the necessary elixir of life, is a primary
    means for the movement of micro and nano plastics into people.
    While wastewater treatment plants are fairly effective at
    removing plastics from wastewater, even those particles that
    are removed end up in the biosolids, which are frequently
    applied to farmland.
        This application allows plastic particles within the sludge
    to be re-released into nearby waterways as runoff or move
    through the soil into the groundwater. Studies have found
    microplastics within groundwater. Our study on tap water found
    an average of five and a half pieces of microplastic per liter.
        Should one think that bottled water is a solution to
    plastic within tap water, it is not. Our study on bottled water
    found an average of 325 particles per liter, 58 times the
    quantity within tap water. Just last month, a new study found
    an average of 240,000 nano plastic particles within bottled
    water, nearly three orders of magnitude higher than our
    microplastic study. This study supported what our study found,
    which is we can not filter ourselves out of this problem.
        What can we do? The problem of plastic pollution is
    multifaceted, and so are the solutions. I think the EPA plastic
    strategy, as well as the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act,
    provide good starting points for discussions. Three solutions I
    want to highlight are source reduction and mitigation, extended
    corporate responsibility, and the creation of a national waste
    and recycling plan.
        Thank you greatly for your time and attention. I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mason follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Now, we will turn to our third witness. Welcome.

     STATEMENT OF BRENT ALSPACH, P.E., VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR
                      OF APPLIED RESEARCH, ARCADIS

        Mr. Alspach. Good afternoon, Chairman Padilla, Chairman
    Merkley, Ranking Member Lummis, Ranking Member Mullin, and
    members of the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you today on this important topic.
        My name is Brent Alspach, and I am a Vice President and
    Director of Applied Research at Arcadis, a global engineering
    and consulting firm where I oversee a program that has
    conducted approximately $30 million in drinking water, potable
    reuse, wastewater, and stormwater research.
        I also serve on the American Water Works Association's
    (AWWA) Technical and Education Council, which works to advance
    practices and technologies that produce the best quality
    drinking water for the public.
        It is in this capacity that I offer my testimony as a
    representative of the AWWA community and a subject matter
    expert on microplastics and drinking water. Accordingly, I am
    currently the principal investigator on two related projects
    funded by the Water Research Foundation, Developing Strategic
    Consumer Messaging for Microplastics in Drinking Water
    Supplies, Project 5155, and Fate of Microplastics in Drinking
    Water Treatment Plants, Project 5185.
        Microplastics is a category of emerging contaminant that
    includes a wide variety of particulates with different physical
    characteristics, which may originate from the primary or
    secondary sources.
        Primary microplastics are produced as small particles,
    microbeads, or nurdles, which serve as the raw material for
    manufacturing a wide variety of plastic products, whereas
    secondary microplastics are a product of the fragmentation of
    larger plastics, like plastic bags or bottles.
        While generally characterized as measuring less than five
    millimeters in size, there is no formal scientific consensus on
    the definition of microplastics. Studies have shown that
    microplastics are nearly ubiquitous in the environment, having
    been detected everywhere from the upper atmosphere to the
    deepest ocean trenches, including potable water sources and
    treated drinking water supplies.
        However, the science of characterizing occurrence in these
    supplies and understanding their impact while advancing quickly
    is still in its relative infancy, with many important questions
    remaining to be answered.
        The most important step toward advancing this understanding
    is the development and refinement of standardized analytical
    methods. Along these lines, the California Water Resources
    Control Board has approved two analytical methods, which select
    water systems throughout the State will soon apply to evaluate
    real world samples.
        Although these methods represent an important step in
    understanding occurrence, further research is needed to develop
    analytical techniques that are increasingly reliable,
    efficient, economical, and able to detect plastic particulates
    at the nanometer scale. Such advancements will facilitate the
    implementation of broader, more reliable occurrence, toxicity,
    and treatability studies.
        The limitations of contemporary methods of microplastics
    analysis notwithstanding, it is still essential to understand
    occurrence and treatability to the extent possible with the
    best science currently available. Using these practices, a wide
    range of studies have demonstrated the ability of many drinking
    water treatment processes in common use across the Country to
    achieve significant reduction of microplastics, commensurate
    with other types of regulated particulates.
        However, if toxicity studies ultimately demonstrate that
    some subset of microplastics poses a health risk via a drinking
    water vector, it will be important for water systems to adapt
    and optimize treatment as appropriate.
        The extent to which microplastics may contribute to adverse
    health outcomes is likewise the subject of ongoing research and
    likely various microplastic attributes. Consideration may
    include the size, shape, and material composition of the
    ingested particulates, as well as the ingested quantity and the
    residence time in the human body.
        Relevant human health effect studies are difficult to
    conduct, and such research has not yet established a clear
    indication that microplastics are toxic, a necessary precursor
    to any regulatory action under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
    which requires clear occurrence and health effects data. These
    statutory requirements help ensure that water systems can
    maintain high quality, affordable service in the context of
    their mandate to safeguard public health.
        Accordingly, congressional support for research in these
    areas would be welcomed by the drinking water sector. In
    parallel with this research, exploring and enhancing
    opportunities to divert the sources of microplastics from
    entering the Nation's water supplies could be valuable
    preventative measures.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on
    this important topic. I welcome any questions that you may
    have. Additionally, AWWA will be conducting an informational
    webinar on April 10th entitled Microplastics 2024: Practical
    State-of-the-Science in Drinking Water. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Alspach follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for your insights and
    testimony.
        I am now going to turn to questions. I am going to start
    with the Chair of the Environment and Public Works, Senator
    Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, one
    and all. I am going to ask the first question, I just want you
    to give me really short answers, OK? We will start with you,
    Dr. Brander.
        You mentioned, I think, in your written testimony that the
    U.S. has the highest prevalence of microfibers in our drinking
    water compared to any other nation. That is pretty amazing. Why
    is that? Just very briefly, why is that?
        Ms. Brander. That is a really good question. It may, in
    part, be because we buy an incredible amount of clothing, and a
    lot of this clothing is generated by companies that promote
    fast fashion. There have been studies showing that our
    consumption of clothing has increased rapidly over the past
    five to 10 years, and that could be contributing, but I do not
    think the exact cause is----
        Senator Carper. If we just buy, maybe, less clothing, we
    could maybe make a difference here. What do you think?
        Ms. Brander. Like others have----
        Senator Carper. I say that with tongue in cheek.
        Next question. In addition to our retrofitting technologies
    in our washing machines to capture microplastics from our
    clothing, are there other innovations that can reduce the
    amount of microfibers in our water systems?
        I really like to find out what works and do more of that.
    If there are other countries and other places where they have
    figured out how to do this better and we could learn from them,
    what can we learn from them, and are there any actions that
    Congress should consider to reduce microfiber shedding? Thank
    you.
        Ms. Brander. Sure. Is that an additional question?
        Senator Carper. It is a two-part question.
        Ms. Brander. Sure.
        Senator Carper. You only get paid for one.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Brander. Yes, fair enough. A nonprofit that I
    collaborate with in California is actually looking into
    solutions such as textiles that shed less, as well as textiles
    that are produced from materials like kelp, producing textiles
    from sustainable materials that can also capture carbon. Those
    are solutions that are both being looked into currently that
    could potentially reduce microfiber shedding over the long
    term.
        Senator Carper. Anybody else want in on that second
    question? What can we learn from others with respect to this
    challenge, this problem? Again, I would like to say, find out
    what works, do more of that. Anybody out there, in another
    country, maybe, that is doing a better job than we are?
        Ms. Mason. I do not know if there are other countries that
    are doing better. I think that there are people looking into
    it. Patagonia is another company that is looking into it
    heavily as well.
        I think that there is some important science out there that
    is trying to understand kind of why the clothing sheds as much
    as it does, and are there things that we can do to mitigate
    that. Bio, natural-based polymers are another solution,
    although they still have the same chemicals that are used in
    them, and so that is still a concern, because as they degrade,
    they biodegrade, but they are still toxic.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you. Mr. Alspach, question
    for you, and maybe for our others. Are there any areas of
    research noted in the draft strategy that the Federal
    Government should prioritize, and are there any further topics
    for future studies on micro and nano plastics not included in
    the draft strategy that the Federal Government maybe should
    consider?
        Mr. Alspach. Yes, I think probably the most important area
    that could require funding is the development of analytical
    methods, as I mentioned in my testimony. As several of the
    other speakers have mentioned as well, we really do not have a
    very good understanding about the occurrence of nano plastics
    in the environment and our water supplies, and until we
    understand that occurrence, we really can not conduct
    meaningful treatability or toxicity studies to really
    understand, in turn, how we should take action about
    microplastics.
        Senator Carper. OK. Dr. Mason, we are not going to let you
    get out of here without a question.
        I think in your testimony, you described an extended
    producer responsibility policy as one of the most powerful
    tools that policymakers have to decrease plastic pollution,
    including the resulting microplastic pollution we see in our
    marine environment. Will you please expand on how extended
    producer responsibility policies can be an effective tool for
    reducing plastic pollution, and subsequently reduce
    microplastic pollution?
        Ms. Mason. From my understanding of how they work, the
    companies are charged for the plastic that they utilize, that
    they produce. They are charged less if they choose a polymer
    that is more easily recycled, like polyethylene or
    polypropylene, versus something like polystyrene or
    polyvinylchloride that can not be recycled.
        Obviously, if they switch away from using plastics at all,
    they are not paying for it. That money then also adds into
    infrastructure for the recycling system, which right now, is
    being borne by the taxpayers, and hence, is consistently
    underfunded.
        This is one of the reasons why the recycling of plastics is
    so bad, because we need better funding mechanisms to support
    the infrastructure around recycling. This is a mechanism to
    provide that support for the recycling industry, while at the
    same time shifting the market to fewer polymers.
        Right now, I mean, another issue we have with recycling of
    plastics is that there are thousands of different polymers that
    are on the marketplace. To recycle them, you have to separate
    them each from each other, and you can not do that through
    mechanical means. You would need FTIR, Fourier Transform
    Infrared Spectroscopy, you need scanners, you need a different
    type of mechanism, and our current recycling infrastructure
    does not have that in place.
        One of the reasons why we have such a hard time recycling
    plastics is the separation of the different plastics from each
    other. If we can reduce the number of polymers that are on the
    marketplace, it enables better recycling, and on top of that,
    you have a funding mechanism to support that recycling
    initiative. Then, you are using, you know, your roles to get
    the outcome that you want from the system that is in place, and
    that is ultimately what we can do.
        As Congress, what you guys can do as Congress, is you have
    systems in place, but you can use your leverage, use your
    different levers in order to produce the outcome that you want.
    Right now, the recycling infrastructure is awful, so extended
    corporate responsibility is a good way to leverage to get the
    outcome that you are looking for.
        Senator Carper. Thanks to each of you.
        Mr. Chairman, my wife studied at the University of
    Tennessee, undergraduate fibers and textiles, and later worked
    for DuPont for 30 some years in the same business, and then
    taught as a professor at the University of Delaware, actually,
    courses that relate to this as well. I do not know how many
    people tune in and look at the reruns of our hearings, but she
    is going to be tuning in tonight, and sends her best.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Mason. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Mullin?
        Senator Mullin. You make me nervous that my wife is going
    to watch my hearings. She would scold me and correct me all the
    time. I love her, though, deeply, so if you are watching, they
    have been the best 26 years of my life, babe. Just wanted to
    put that one out there before I get myself in trouble.
        Anyways, thank you guys for being here. I am sorry I came
    in a little late. I had an opening statement to thank you guys
    for taking the time out of your busy schedule to inform
    Congress.
        I think we can all say that the desirable outcome is not to
    have microplastics in our water, right? That is what we would
    love to have, but at the same time, when we are starting to
    look at these studies, what we always say up here is follow the
    science, and science always changes.
        As a licensed operator to operate waste and drinking water
    facilities, I understand the challenges that our municipalities
    have to meet today's regulations, which is very challenging.
        Years ago, we had a company called Mullin Environmental,
    where we did a lot of the water treatments. It is constantly
    changing, and the different makeups of the water makes
    different challenges. You can literally go two miles down the
    road and have a complete different makeup of water, that you
    have completely different challenges to make them compliant
    with today.
        As we are moving forward, looking at microplastics, we have
    to be careful that we are not getting ahead of, as we would
    say, the science and burden these municipalities that are
    trying to meet today's regulations to chase something that we
    do not even know the conclusion of, if it is actually causing
    what harm, or if it is causing harm at all.
        I just caution all of us to understand that we have a lot
    of research to do, and I think that is what you guys are doing,
    right? That is what everybody here, we are researching, and we
    are here, and we are searching for what we need to do, but we
    have to be cautious moving forward, too. By focusing so much on
    microplastics, which we should, I am not saying we should not,
    we can distract what these municipalities are trying to do
    right now is make sure it is clean and safe and not causing
    cancers or what chemicals we are introducing are not causing
    harmful reactions to the material that is already in the
    ground, like what we saw in Flint, Michigan.
        I say all that because I want to make sure, as a committee,
    that we are moving with caution and we are going to actually
    pay attention to the science that is leading us down this path,
    which, once again, I repeat myself, thank you guys for the
    research that every one of you guys are doing.
        I am going to call you Brent. I will not mess up on that
    one. Does that work?
        Mr. Alspach. That is fine. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Mullin. Thank you, and you can call me Markwayne,
    so that way, we do not have to use formal titles, there. Given
    the significant infrastructure investment needed to improve and
    maintain the compliance with current regulatory requirements,
    if water supplies and regulators were to shift their attention
    to microplastics, what other safety priorities might be
    impacted?
        Mr. Alspach. I think, as you suggested, there are a number
    of priorities that utilities are currently contending with. A
    couple that come to mind that are most pressing presently, PFAS
    and lead. Both of those require significant amounts of
    attention and cost to utilities, which then is often passed on
    to their ratepayers, unless there are subsidies available to
    them.
        Diverting attention to something, an additional
    contaminant, whether it is microplastics or anything else,
    would, by necessity, take some amount of energy, time, cost
    away from utilities meeting the regulatory requirements for
    things like that that we know are toxic and we know need to be
    addressed in a very expedient manner.
        Senator Mullin. Just to hit on the lead exposure, too, I
    understand every time we introduce, most of the lead that we
    have in drinking water, they were already coated, and we used
    to use a really natural water filtration system.
        When we started having to get into a more regulatory
    environment where we were cleaning up a different type of
    water, we had to introduce more chemicals, and those chemicals
    then had a reaction to a lot of the piping that we have in the
    ground today. That is kind of my concern that we have today,
    because it erodes the protection coating that was over some of
    the lead piping that was there, and then exposes us. We have
    now more issues.
        We tried to solve one issue, and we caused another problem.
    As I said before, we have to be really careful about the path
    that we are moving toward, because it can have a domino effect,
    especially small, rural areas where they just do not have the
    resources, which is what Senator Lummis and I, we represent
    rural areas.
        We face this all the time in our rural communities. If they
    do not have the resources to just simply build a new water
    treatment plant, it just does not exist. Once again, thank you
    guys for being here, and with that, I yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Mullin.
        I am going to jump into a couple questions that I hope to
    get quick answers to, but I realize that is hard to do, because
    things are complicated, but a lot of people listening to this
    hearing right now are going, huh.
        Senator Mullin. All five?
        Senator Merkley. All five of them.
        Senator Mullin. Six, it is six now.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley. Our wonderful audience here, and
    hopefully, our online folks as well.
        Should I be getting a water in a plastic bottle? I see
    heads shaking no. Here is the thing: my understanding is, our
    paper cups, like the one Senator Lummis is drinking from at
    this moment, are also lined with plastic. My understanding is
    our aluminum cans are lined with plastic.
        Over here, we have a blue, can you hold up your blue water
    bottle? I am not sure about that. If it is in fact the case
    that aluminum cans and paper cups are lined with plastic, and
    do they put off fewer particles, or should we be thinking just
    in terms of individual health? Is there some container other
    than glass that does not have a plastic lining?
        Ms. Mason. Are you aiming this at whoever jumps in first?
    Is this a free-for-all?
        Senator Merkley. Dr. Mason, please?
        Ms. Mason. The coffee cups, because typically you are
    putting a hot beverage into that, is going to release more
    microplastics than if you were pouring a cold beverage into
    your container, which probably, if it is stainless steel, does
    not have a lining. Most reusable metal water bottles these
    days, most of them, do not have a lining.
        Your soup at home usually has a lining; if you have orange
    juice, like I grew up on canned orange juice, yes, I remember,
    it tasted like metal because it wasn't lined with plastic. You
    have different extremes for sure, and I think there is more
    science that could be known on that, but preferring certain
    metals, certain containers over others, I think would be
    better.
        Senator Merkley. I do not want to extend the time too much;
    I only have 5 minutes, so I will just take your answer. That is
    helpful.
        I heard, basically, stainless steel may be the way to go. I
    will, for the record, I will followup with some other
    questions, because I would like to know if the amount of
    particles that comes from a paper cup lined with plastic or an
    aluminum can is different than those coming from a water bottle
    and so forth, but that is for the record.
        I want to turn to the human health side of this. In your
    testimony, Dr. Mason, you referred to, did I hear you say
    myocardial damage? Ah, Dr. Brander. That is heart damage, I
    assume. Then also in the testimony, about the impact on sperm,
    on autism, on obesity, and Alzheimer's.
        Are these simply things that we suspect, or are we able to
    have a scientific process now that has really kind of started
    to really give us insight on how much these particles are
    contributing to challenges of human health?
        Ms. Brander. Just like we have done with other contaminants
    over many decades, we have begun using rodents as a model for
    human health for the study of micro and nano plastics. Recent
    studies are pointing to issues like cardiac toxicity, the
    potential for fibrosis, for example, in blood vessels created
    by the presence of these particles.
        In addition to those issues, there is also the potential
    for impact on the microbiome that has been highlighted by a few
    studies. In a study that we did at Oregon State that was
    published in 2023, we dosed drinking water with a low level of
    nano plastics, and mice were exposed to this drinking water for
    24 hours.
        Just after that 24-hour period, we saw a significant
    different in the diversity of bacteria in the gut of the
    exposed mice. You can imagine what that might mean over a
    lifetime of exposure. Those are findings that have been
    published by my group and others.
        Senator Merkley. For those of us who do not follow all the
    health issues, microbiome, we are talking about the bacterial
    growth in your intestines, I assume, and you are saying just in
    24 hours, a low dose, you said, not some high dose.
        Tell me how, you mentioned the impact on human
    reproduction, on sperm counts. We know sperm counts have
    dropped enormously for men, obviously for men, but around the
    world. Are we confident of this link between plastics, and is
    it the plastics themselves, or is it other chemicals that have
    been put into the plastic for hardness, brittleness,
    flexibility, color, and so forth?
        Ms. Brander. Really good question, because in some ways,
    those are two separate issues. Being exposed to a plastic
    particle is a multiple stressor because you are being exposed
    to the chemicals, potentially, that are associated with the
    plastic, but also the particle itself.
        A lot of the chemicals that are used in plastic, the 13,000
    to 16,000 at this point, estimated, are endocrine disruptors
    and directly interact with hormone receptors, and that is shown
    to contribute to decreased sperm production and decreased
    fertility.
        The plastic particles themselves, as Dr. Mason was saying
    earlier, they can cause oxidative damage. They can cause the
    production of reactive oxygen species, and I realize that is a
    lot of terminology, but long story short, that can cause
    cellular damage, and then tissue level damage if it gets bad
    enough. Those processes can also contribute to effects on
    reproduction, microbiome, other important endpoints.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Senator Lummis?
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My daughter is a little obsessive about the containers that
    she uses in her house for my grandchildren, and I thought she
    was being a little obsessive-compulsive, and now I know she is
    not. This is a real thing, a real concern.
        I want to try and bring it down, Mr. Alspach, to the water
    treatment level. Help me understand how we can do a cost--
    benefit analysis that maybe a small water treatment plant in a
    community in Wyoming can get their head around and use to help
    them address this issue.
        Mr. Alspach. You ask a very important question, Senator. I
    firmly believe, as I have indicated in my testimony, that we
    just need more research to be able to even answer that
    question. I do not believe, at this point, that a utility in
    Wyoming could do a meaningful cost-benefit analysis without
    much more information that informs what that analysis would
    ultimately tell them.
        Senator Lummis. OK, so are groups like yours thinking about
    that, getting ready to help maybe a small water treatment plant
    analyze the cost and the benefits?
        Mr. Alspach. Certainly, the cost of treating for
    microplastics is something we could quantify. Whether it is to
    an extent that would be meaningful for health reduction, again,
    that is an open question, but they are particulates, and we do
    have a very good understanding about how particulates, for the
    most part, are removed. Although microplastics have some
    different properties than other particulates. We could quantify
    that for any utility and give some indication of cost.
        Again, that said, there may be other particulates on the
    nanoscale that we cannot yet detect and do not have any
    understanding, really, about how efficacious treatment
    processes are for removing those particulates.
        Senator Lummis. Based on what you know now about this
    subject, how would you tackle it from a policy point of view?
    What would you do first that would have the biggest bang for
    the buck, and then scale it down from there?
        Mr. Alspach. Yes, that is also an excellent question. I
    guess I would give some credit to the State of California,
    which I believe is doing a very good job of approaching this
    topic. I believe when the State passed its bill to give the
    regulators a mandate to look at this process, they didn't go in
    with the foregone conclusion that something should be done
    about microplastics, but with an open mind that it is an
    important question that needed to be addressed.
        With that in mind, they went and developed a definition of
    microplastics, followed by methods, again, which have their own
    shortcomings, but nevertheless, are standardized to the best of
    our ability at this point in time, and with those methods in
    place, they are going to look at source waters to try to
    understand the occurrence.
        With that, hopefully more health effect studies will be
    done in parallel, and then ultimately, when their monitoring
    program has run its course, we hope there will be enough
    information between the occurrence data, the treatability data,
    and the toxicity data to understand whether or not
    microplastics need to be looked at in a drinking water
    treatment context.
        Senator Lummis. OK, I see the gentlewomen on the panel,
    your co-panelists, nodding. Could you address the same issue?
        Ms. Mason. I think he makes a valid point. I think real
    solutions to this problem are much more upstream than the
    wastewater treatment or the water or wastewater treatments.
        That is not where you tackle it. You do not tackle this
    problem when you are dealing with something that is nanosized.
    You deal with it when you are talking about something that is
    big.
        That is why I point to source reduction and extended
    corporate responsibility and a waste and recycling plan. There,
    you are talking about macro items that are easy to gather and
    quantify and obtain, and you are reducing what is ending up in
    the water, the occurrence, and you are not looking at the water
    treatment facilities, telling them they need to clean it up,
    but I can keep doing whatever it is. I want to go into a coffee
    shop every morning and getting my latte in my plastic cup and
    then throwing it on the side of the road, the problem is that,
    right?
        The problem is that when it is at the macro level, and that
    is when you really solve this. You always, when you are looking
    at a problem, you look as far upstream for a solution as you
    can. That is where the real solutions are.
        Senator Lummis. Dr. Brander, would you like to weigh in?
        Ms. Brander. Sure. I would say I completely agree with the
    comments of both of the other panelists. Source reduction is
    absolutely what we need to aim for. That is why the problem of
    plastic pollution is being discussed at a global level right
    now at the United Nations, and that is where the focus is,
    focusing on reducing the number of polymers that are being
    produced, simplifying, chemical simplification, and reducing
    what we are putting out there.
        Once we have these nano-sized particles in the environment,
    you can not go out there with a vacuum cleaner and remove them
    from the environment. We really need to start at the larger
    scale, at the macro scale, to get at this problem.
        Senator Lummis. This glass is made out of a natural trona.
    There are only two places in the United States that have
    natural trona mines. They are Wyoming and California. For my
    Chair and his Ranking Member, let us all use more glass from
    Wyoming and California.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Lummis, and
    from Wyoming to California, we will make that transition.
        Senator Padilla?
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to just
    acknowledge some of the questions and some of the work that
    Senator Lummis and I are doing together, not just on
    addressing, we have talked about clean water, the need for safe
    water, but also water affordability and how a lot of rural
    communities or smaller agencies are able to finance these
    upgrade of infrastructure to address some of these issues.
        Since you invoked the name of my State that I am proud to
    represent, let me brag a little bit more on what we are doing
    in California. I am proud to represent the State that tries to
    lead the Nation when it comes to environmental policy, as Mr.
    Alspach can well attest.
        Plastics are certainly no exception. In California
    communities, plastics are pervasive, with single-use items like
    shopping bags acting like tumbleweeds when you find them in
    beaches and in parks, and frankly, just regular neighborhoods.
    That is why in 2014, the State of California took a step when
    it passed my first attempt at a statewide plastic bag ban.
    Since then, California has continued to lead on landmark
    plastic legislation like the current SB 54, which shifts
    plastic pollution responsibility from consumers to producers
    and bans Styrofoam in cities like San Diego and Los Angeles.
        Now, California continues to pave the way in plastic
    monitoring. In 2022, we have been discussing this, the Ocean
    Protection Council (OPC) released the first statewide
    monitoring program to manage microplastics. The roadmap
    includes setting standards for plastic levels in drinking water
    and testing for these compounds in certified labs across the
    State.
        I know our witnesses are very well aware of the work, but I
    share that with my colleagues and for the record to tee up the
    following questions. No. 1, Dr. Brander, given your previous
    work with the OPC, what lessons can other States and the
    Federal Government learn from this pioneering monitoring
    program?
        Ms. Brander. Absolutely, thank you for the question,
    Senator. I will mention that Oregon has also enacted an
    extended producer responsibility bill and has banned Styrofoam.
    I think that begins next year, so it is really----
        Senator Merkley. Is it better than California's?
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Brander. We will get back to California. From the OPC
    experience, what I think was critical there was that both
    scientists and stakeholders were involved from the beginning.
    That is really where we need to begin, I think, in every State,
    every discussion of this huge challenge.
        In terms of involving scientists and stakeholders early on,
    I think that helps with the issue of people feeling like
    scientists are giving directives when we do not necessarily
    have the responsibility or the challenges of regulating a new
    contaminant on the ground. I think that was really important.
        Then, the integration of all of the agencies across the
    State was incredibly impressive. Working with the Water Board,
    which is, of course, California's EPA, their Southern
    California Coastal Water Research Project, so many important
    agencies that were able to sort of cut down on the barriers and
    any silos that existed and able to work across any barriers
    that previously existed. I think that was incredibly important
    as well. I think it is a wonderful example to other States.
        The challenge to other States, I think, is the availability
    of resources and being able to compile enough resources to
    tackle such a giant challenge.
        Senator Padilla. We certainly commend the State of Oregon
    for that being up.
        Ms. Brander. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. I encourage others to do, as well.
        Dr. Mason, can you expand on the challenges that labs face
    in monitoring plastics in water, especially at scale?
        Ms. Mason. Brent did a great job of kind of mentioning this
    earlier, but with plastics, the techniques that exist currently
    are very time and people intensive. As we go to smaller
    particles, which are a bigger concern when it comes to human
    health impact, that adds onto it an additional layer with
    regard to the analytical technique.
        The study that came out of Columbia and Rutgers University
    on bottled water was developing a new Raman spectroscopy
    technique that allowed them to analyze nano plastics, and not
    just to see that there was a particle there, but to say that
    yes, it is plastic, and this is the type of plastic that it is.
    That was critical. We haven't had that technique until January
    2024, but that is one technique, and it is really expensive.
        We have the analytical abilities to analyze for particular
    plastics and identify them, and that is a huge expense on top
    of the fact that right now, we do not have an automated way to
    go about pulling microplastics out of water, so it is really
    human intensive, time intensive, and expensive.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. I know my time is up, Mr.
    Chair. I just have one followup question for the Californian on
    the panel. Just briefly, Mr. Alspach, can you tell the
    committee a little bit more about the two methods that the
    California State Water Board has approved?
        Mr. Alspach. Sure. The two methods are infrared
    spectroscopy and a Raman spectroscopy method. The major
    difference between those two in terms of practical application
    is the resolution, which is 50 microns for infrared and 20
    microns for the Raman.
        That is important because the smaller you can go with your
    resolution, the better able to detect those nano plastics,
    which are critical for our understanding about this issue in a
    more comprehensive way.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you all very much.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, and thank you for California's
    work on this issue.
        Let's turn to another ocean State, Rhode Island, the
    Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley.
    Thank you to all of the witnesses. This has been a very helpful
    and productive hearing. I always appreciate it when a
    bipartisan panel can produce so much consensus and agreement on
    a particular issue. I thank you for all the work that has led
    to that being the case today, particularly you, Chairman
    Merkley.
        The University of Rhode Island has done a study recently
    looking at the top five centimeters of the sediment in
    Narragansett Bay, which is our main resource and geographic
    feature. We are loaded with more than 16 trillion pieces of
    microplastic, which if we could sort it all out from the
    sediments around it, would be 1,000 tons. We also try to grow
    quahogs in that sediment, and catch fish that feed off of that
    sediment, and so forth. There is a pretty distinct likelihood
    of transit, particularly of nanoparticles, up through the food
    chain. This has a real Rhode Island resonance to it.
        One of the things that I have been working on is trying to
    keep tabs with the U.S. effort in the U.N. negotiations that
    were discussed earlier, and I am interested in hearing your
    recommendations to the U.S. negotiators. Assuming that the
    Senate schedule allows, I will be going up to Ottawa for the
    next meeting. Then, there is the Our Oceans Conference coming
    up in Greece, which will, I am sure, have a fairly significant
    piece on this.
        I remember when President Trump was all excited about
    getting plastics out of the ocean and mad at China for dumping
    it all and all of that, but every time you actually read a
    story, the story was all the other nations of the world
    complaining that the U.S. was the laggard, that we were the
    anchor that they had to drag, that of all the countries in the
    world, we were least productive, helpful and contrastive in
    those international negotiations, so that wasn't so great.
        What would you give, what message would you like me to
    convey to the negotiators when I go and harass them more about
    what the key points are that you would judge as being success
    points or failure points in those negotiations?
        Dr. Brander, let me start with you.
        Ms. Brander. Sure. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for the
    question.
        Senator Whitehouse. I will just interrupt to say, I take it
    as a given what Dr. Mason said that bigger is better. You want
    to get it out of the system before it has become nanosized, but
    go on around that.
        Ms. Brander. Absolutely correct. I am a member of the
    Scientists' Coalition, which is a group of international
    scientists that is advising the delegates to the U.N.
    negotiations.
        Senator Whitehouse. All of them? You are advising the
    entire delegate pool, not just the U.S. delegation?
        Ms. Brander. That is correct.
        Senator Whitehouse. Correct, yes. Go ahead.
        Ms. Brander. Yes. A lot of scientists from Europe and Asia
    and other parts of the world.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you for that.
        Ms. Brander. Sure.
        In terms of the main critical issues, really, chemical
    simplification, so reducing the enormous amount of chemicals
    that are used in the manufacture of plastics. I think I have
    already quoted the 13,000 to 16,000 number. That is really one
    of the biggest problems that we need to tackle. Simplifying the
    number of chemicals that are used will make circularity, which
    is one of the biggest goals of these negotiations, more
    feasible. Right now, given the number of chemicals that are
    contained in each of those plastics----
        Senator Whitehouse. It is highly improbable.
        Ms. Brander. That is right, and then the new cocktails that
    are created from recycling them is a huge challenge.
        There was a recent paper published that estimated
    healthcare costs from exposure to those plastics-associated
    chemicals in the U.S. is about $249 billion annually, so not a
    small number. That I would say is one of the biggest
    challenges, as well as potentially banning polymers that are
    particularly problematic, like PVC and polystyrene.
        Chemical simplification, polymer simplification, a better
    transparency in terms of corporations making data available on
    the composition of their products.
        Senator Whitehouse. With, for instance, a registry that
    anybody could go and look to?
        Ms. Brander. Yes, a registry. An international registry has
    been proposed.
        Additionally, there is a huge environmental justice issue
    here. Although these practices have been reduced, plastics are
    still being shipped to countries that do not have the waste
    management capabilities to deal with them. That is another, the
    environmental justice, human rights issue is a huge overriding
    issue.
        I think what the feeling is on the perspective from the
    U.S. is that there is a lot of support for fossil fuel
    companies that are aiming to shift their business from
    producing fuels to producing plastics, right?
        Senator Whitehouse. Right.
        Ms. Brander. We know natural gas. That, I think, is one of
    the biggest challenges in the U.S., is that the perception,
    that we are supporting this shift in business strategy of
    fossil fuel companies to producing more single-use plastics.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, the Chairman is familiar with my
    observation about the fossil fuel industry, that they have
    essentially two business strategies. One is to produce fossil
    fuel, and the other is to control Congress and manipulate
    politics so that they can do so, violating the laws of
    economics that would otherwise require them to put the price of
    their pollution into their product. Milton Friedman is scowling
    down at them.
        Chairman, it is up to you. I have gone over my time
    already, if you wanted to allow the other two to answer, or if
    you want to wait for a second round, I am at your disposal.
        Senator Merkley. If you have additional to answer on this
    question, and then I do have more questions, and I suspect you
    might as well?
        Ms. Mason. I just support what she said.
        Senator Whitehouse. She covered it?
        Ms. Mason. She covered it, yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Alspach?
        Mr. Alspach. Likewise, I am not nearly as familiar with
    this as Dr. Brander is, so I appreciate her comments.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. I will flag one last thing, which
    is that there is, Unilever, it is quite a big company that we
    have worked with for a long time, and they have come up with a
    proposal that I think kicks in this coming year, where it will
    be their pledge, their plan, to remove from the ecosystem a
    pound of plastic for every pound of plastic that goes out into
    the world, which among other things, creates a market for that
    plastic.
        To go to the places, to your point, Dr. Brander, about
    economic justice, to the places where this stuff is piling up
    so that they are knee-high wrack lines of plastic along shores
    and you have to push your boat out through floating seas of
    plastic to get out to clear water, suddenly, it makes a lot
    more sense to clear that up. Even if it is not being properly
    and fully recycled, at least it is out of those people's
    immediate experience.
        To put money behind that, to be able to buy that waste
    plastic in order to make good on your pledge, seems like sort
    of the corporate front line on this, too. I hope American
    companies take the lead, follow, and match that.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. I was thinking about a couple years ago,
    when the Potomac River flowed over the walking path south of
    the U.S. Marines Monument, I noticed people out along the trail
    with these little pliers picking up. I got down and looked, and
    in any square foot, you could see like, 100 or 200 pieces of
    little plastic, indicating to me how much plastic there was in
    the Potomac River as it flushed out to sea, just a massive
    amount. These were the visible version of the world.
        Then, I was also thinking as you were talking back when I
    was developing affordable housing and the spec plans called for
    copper pipe, and the contractor suddenly brought in plastic
    pipe. I said, wait, wait, wait, it is not specced that way. It
    is specced for copper.
        I didn't have any indication, I had not thought about
    plastic as a pollutant to drinking water. Instead, I was
    concerned about whether a plastic pipe would hold up. They
    brought in a demonstration where they took a torch to the
    plastic pipe and showed it didn't melt, and so on and so forth,
    that it had all been cleared. It was hugely beneficial for
    human health, and now I am going, hmm, maybe not.
        You just mentioned PVC. There is a slightly different
    version that is used for water supply pipes, but are water
    supply pipes made of plastic a good idea? If either of you have
    an insight on that.
        Ms. Mason. You are going to put me in the hot seat, thanks.
    No.
        Senator Merkley. OK, no.
        Ms. Mason. Short answer, no, not a good idea. Beyond
    Plastics, actually, has a really nice article out, a
    whitepaper, excuse me, out on this topic.
        To be honest, I am not sure that it is the first thing that
    I would tackle with regard to this issue. It is a concern, and
    it is a legitimate concern. As pipes are being replaced because
    of the issues around lead, it would be preferable to replace
    them with copper over PVC or something similar.
        Senator Merkley. As we are talking about this, it seems to
    me there is just a huge amount of research that needs to be
    done here. In different scenarios, different types are plastic
    are shedding different amounts. Different types of containers
    are shedding different amounts.
        The type of plastic that is being shed is different. The
    ingredients that have been added to the plastic formulation for
    other qualities are different. For us to try to get a handle on
    the underlying question raised by our colleague from Wyoming of
    where do you get, that produce the most results per buck, if
    you will.
        Is NIH, National Institute of Health, fully in gear in
    terms of investing in our health, understanding our health
    research? You mentioned, Dr. Brander, mouse models in a
    controlled setting where you can really measure the impact much
    more. You mentioned gut health being measured. Are some of the
    other impacts like obesity, Alzheimer's, heart disease, autism,
    sperm counts, are we starting to have studies of mice that
    start to give us a kind of really clear understanding of the
    health impacts?
        Ms. Brander. Sure. I will say that the National Institute
    of Health did issue a statement, I believe it was about a year
    ago, saying that more resources were going to be devoted to
    better understanding the impacts of micro and nano plastics.
    That being said, most of the research that has been done on
    mammalian models, rodents, mice and rats, so far has been done
    in Asia or Europe, because there is more funding in those parts
    of the world for studies on human health.
        It is still, I would say, in the U.S., studies using rodent
    models are still in their infancy. We have really just begun in
    the U.S. on answering some of those questions. We do have data
    from other parts of the world that suggest reproductive,
    microbiome, digestive effects, and cardiovascular effects.
        Senator Merkley. I think that is extremely important,
    because otherwise, any given observation on human health, there
    are so many influences, so we need that laboratory setting to
    gain understanding. Of course, that is why we have the National
    Institutes of Health, is to help invest in significant human
    health issues, and this is an area that really is in the
    beginning phase of understanding that there is a big connection
    here to be explored.
        We are closing in on the end of a vote, but I really
    appreciate all three of you raising the issues.
        Is he on his way here to the committee? Do we have staff
    for Senator Sullivan? How far out? How much time do I have on
    the vote? We will see if I can stall a little longer, but I can
    not miss the vote. It is not really stalling, because there is
    so much to be explored here.
        Mr. Alspach, you mentioned developed systems for measuring
    the amount of micro and nano plastics. That seems critical to
    our understanding here of how particles are shed and how much
    gets into us. Dr. Brander and Dr. Mason, is it just in the last
    couple years that we have really had the tools to start to
    understand this shedding process and the amount that is getting
    into our human bodies?
        Ms. Brander. I really think that it is just over the past
    couple of years that we have started to better understand human
    exposure and human occurrence. In part, that is because the
    technologies to measure nano plastics are slowly coming online,
    things like pyrolysis, GCMS, which is a fancy way of saying you
    are pyrolyzing a sample and measuring the mass of particles
    that might be in there.
        Yes, it is a new area of study, and I think we are also
    just starting to understand how easily those particles can
    translocate and move within our bodies, as well.
        Senator Merkley. Should we quit putting plastic pacifiers
    in our babies' mouths?
        Ms. Brander. Probably, yes.
        Senator Merkley. OK.
        On that, Senator Sullivan has worked really hard on
    environmental ocean issues. As another ocean State Senator, you
    see a dominance of ocean State Senators raising issues and
    concerns here. Welcome, and we will turn it over to you. I may
    have to have you close up if I have to run to vote, if you
    wouldn't mind.
        Senator Sullivan.
        [Presiding.] No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this open for me, a really important hearing.
        I know that Senator Padilla was in here. He and I have been
    working on this issue before he even was a Senator, in a
    bipartisan way. I want to thank the panelists.
        For those watching, we had a big announcement in Alaska
    last week. Hopefully, you heard about it. I want to make sure
    the Chairman hears about it before he leaves. In our Save Our
    Seas 2.0 legislation, that was legislation that a number of us
    got behind, Senator Whitehouse and I were the leads on that,
    the most comprehensive ocean cleanup legislation ever from the
    Congress.
        One of the things is a Marine Debris Foundation. The Marine
    Debris Foundation is a congressionally chartered foundation
    that focuses on ocean cleanup, plastics, and other marine
    debris. Last week, I had the great pleasure of announcing that
    the Marine Debris Foundation would be headquartered in Juneau,
    Alaska in collaboration with our universities there that do
    already great ocean research. This will be a public-private
    partnership that can accept private dollars.
        There is a lot of interest in this in the private sector.
    We want to make sure you guys all get a chance to come out as
    this foundation gets bigger, more prominent on the issues that
    we are all talking about, ocean debris, ocean plastics, and
    what we can do to keep our oceans clean.
        This is a global challenge, I like to say, but also a
    solvable one, because we know that the estimates are anywhere
    from 60 to 70 percent of all the ocean debris in the oceans in
    the world come from a number of rivers, the estimates are ten
    or more, in Asia and Africa. It is very solvable.
        Let me ask each of you, you know there is this idea of what
    we have banned, plastics or other things. Here is the big idea.
    By the way, this Marine Debris Foundation has as one of the
    elements in the law that we will have a Genius Prize that
    focuses on public-private university innovations in terms of
    technologies that can dramatically impact keeping our oceans
    clean.
        One of the ideas I have always been pressing for is this
    idea of, you have a plastic bottle, somehow it gets in the
    ocean. You do not want it to be, but it is. It has water, it is
    how people drink clean water.
        That bottle right now, they do not fully biodegrade. That
    is why we have microplastics in the water, but I know there are
    chemists in America who are working on the potential of a
    plastic water bottle to fully biodegrade. That would be a huge
    innovation. It wouldn't be coming from the government, but that
    is something that this Marine Debris Foundation, now in Alaska,
    with its mandate of many things, but one of which is a Genius
    Prize, would be something to undertake.
        Let me ask all of you, what do you see, and since the
    Chairman left, I can ask questions as long as I want, so this
    is kind of nice, there is no one else waiting for me. What do
    you guys see as the technological advancements and innovations
    that can be leveraged to either detect microplastics or just
    get rid of them when they are in the ocean?
        I will just ask each of you on that really important
    question. What do you see, and you are all top professors,
    applied researchers, this is the key, right?
        A lot of times, we in the Senate, oh, the government is
    going to do this, the government is going to do that. My view
    is, this challenge, which is going to be solved, it is
    solvable, it is going to be through private sector innovations.
    This new Marine Debris Foundation, based in Alaska, is going to
    help encourage that.
        Why do not we start with you, Dr. Brander?
        Ms. Brander. Sure. That is really encouraging.
        Senator Sullivan. Have you guys heard of the new Marine
    Debris Foundation in Juneau, Alaska? I hope you have. You have
    to come out and visit it. We will wait for it to get a little
    bigger, but it is exciting.
        Ms. Brander. It is really exciting that that foundation has
    been created. I agree that private sector solutions are needed,
    but I think that needs to happen under an umbrella of some
    regulation that allows for things to happen at an equitable
    level and at a similar speed nationwide, rather than happening
    State by State or region by region.
        In terms of the development of a plastic bottle that could
    fully degrade----
        Senator Sullivan. Or any other technological innovation
    that, if you had a magic wand, you think could be really
    important. That is one idea I have been pushing, but we want
    other ideas, right? What are the other ideas? This foundation
    is going to help encourage all of this thinking.
        You are three of the top minds on this. What is your magic
    wand moment in terms of a technological innovation that could
    be really helpful?
        Ms. Brander. I think if there was a technological
    innovation that could better advance chemical simplification in
    some of these plastic products that were being made, that would
    greatly reduce the number of toxic compounds that are being
    released into the environment that we are being exposed to.
        Currently, we have been relying on so many different
    combinations of chemicals that even if something is fully
    biodegrading, that does not mean that it is not releasing those
    toxic compounds into the environment. Really the toxicity of
    the polymers and the products that are being used, or the
    chemicals that are being used to produce those products, needs
    to be tackled first before we aim at making things biodegrade
    faster or biodegrade completely.
        Senator Sullivan. OK, good. That is a great answer.
        What about you, Dr. Mason?
        Ms. Mason. I concur with what you said, which is probably
    no surprise. We have been on the same page this whole day.
        Senator Sullivan. Think big here. This is the moment,
    right? Any big innovation that, even if it is way out there,
    that you think, if somebody figured it out, would have a giant
    impact.
        Ms. Mason. I think the problem needs to be, you missed
    earlier, which is fine, I am not criticizing you, I am just
    stating that, like earlier, I mentioned that the solution to
    this is before you get to the oceans and other freshwater
    systems, by the way, because this is not just an oceans
    problem, it is before you are dealing with microplastics and
    nano plastics.
        Really solving it as almost the litter, before litter
    problem is the real innovation that needs to happen with a
    focus on the biggest piece of the market is packaging, and so
    thinking about alternatives to the packaging. I think there are
    some alternative, second-generation polymers that are being
    developed, and I think that that is encouraging to the point
    that Dr. Brander was making, the chemicals that are used in
    those are still an issue, and so those chemicals need to
    change.
        I think those are especially exciting for something like
    cars or refrigerators, things that where the use of plastics,
    you know, cars are much more fuel efficient because of the
    plastics that have been used in them. It is not a place that
    you can, you are not going to just eliminate the plastics, but
    coming up with a biodegradable, nontoxic plastic would be
    really helpful there. I think that that is the future.
        They are also looking at hydrogels as a way of removing
    nano and microplastics as a potential. I think cleanup comes
    secondary to really solving the problem upstream from that.
        Senator Sullivan. The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act focuses a lot,
    hopefully you have read it and seen it, focuses a lot on the
    upstream, so I do not disagree with you at all on that. Both of
    you are kind of saying biodegradability is important, but less
    toxicity is equally important. OK? Good, great.
        Mr. Alspach, what about you?
        Mr. Alspach. Thank you. I appreciate the information about
    Juneau, and I would take any available opportunity to visit
    Juneau anytime I can reasonably do so.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. It is a beautiful place. I just
    spent the last 3 days there, and it is wonderful, and they are
    very excited about this new foundation and the leveraging.
        We have a huge NOAA research facility in Juneau, we have
    the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, which has their College of
    Fisheries and Oceans, the University of Alaska Southeast. It is
    kind of becoming a big research hub on fisheries, on oceans,
    and this will add to that, which will now be on ocean debris.
        You guys are all invited. In fact, everybody here is
    invited. Come on up to Alaska. We would love to have you.
        Mr. Alspach. A couple points to your question. First, with
    respect to the biodegradation of something like a water bottle,
    I believe that the technology to do that probably already
    exists in a number of facets, but the problem is not the
    technology, in this case. It is the scalability of that
    technology for industrial processes that make it economical.
        I believe the private sector can do that, as long as there
    is an economics market to make an incentive to do so.
        Senator Sullivan. Don't you think, if you are the company,
    and I have said this a lot, if you are the company that
    actually, maybe it has already happened, but if you are the
    company that has cracked the code on less toxicity and full
    biodegradability, A, I think that would be very good for the
    environment, but B, that company is going to probably profit,
    which, as I have said, we are a capitalist society.
        I think that is how you drive innovation. That is fine with
    me, right? That is a win-win, right? You help the environment,
    maybe you help build a company. The workers benefit,
    shareholders benefit. It seems to me it could be a potentially
    very lucrative place to actually be successful, not just for
    the environment, but for the economy, as well.
        What do you think?
        Mr. Alspach. I agree, unless they need to make it scalable
    so that it is able to be accomplished, correct. In terms of my
    wish list for technology----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, wish list.
        Mr. Alspach. I sincerely appreciate that question a lot. We
    have talked on this panel a lot about nano plastics and the
    lack of methods to detect nano plastics. There is detection,
    period, and then there is making the method economical and
    reliable and efficient, and things that make it usable for us
    to actually detect nano plastics in the environment and in
    water supplies.
        We will talk a little bit about, in my field, about the
    evolution of sensor technology and how if we were able to
    quickly, with some kind of, and I will use this word
    colloquially, Star Trek type technology, to scan a water sample
    or scan an air sample or a soil sample and detect the nano
    plastics that are present, that would give us a little----
        Senator Sullivan. Does that technology exist right now, or
    not?
        Mr. Alspach. To the extent that I have described it, no,
    but this is actually where I am going with this point. When I
    have conversations about these types of sensors with people in
    my field, they will says, well, we are so far away from that.
    That is not feasible.
        We tend to think, as a society, in very myopic terms about
    what is possible and what is not. If you had asked something
    in, say, 1875 if we could put a man on the moon, they probably
    would have said there is no way that is ever going to happen,
    but yet, we did it.
        I think we should not limit ourselves based on our
    knowledge of what is possible today what might be possible
    tomorrow. I feel like one way to accomplish that is to
    encourage cross-disciplinary collaboration among researchers
    and industry, because there could be limitations on a method to
    detect nano plastics that an industry that is not even thinking
    about nano plastics might have a solution for.
        All you need to do is connect those dots to get those
    people talking to each other, and they might find they have a
    mutual solution that can solve the problem. If more of that
    cross-disciplinary collaboration occurs, we may solve that
    problem maybe before I retire, as opposed to when my daughter
    retires.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. Well, look, what we are trying to
    do in Alaska, particularly in Juneau on this issue, is this
    kind of cross-disciplinary collaboration. We have the
    institutions right now, as I mentioned, between NOAA, our
    research universities, and this new foundation, the
    congressionally chartered Marine Debris Foundation, to do that.
        Then the idea in the legislation with our Genius Prize, is
    to also do exactly that, to encourage people to press the
    limits on what they think is feasible from a technological
    standpoint, and then bring that period much sooner. To your
    point, 1875, getting to the moon less than a 100 years from
    that date is pretty remarkable.
        Great. Any other thoughts on the technological side before
    I gavel out here, from our witnesses? It is a really important
    component. You guys have answered the questions really well.
        With that, I want to close by again thanking our witnesses
    for appearing today and sharing their knowledge on
    microplastics. I would also like to thank Senators Merkley and
    Padilla and Mullin and Lummis for being the chairs of this
    joint hearing, which is important, on this important topic.
        Before we adjourn, I 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. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Additionally, Senators will be allowed to
    submit written questions for the record for all of you through
    the close of business on Tuesday, March 12th. We will compile
    these questions for the record and send them to our witnesses,
    and we will respectfully ask all of you to try to reply to
    those no later than March 26th, Tuesday.
        With that, again I want to thank the witnesses. We have a
    really good crowd here. It shows you the importance of this
    very important topic. I think we made some good progress today.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                      [all]