[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]