    [Senate Hearing 118-755]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-755

                     IMPACTS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL
                        ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

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

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 15, 2023
                                   __________

      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

    62-383                      WASHINGTON : 2026

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST 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 Virginia
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex officio)     (ex officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JUNE 15, 2023

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     1
    Mullin, Hon. Markwayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Bradford, Angelle, Doctoral Student in Physiology and Medicine,
      Tulane University School of Medicine, Volunteer Sierra Club
      Delta Chapter..................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Lavigne, Sharon, Founder, Rise St. James.........................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Tandazo, Chris, Director of Government Affairs, New Jersey
      Environmental Justice Alliance.................................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
    Sunday, Kevin, Director of Government Affairs, Pennsylvania
      Chamber of Business and Industry...............................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Jackson, Donna, Director of Membership Development, Project 21,
      National Center for Public Policy and Research.................    33
        Prepared statement...........................................    35

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter to Secretary Chuck Carr Brown of the Louisiana Department
      of Environmental Quality and Secretary Courtney N. Phillips of
      the Louisiana Department of Health from the U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency                                                  40
    Articles from:
        Elsevier: Kimberly A. Terrell, Discriminatory outcomes of
          industrial air permitting in Louisiana, United States......    96
        The Atlantic: Anya Groner, Louisiana Chemical Plants are
          Thriving Off of Slavery....................................   109
        Defend Our Health: Michael Belliveau and Roopa Krithivasan,
          Problem Plastic: How Polyester and PET Plastic Can be
          Unsafe, Unjust, and Unsustainable Materials................   128
        Environmental Research Letters: Kimberly A. Terrell, Air
          pollution is linked to higher cancer rates among black or
          impoverished communities in Louisiana......................   196

                      IMPACTS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL
                        ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2023

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
             Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
               Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Mullin, Carper, Whitehouse,
    Markey, Boozman, Sullivan.

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

        Senator Merkley. Welcome to the second in a series of
    hearings in the Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
    Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee on
    the Environmental and Public Health Dangers Involved in the
    Production, Use, and Disposal of Plastics.
        I appreciate the support of Senator Carper and Ranking
    Member Capito for this set of hearings exploring these issues.
        In our first hearing, we established that plastic has some
    unique and amazing properties. There are a lot of specialized
    applications where these may be important, and sometimes
    essential. The majority of plastic is single use plastic. There
    are significant challenges or harms caused by plastics to human
    health, to ecosystems, and to the environment.
        Today we are going to hear from people who are impacted the
    most by plastic, those who live next to facilities where
    plastic is made, and facilities where it is disposed of, often
    by burning. The goal is to better understand why plastic
    facilities are clumped together and the effect that they are
    having.
        We cannot tell the story of plastics without mentioning
    Cancer Alley in Louisiana. Cancer Alley is an 85-mile section
    covering 11 parishes along the Mississippi River between New
    Orleans and Baton Rouge that has high levels of toxic
    pollution. It accounts for some 25 percent of the Nation's
    petrochemical production and has the largest concentration of
    chemical plants in the western hemisphere.
        The existence of 15 petrochemical plants in agricultural
    areas of Cancer Alley is the legacy of slavery. What was once
    plantations where enslaved Black Americans raised sugar cane
    has been replaced by petrochemical facilities. The free towns
    established when recently freed Black Americans lived as
    sharecroppers now sit right next door to these plants.
        The State is not only not protecting them, it may in fact
    be discriminating. I quote from a letter that EPA sent to
    Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality, LDEQ, ``EPA
    has significant concerns that Black residents and school
    children living and/or attending school near the Denka facility
    have been subjected to discrimination through LDEQ's actions
    and inactions in the implementation of its air pollution
    control permit program.''
        Where does this plastic go when we are done with it? Too
    often, it goes to the municipal solid waste incinerators, where
    it is burned with air pollution emissions comparable to fossil
    fuel power plants. The burning of plastics releases toxic gases
    like dioxins, furans, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and
    it causes a significant range of health maladies.
        It is no surprise that 79 percent of the 73 incinerators in
    the U.S. are located in low-income communities or communities
    of color. Of these facilities, 48 incinerators are located in
    communities where more than 25 percent of the population is
    below the Federal poverty level. Policies that Congress
    included in the debt ceiling bill weakened the National
    Environmental Policy Act that will make it more difficult for
    overburdened front-line communities to protect themselves.
        There is a lot of talk about jobs, so let's get some
    statistics on that. The cities and communities historically
    dominated by petrochemical production are overwhelmingly poor,
    and building petrochemical facilities does not lead to
    significant job benefits or economic prosperity for the
    surrounding communities.
        Port Arthur is home to the Nation's largest oil refinery
    operation, but it has an unemployment rate twice as high as
    Texas' average. Port Arthur ranks as Texas' poorest city with a
    poverty rate of 27.2 percent, double the Texas average of 14.2
    percent, or almost double.
        A study by San Gabriel in Louisiana found that just 9
    percent of full-time industry jobs were held by local citizens,
    in spite of the town having an annual per capita income of just
    $15,000, a third below the State average and half the national
    average.
        Whether it is intentional discrimination or because of lack
    of qualifications for the work, the result is the same: the
    burden of these facilities are placed on communities that
    receive little to none of the benefits and receive all of the
    pollution. The jobs that are available come with the risk of
    serious health impacts. Workers producing plastic are at
    increased risk of leukemia, lymphoma, hepatic angiosarcoma,
    brain cancer, breast cancer, mesothelioma, neurotoxic injury
    and decreased fertility. Workers producing plastic textiles die
    of bladder cancer, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and interstitial
    lung disease at increased rates.
        The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known as
    OSHA, is tasked with ensuring protection for all workers. OSHA
    has a disclaimer on its website that it ``recognizes that many
    of its permissible exposure limits, PELs, are outdated and
    inadequate to protect workers' health.''
        In Louisiana, local communities often have not even
    received the benefits of the tax revenue from these facilities.
    The State's industrial tax exemption program, ITEP, exempts
    major industrial facilities in Louisiana from most property
    taxes for up to a decade. ITEP cost local taxing bodies $1.48
    billion in foregone taxes in 2018. That is 33 percent of
    property taxes collected by the State.
        This is an issue of justice. That is why it is so important
    that are having the hearing. I look forward to hearing the
    insights that each of you bring from your lived experience.
        With that, let me turn to opening comments from our co-
    leader of the committee, Ranking Member Mullin.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As we discuss plastics, we got to talk about reality, too.
    I have a statement that I do want to read. I do want to say
    that I think understanding the plastics that we have, the
    reliability that plastics bring and the amount of technology
    that we use plastics in would say that everybody in this
    committee thinks this is an important topic.
        I do want to point out that the reason why we are not
    having a lot of people here is because we have a lot of
    committees going on. In fact, we have a markup happening in
    another committee that I currently sit on. If it wasn't for so
    many different hearings going on, I think there would be a lot
    more people here, which we appreciate all the witnesses that
    are here and the people in the audience. I think we can all
    agree this is something we got to pay attention to but how do
    we do it without making us more reliant on other countries, how
    do we do this without limiting the ability for us to continue
    moving forward and society as a whole.
        Everybody here relies on plastics. Everybody here has
    plastics either on your feet, on your clothes right now.
    Everybody here that has a cell phone has plastic. Everybody
    that was driven here by either a Metro or by vehicle relies on
    plastics. Every electric vehicle out there cannot be produced
    without plastics. Everyone that goes to bed and wakes up in the
    morning and takes a shower and dries off with a towel relies on
    plastics. Everybody that goes grocery shopping and buys your
    food relies on plastics.
        It is not as though we can just limit, it is just how can
    we do it better. We got to have the open conversation where we
    are talking about this, Chairman, is how can we do it better. I
    will point this out also in my opening statement, I do not
    believe we have a plastic problem, we have a recycling problem.
    We have to learn how to make recycling valuable where it allows
    us to be able to use that as a value base.
        If we ignore that issue, guys, then you are ignoring the
    reality. What is going to replace plastics? Someone has a
    solution for that, then we would probably already be there.
    There is not.
        I would like to first start by thanking our witnesses here
    today for attending this subcommittee hearing, including Mr.
    Kevin Sunday and Ms. Donna Jackson. Today's hearing highlights
    an original novel idea called environmental justice that has
    been transformed away from its original intent of helping poor
    and marginalized communities with specific needs into a social
    movement Democrats have taken over to push progressive policies
    forward under the disguise of social and racial equality.
        I think all of us in this community can agree to this,
    everyone deserves clean air and water and access to reliable
    energy sources that will help create a cleaner, healthier and
    safer future. What is missing from the discussion is that
    critical role the U.S. plays in manufacturing essential
    plastics, materials that are used in medical applications,
    helps deliver our clean water, can not get water delivered to
    you without plastic piping, and keeps our food fresh.
        Some witnesses today might make statements that plastics
    are harmful to your health, but they ignore the fact that
    plastics are already heavily regulated in the U.S. and have to
    go through intense, rigorous standards guided by science to be
    used in applications especially when it comes in contact with
    your food and your medicine. When it comes to facilitating
    siting for these companies, they are not just investing in the
    buildings or the land, they are investing in the communities by
    providing jobs, health care plans, economic growth in the
    surrounding area. These benefits provide--you guys are welcome
    to be here, but whoever keeps interrupting us, they either need
    to behave or they need to be removed, Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. I hold a lot of town halls in Oregon, and
    I do so in every county. We have what we call the Oregon way,
    which is listen thoughtfully and if you passionately disagree,
    still be very respectful of the person speaking. That includes
    members of the panel, of the Senate, and that includes those
    who are testifying. I really appreciate you all being here,
    because these are really important issues that have been
    totally under-examined by Congress. Again, please do be
    respectful. If you feel like you need to say something, go out
    in the hall and say it and then come back in. Thanks.
        Senator Mullin. I want to reiterate this. I enjoy the
    passion, passion is what drives this Country, guys. Respect is
    also there. I raise our kids on four things, honesty, hard
    work, respectful, and being responsible. I promise you I will
    respect you. That respect needs to be returned two ways.
        When it comes to facilitating siting for these companies, I
    am going to restart this, they are not just investing in our
    buildings, they are investing in buildings or the land, they
    are investing in our communities by providing jobs, health care
    plans, economic growth in the surrounding areas. These benefits
    provide a widespread opportunity for access and stability to
    rural States like Oklahoma.
        These are not short-term investments, either. It is in the
    manufacturing company's interest to ensure good relationships
    with the communities around them, not only because it is the
    right thing to do, but it is because the labor pool is likely
    from within the very community that they work in.
        Something I want to make clear, it is that we do not have a
    plastic problem, we have a recycling handling problem. Instead
    of halting infrastructure projects or manufacturing development
    that results in U.S. job loss and more reliance on countries
    like China to produce critical material needed for modern life,
    why would we not refocus in improving recycling?
        As I mentioned in our previous Plastics subcommittee
    hearing, recycling means plastics that get re-used, which is
    most productive through innovative technologies like advanced
    recycling. If we oppose a science-based solution that makes it
    possible to capture and re-use large volumes of used plastics
    that is currently going unrecycled, do we really care about
    plastic waste?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Now we are going to turn to our
    witnesses. I am so appreciative that you all are bringing your
    knowledge and your lived experience to bear.
        We are going to hear first from Angelle Bradford, who is
    currently a doctoral student in physiology and medicine at
    Tulane University School of Medicine. Ms. Bradford also serves
    as a volunteer of Sierra Club's Delta Chapter.
        Ms. Bradford, please proceed.

      STATEMENT OF ANGELLE BRADFORD, PH.D. STUDENT IN CARDIOLOGY,
    TULANE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, VOLUNTEER CHAPTER SECRETARY, SIERRA
              CLUB, DELTA CHAPTER, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

        Ms. Bradford. Thank you so much. Good morning. Thank you,
    Chairman Merkley and Ranking Member Mullin. I appreciate the
    invitation to speak today.
        My name is Angelle Bradford. As you said before, I am a
    volunteer at the Delta Chapter of the Sierra Club and also a
    doctoral candidate earning my degree in cardiovascular
    physiology.
        I love my life in south Louisiana, as my family has been in
    south Louisiana and Mississippi for generations, though it is a
    complicated life where basic human rights are always being
    challenged. We can do better. When I look out across Lake
    Pontchartrain near New Orleans or the Atchafalaya Basin, I am
    affirmed that we must do better.
        Unfortunately, after decades of inaction, the climate
    crisis is fully evident in Louisiana. Our spring and summer
    nights and afternoons are getting hotter and more humid, which
    makes it harder to cool off at nighttime. I split my time
    between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and it is only in recent
    years that Baton Rouge reached air quality attainment per
    Federal standards. We still struggle with an F rating by the
    American Lung Association, however, as recently as 2019, due to
    petrochemical plants and other emissions producing ozone that
    combine with increased temperatures. I experience frequent
    headaches and migraines and asthma attacks on those poor air
    quality days.
        Our region has had many major hurricanes in the past years.
    There is no national insurance market prepared to serve as a
    safety net for any of us in this Nation. I would like to own a
    home and have a family soon. I am just not sure how responsible
    this is right now.
        When it comes to my work as a biomedical researcher, weeks
    to months can be lost to a hurricane that quickly strengthens
    overnight and leaves me little time to power down my
    experiments. Many of us in south Louisiana know all too well
    how the assurances made to our communities by energy and
    utility systems go out the window when we most need them.
        Despite these realities, the same industry most responsible
    for knowingly exacerbating climate change, the industry that
    dominates public policy and politics in my home State of
    Louisiana is unleashing yet another catastrophe on this planet,
    this time in the form of plastics. In December of just last
    year, ExxonMobil Baton Rouge announced plans to double their
    capacity in polypropylene plastics, increasing the Gulf Coast
    capacity to 450,000 metric tons per year.
        Per Defend Our Health's recent study, PET or polyethylene
    terephthalate plastic releases 1,4 dioxane, an industrial
    solvent and carcinogen, during production into drinking water.
    It can damage cells in the liver, kidney and respiratory
    system.
        Their study also spoke to 150 chemicals out of 193 that
    they looked at that leach from our plastic bottles into the
    water or beverage that any one of us is drinking. As we
    discover chemicals produced from plastic processes, we
    recognize their power to damage organs and cells. Often, any
    given person does not live next to or breathe the air of just
    one plant's emissions, there may be multiple plants clustered
    together.
        It has historically been difficult to study the cumulative
    effects of polluted air, soil, and water at the same time,
    particularly because it is unethical within a lot of contexts
    to just give people plastics-derived carcinogens and chemicals
    and see what happens. Also, people move and have different
    exposures and stressors that complicate understanding of
    disease processes.
        Nonetheless, exposure over time means increased likelihood
    of chronic diseases in addition to cancer. When we think about
    life in this Country, something we often debate, we need to
    also think about the dignity of life we are offering when we
    are allowing these companies to carelessly raise our health
    care costs and poison our people.
        While some folks may see oil and gas on the one hand and
    plastics on the other as very different issues that require
    different solutions, I see them as one and the same. That is,
    the same companies reaping profits from all ends of the supply
    chain, from cradle to grave of their products and of our
    bodies. I am left to wonder to which part of the plastics life
    cycle, to the oil and gas industry, are we ready to sacrifice
    our dreams and our lives.
        I am no longer willing to offer up my life for any more
    industries, and the plastics industry must be stopped with no
    exceptions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bradford follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you for your testimony.
        We are going to turn now to Sharon Lavigne, the founder of
    RISE St. James. Ms. Lavigne has long served as an environmental
    justice advocate. I look forward to your statement.

          STATEMENT OF SHARON LAVIGNE, FOUNDER, RISE ST. JAMES

        Ms. Lavigne. Thank you. I would like to thank you for
    giving me this opportunity to speak to you today. My name is
    Sharon Lavigne, and I am a lifelong resident of St. James,
    Louisiana. I was a special education teacher for 38 years at
    St. James High School. I retired in 2019 to do this work. This
    was my high school, the one that my father, Milton Cayette,
    Sr., integrated in 1966 when he was the president of the
    NAACP's local chapter.
        I am a mother of six and a grandmother of twelve. I live in
    the 5th district of my parish, which is 85 percent African
    American. On one side lies the Mississippi River. On the other
    lies sugar cane fields surrounded by petrochemical plants and
    refineries. It is making us sick. We cannot drink the water,
    plant a garden, or breathe clean air.
        The place I remember being so beautiful and full of life is
    now called Cancer Alley, which runs from New Orleans to Baton
    Rouge. We call it Death Alley due to the high number of
    community members getting sick and dying from cancer.
        In 2016, I was diagnosed with autoimmune hepatitis. In
    2019, I was diagnosed with aluminum and lead in my body. My
    fruit trees no longer produce fruit. Members of my family and
    community say that their children have trouble breathing and
    they are experiencing skin rashes, nose bleeds, respiratory
    ailments, and cancer.
        I have lost neighbors on both sides of me to different
    forms of cancer. Everyone here either has cancer or knows
    someone with cancer. It seems like I am now heading to funerals
    just about every week for another neighbor or friend.
        In spring of 2018, Governor John Bel Edwards announced the
    approval of Formosa Plastics, a $9.4 billion petrochemical
    facility to be built two miles from my home. Community members
    said it was a done deal.
        That did not sit well with me. In the fall of 2018, we
    formed RISE St. James, a faith-based organization focusing on
    protecting the air, water, and soil of St. James Parish from
    toxic industrial pollution.
        Formosa Plastics would cover 2,400 acres with its chemical
    plants right on top of the former Acadia and Buena Vista slave
    plantations. If Formosa is built, it will be a death sentence
    for St. James residents. Formosa would double air pollution in
    my district and triple our exposure to cancer-causing chemicals
    like benzene and ethylene oxide.
        We are fighting; we have fought all the approvals given to
    Formosa and stopped them. We must make sure it never gets
    built.
        Many other toxic industries are trying to move in, but we
    must stop them. We are not leaving our community. We need
    industry to leave. They get tax breaks and we get sickness and
    death. For what? All in the name of profit.
        These industries are big climate polluters. I survived
    Hurricane Ida, but my home didn't. I watched oil spill out of a
    holding tank. I lived out of a trailer for many months, and I
    am still working to recover and rebuild.
        President Biden, the EPA, the Army Corps and other agencies
    should use the tools they already have to protect us. You,
    Congress, could do so much by defending existing laws and
    passing new laws to protect communities and stop building
    petrochemicals and fossil fuel projects here in St. James and
    everywhere.
        I am here today because we are still not safe. Once again,
    thank you for having me.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lavigne follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Ms. Lavigne. Thank
    you for your previous work as a teacher, because education is
    so important to the next generation.
        Our next witness is Chris Tandazo. Chris Tandazo serves as
    the statewide Environmental Justice Organizer with the New
    Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance. We are pleased to have
    you.

      STATEMENT OF CHRIS TANDAZO, STATEWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
          ORGANIZER, NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE

        Mx. Tandazo. Good morning, thank you, buenos dias. Thank
    you, Senator Merkley, for the invitation to testify this
    morning.
        My name is Chris Tandazo. I use they/them pronouns. I am
    the statewide Environmental Justice Organizer for the New
    Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, NJEJA.
        NJEJA is a 20-year-old statewide environmental justice
    organization in New Jersey. We collaborate with grassroots
    partners to identify, prevent, reduce, and/or eliminate
    environmental injustices in our communities. NJEJA is led and
    staffed by majority people of color, who are also members of
    the communities burdened by polluting facilities and toxic
    infrastructure.
        NJEJA, alongside other environmental justice advocates,
    collectively advocated for and led the way in the passage of
    the landmark New Jersey Environmental Justice Law, S. 232. The
    primary purpose of the EJ law is to require the New Jersey
    Department of Environmental Protection to evaluate the
    environmental and public health impacts on overburdened
    communities when reviewing permit applications for certain
    facilities. NJDEP then has the authority to deny or condition
    certain permits due to the cumulative impacts of pollution.
        The EJ law is a beacon of hope for communities like mine. I
    immigrated from Ecuador to Irvington, New Jersey when I was 15,
    where I lived until my late 20's. Living in Irvington, the
    presence of industrial facilities, trucks, and warehouses was
    and remains a regular everyday sight, which made me accustomed
    to living in pollution and seeing this as normal. It was so
    normalized that I didn't think to challenge the presence of
    industry.
        It wasn't until I had the opportunity to attend graduate
    school that I learned about environmental injustice and was
    then introduced to the grassroots movement that has
    courageously fought for the health and safety of our
    communities. I realized how my life, my health, and the well-
    being of my family and my entire community had been and
    continues to be impacted by the presence of toxic pollutants
    that are detrimental to human health, to our health.
        When I think of plastic waste, I think of the environmental
    justice communities at the front-line and backend of the
    plastic crisis that have directly and disproportionately
    experienced the harms of the entire life cycle of plastics. The
    plastic crisis starts and is particularly acute in places like
    Cancer Alley in Louisiana, like Ms. Sharon has just mentioned,
    where the petrochemical industry has exposed Black communities
    to high levels of toxins, causing extreme rates of cancer-
    related illnesses and deaths.
        Some of these toxins come from the fossil fuels used to
    make plastic, but industry also adds many unnecessary toxins
    for color, rigidity, texture, increasing the toxicity of the
    plastic and making it impossible to recycle.
        As plastic waste generation increases, so does the need to
    dispose of it. At this stage, the plastic crisis arrives at my
    front door in New Jersey. New Jersey is home to three
    incinerators. All of these incinerators are located in low-
    income communities of color, in Camden, Rahway, and Newark,
    where the incinerators burn the plastic waste from New Jersey,
    New York City, and many neighboring states, alongside all other
    types of waste.
        Burning waste, specifically plastic waste, creates even
    more toxins and severely impacts the health of our communities,
    such as volatile organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
    dioxide, and particulate matter. These toxins are endocrine
    disruptors, damage reproductive and neurological systems, and
    increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory-related
    illnesses for our communities, which are already so
    overburdened by other polluting infrastructure and socio-
    economic challenges.
        I myself deal with respiratory issues. I am congested most
    of the time, and it makes it hard to breathe when I am being
    active outside. Many people close to me have asthma. You know
    what makes this even sadder? According to a recent study by
    Earth Justice, from 2004 to 2022, New Jersey ratepayers,
    including myself, have paid over $60 million in renewable
    energy credit subsidies to the incinerators in New Jersey.
        I do not know about you, but it does not sit well with me
    that our communities, my family, and myself, have been paying
    the incinerators in New Jersey to pollute us, to sacrifice us
    to a slow death.
        The current disposal of plastic waste in our communities is
    a manifestation of environmental racism present in zoning
    policies that allow for the siting of incinerators and
    petrochemical industries in communities similar to mine
    throughout the Country. We collectively urge this body to take
    proactive steps toward plastic reduction to alleviate the
    burden our communities face.
        Thank you for your time and for asking me to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Mx. Tandazo follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for bringing your
    insights from New Jersey.
        Our next witness is Kevin Sunday, the Director of
    Government Affairs at the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and
    Industry. Mr. Sunday, the microphone is yours.

      STATEMENT OF KEVIN SUNDAY, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
             PENNSYLVANIA CHAMBER OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

        Mr. Sunday. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Merkley,
    Ranking Member Mullin, members of the committee and staff. It
    is an honor to appear before you this morning.
        My name is Kevin Sunday, Director of Government Affairs
    with the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry. We are
    the largest broad-based business advocacy organization in the
    Commonwealth, representing nearly 10,000 members of all sizes
    and from all industrial and commercial sectors.
        Our State is the No. 2 producer of natural gas and the
    largest exporter of electricity in the U.S. We are a major
    producer of construction materials, food, medicine, and other
    life-sustaining products. Several of our members have important
    advances underway to establish a circular economy that
    minimizes water and plastics waste.
        As you deliberate on this issue, it is our position that
    policy must expand opportunities for all our citizens, advance
    sustainability and support economic growth. High energy prices
    are a regressive tax on the most vulnerable, and domestic
    energy development is paramount to addressing energy poverty
    here and abroad.
        One of the key criteria in defining an environmental
    justice community is the percentage of households or
    individuals in poverty. These communities want jobs. We must
    embrace and pursue tax and regulatory policy that does not
    drive opportunity away from these communities.
        The pandemic and recent supply chain shocks have made clear
    how important it is for Pennsylvania and our Nation to have a
    robust and reliable supply of energy and life-sustaining
    products. I am proud to represent a State that has dramatically
    improved the Nation's energy security and put it at the
    leaderboard for emissions reductions.
        Not only is Pennsylvania now measuring attainment due to
    increased use of domestic energy for all NAAQS, National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards, criteria pollutants, but our
    diverse energy portfolio has positioned us as the second
    leading State for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Shell Gas
    Development, which has the lowest methane intensity of any
    production basin in the world, according to the Clean Air Task
    Force, is estimated to be responsible for more than 60 percent
    of the total domestic greenhouse gas reductions since 2005,
    putting the United States ahead of the next four countries
    combined for aggregate emissions reductions.
        Our State's chemical industry supports more than $24
    billion in annual economic output, and 55,000 jobs. Like most
    North American chemical manufacturers, they rely on natural gas
    and petroleum feedstocks for 99 percent of the building blocks
    for more than 70,000 different products, including a variety of
    medical devices, products, and vaccines. These feedstocks are
    also used to produce ammonia and fertilizer, which are
    necessary to provide food to a growing global population.
        According to the USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, manufactured goods from recycled materials typically
    requires less energy than producing goods from virgin
    materials, and thereby reduces emissions. Plastics play a key
    role in reducing greenhouse emissions, and ensuring resilience
    from natural disasters. Our State's energy, plastics, and
    chemical industry are a major economic driver.
        It has not been the case that plastic production operations
    in our State have triggered environmental justice analyses and
    the associated enhanced public participation process, owing
    both to the geographies in which they operate and the nearby
    demographics. Nonetheless, there remains an extremely
    protective and stringent regulatory regime applicable to these
    facilities and operations.
        Our members are leaning in, from a refinery in southeastern
    Pennsylvania being recognized by an historic leader in the
    environmental justice movement for the company's community
    engagement to an innovative zero-landfill plastics recycling
    facility in Erie that is empowering the community to increase
    their own waste minimization efforts, an initiative that is
    being undertaken in partnership with community groups, the
    USEPA, and with support from legislators across the aisle,
    including Senators Casey and Fetterman.
        As State and Federal regulators define policy goals with
    respect to environmental justice, the implementation of these
    goals must come through clearly articulated and objective
    regulatory standards established by statute and through a
    rulemaking process that are applied fairly and allow
    communities to thrive. Pennsylvania's approach to environmental
    justice has to date established a process that has ensured
    public participation from impacted communities and a permitting
    process that has produced durable permitting decisions.
        I want to reiterate that disadvantaged communities are in
    need of investment and that investment will not come without
    tax and regulatory policy that encourages it.
        Let me close by saying that we at the Chamber strongly
    support the announcements from leaders on both sides of the
    aisle, including Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito, on
    legislation to enact meaningful permitting reform to drive more
    investment forward. Congress, in a bipartisan manner, has over
    the past several years implemented key regulatory and
    permitting reform provisions in defense, energy and
    infrastructure bills, and most recently the debt ceiling.
        There is widespread agreement on both sides of the aisle,
    by business and by labor, that we can pursue further
    environmental progress while cutting red tape. In fact, it is
    the only way we are going to.
        Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sunday follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Again, I will please ask folks to take
    your comments outside in the hallway. Thank you.
        We are going to dive into the questions. We are doing 5
    minutes apiece, so we can have multiple rounds as desired.
        Oh, I am sorry, Ms. Jackson.
        Senator Mullin. I promise he did not do that on purpose. We
    disagree on a lot of stuff, but he is not rude.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley. Let me back up here. Welcome. Ms. Jackson
    is the Director of Membership Development at Project 21's
    National Center for Public Policy and Research. Now you have
    the floor.

    STATEMENT OF DONNA JACKSON, DIRECTOR OF MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT,
       PROJECT 21, NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND RESEARCH

        Ms. Jackson. Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Mullin, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to
    testify today.
        My name is Donna Jackson and I am the Director of
    Membership Development for Project 21, the Black leadership
    network of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
    Project 21 is one of the oldest and largest Black conservative
    think tanks in the country.
        Our members come from all walks of life, from small
    business owners to law enforcement to assembly line workers to
    teachers to energy producers to clergy to health care workers.
    Most of us are not career activists, lawyers, or lobbyists, and
    more than a few of us actually live in the communities we hope
    to improve.
        We cover a wide range of issues, but our fundamental focus
    is lifting people out of poverty and dependence and into
    prosperity and self-sufficiency. I will make my main point up
    front and tell you that I think it is an overwhelmingly
    positive thing for struggling communities to have industrial
    facilities nearby, including plastics manufacturing. The high
    wage blue collar jobs that these employers provide are in many
    cases the best ones available for those without college
    degrees. If you look at the history of the creation of a Black
    middle class over the last century, it is these gateway jobs
    that lifted up millions of families and broke the cycle of
    poverty.
        I know that in my own family history I can point to
    relatives who worked at Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, U.S.
    Steel, and General Dynamics. Not only were they able to provide
    for their families, but they were also able to become
    homeowners and save for retirement.
        Perhaps most importantly, they were able to provide the
    educational opportunities that allowed the next generation to
    attend college and pursue various professions. As a result,
    their kids and now grandkids have never had to suffer even 1
    day of poverty or helplessness.
        To be blunt about it, it is downright crazy to suggest that
    my family would have been better off if these factories would
    have never allowed to be located near them. It is not just the
    direct jobs. Every big manufacturing facility supports many
    small businesses in the community, and quite a few of these
    vendors are minority owned. They also contribute to the tax
    base that pays for things like schools and police protection.
        None of that can happen without the local industrial base,
    whether it is a plastics plant or a refinery or an automaker.
        Now, we will hear a lot about the environmental dangers of
    living near or working in these facilities, including plastics
    plants. I think a sense of perspective is in order. American
    manufacturers are subjected to the most rigorous environmental
    standards in the world, including plastics plants, and
    industrial emissions have declined substantially over the last
    several decades.
        For every study claiming a cancer cluster or a statistical
    association with some other disease, there are others that find
    that low-income people living near these facilities are no
    worse off than comparably poor people in general.
        I think it is worth noting that the environmental justice
    activists who focus on weak correlations between industrial
    emissions and health impacts tend to ignore the undeniable and
    well documented improvements that come with the transition from
    poverty to well-paying employment.
        Beyond reduced illness and disease, good jobs tend to lead
    to stronger families and substantially lower rates of domestic
    and sexual violence and other traumas. As far as my relatives
    who worked for big manufacturers are concerned, the only
    difference I could see in their health was the benefit of
    having better medical care that comes with a good salary.
        I might add that several of my factory worker aunts and
    uncles and cousins are still with us and some have celebrated
    their 100th birthdays.
        In conclusion, the enemy is not trace emissions in the air
    and water from industrial activity. The enemy is poverty. That
    is why any attempt to shut down good industrial jobs will do a
    lot more harm than good in the communities and people that need
    these jobs the most.
        Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson.
        Now we will begin our questions. Ms. Jackson, you noted
    that a number of your relatives worked for different automobile
    manufacturers, and so forth, as I listened to that list. Do you
    see a difference sometimes between manufacturing that involves,
    for example, making cars, and the type of plastics production
    plant that has a low number of jobs and a high level of
    emissions?
        Ms. Jackson. I think that all the manufacturers are
    subjected to stringent regulations. Our EPA is actually doing a
    great job. If there is really this high correlation, and I do
    not pretend to be an expert, if it is really this damaging, we
    should have Michael Regan in here answering to why they are not
    doing their job.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Ms. Bradford, in the community you live in, if we were
    talking instead of about a plastics plant, we were talking
    about an automobile plant, would you have a different sense? Is
    there something particularly dangerous and damaging about the
    chemicals in the plastics plant?
        Ms. Bradford. Good question. First of all, I would say my
    concerns are about all emissions, regardless of the source and
    regardless of what is being produced. Just for today's topic,
    of course, it is plastics. I think with the research that we
    are seeing from independent researchers, from colleges and
    universities, from agencies around plastics, it is just
    becoming more shocking, the level of chemicals that are
    leaching.
        For example, the recent Defend Our Health report that
    studied 193 chemicals and found 150 of them leached into
    plastic bottles, that is a big deal. Now that we know more
    about everything from the production of plastics to drinking
    out of plastic bottles to the waste discharges into the water,
    so on and so forth, microplastics in the ocean, all of these
    are confounding factors that are leading to some serious health
    consequences, not just environmental.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Ms. Lavigne, you noted that you suffered autoimmune disease
    and you are going to a lot of funerals. Is there a higher
    correlation of devastating diseases near these plants than far
    away from these plants?
        Ms. Lavigne. Yes. I think there is higher, because it is
    like I said, we are called Cancer Alley. St. James and St. John
    Parish are the worst two parishes in this corridor between New
    Orleans and Baton Rouge, especially St. John Parish. They are
    suffering from chloroprene and the plant is called Denka
    Dupont. These people are suffering even worse than us.
        More people have been diagnosed with cancer, and more
    people are dying with cancer. St. James is next to St. John. We
    are dying with cancer.
        At one time, we had like two to three funerals in 1 week.
    Prior to me starting this work, I wondered why. Then I started
    doing the work and I found out about all the pollutants. We
    have 12 industries within a 10-mile radius. We are sandwiched
    in. People over there are sick, people have asthma, children
    are being born preemies, women are having miscarriages, and you
    can not breathe the air.
        Just like on one of the slides, you can see that yellow
    sulfur is open. When you pass by that plant, you get a whiff of
    that odor, and it goes in your nostrils and goes down to your
    throat, and your throat is irritated. My daughter had to move
    because she was always going to the doctor for sinus, ear
    infections. My other daughter had to move because she was
    always having headaches.
        I am still there. My three children are still there, the
    other three left. My neighbors, people are dying. Our little
    area is like a skeleton town, because our public officials
    allow industry to come in the Fifth District the most.
        Senator Merkley. I will submit for the record, if there is
    no objection, a number of articles that show a much higher
    concentration of cancer rates and other disease rates near
    these facilities than far away. I think your observed
    experience is very well documented in the scientific
    literature.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        I want to turn to Mx. Tandazo. You mentioned the burning of
    plastics as a strategy for disposal, and I think you said three
    incinerators in New Jersey. You also mentioned the New Jersey
    environmental law.
        Is that law a response to some of these challenges? Did it
    improve the situation?
        Mx. Tandazo. Yes, thank you for that question. Yes, the EJ
    law was a response to the environmental justice communities in
    New Jersey, particularly, and are in Ironbound similar to what
    Ms. Sharon has mentioned. Ironbound has five-plus industrial
    facilities, all of which are located within a five-mile radius
    next to an entire neighborhood.
        The folks and organizers that fought for the EJ law came
    out of these neighborhoods. It was a 20-year battle. Dr. Nicky
    Sheetz [phonetically] has been pushing for this law for
    cumulative impacts in the past in New Jersey. This landmark
    law, the rules just got passed this past Earth Week. Now we
    have regulations.
        Right now, we are preparing to see what is going to happen.
    It seems the EJ law is triggering a lot of facilities that are
    trying to be sited all over New Jersey, and facilities are
    trying to be sited in communities of color, particularly. They
    are not going to the suburbs, they are not going to the rural
    areas. They are going to urban settings, where communities of
    color live.
        We are preparing ourselves to fight these proposals. The EJ
    law now gives us the support to do that. The law will not allow
    any facility that adds any additional pollution to the area
    where they are trying to site.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        My time is expired, but when I come back, I am going to
    pick up where we left off. What I will want to understand is
    how is it that these incinerators continued operating after
    violating their air permits more than 1,400 times. Also, why
    they would get $60 million in renewable energy subsidies for
    the purpose of burning plastic and creating pollution?
        We will turn now to Co-Chair Senator Mullin.
        Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman.
        Ms. Bradford, in your testimony, did I understand you
    right, that you want to end all plastic manufacturing?
        Ms. Bradford. I said the plastics industry must be stopped.
        Senator Mullin. Does that mean end plastic manufacturing?
        Ms. Bradford. In my dream world, sure. I think that the----
        Senator Mullin. I do not mean to be condescending here, I
    just point out, what is going to replace your glasses?
        Ms. Bradford. I do know----
        Senator Mullin. Your glasses around your face. They are
    made of plastic.
        Ms. Bradford. Maybe. I do not know what they are made of.
        Senator Mullin. They are. I am just pointing out some
    things here, because I just want to be realistic when we are
    having conversations. When statements are made like this, I
    just want to open people's eyes to say, OK, it is easy to say,
    but what is the solution. Your water bottle in front of you.
        Ms. Bradford. This one.
        Senator Mullin. Yes. That plastic?
        Ms. Bradford. No.
        Senator Mullin. The lid is. That is plastic.
        Ms. Bradford. Right, so I would say to your question that I
    would first be concerned about single-use plastics. Then we can
    talk about alternatives.
        Senator Mullin. Your cell phone there. Is it plastic?
        Ms. Bradford. The case is. It is glass because----
        Senator Mullin. Are the components inside of it not
    plastic? The components made out of it is not plastic? They
    are. The water that you filled that water bottle up with, where
    did you fill that water bottle up out of?
        Ms. Bradford. A water filling station.
        Senator Mullin. It was delivered by a drink station that
    was plastic?
        Ms. Bradford. I didn't check.
        Senator Mullin. The edges are. The piping coming to it, now
    you have a couple choices with the piping. We could go back to
    using wood, but then you have to have to line it in chemical.
    Or we could go back and use lead because we used to have water
    piping that was lead. That was harmful to us. We could go back
    to galvanized, but galvanized rusts and had discoloration. We
    could go back to copper, but copper has to be mined, and
    everybody wants to stop mining in the U.S. You use plastic to
    deliver piping that you filled that water bottle up today.
        I point this out because the clothes you have on, I
    guarantee have plastic in it, the shoes you have on your feet,
    the soles of those shoes are plastic. We talk about any
    manufacturer, plastic manufacturing, and everybody in here
    cheered when you say that. Everybody here, it is an opinion on
    plastic as you said.
        If you want to end it then quit using it. It is kind of
    like, I do not want to shop at certain places right now because
    I do not agree with some of their policies. I choose not to do
    that. You can choose to not use plastic, do your work. If you
    believe it, then live it that way. If not, then tell me what
    the solution is.
        Mr. Sunday, can you manufacture a car today without
    plastic? We talked about manufacturing, the Chairman brought up
    manufacturing cars, is it as safe. The components that go into
    the cars today, can you do that without plastic?
        Mr. Sunday. No, Senator, and increasingly so with the new
    mileage mandates, you increasingly need to use automotive
    components that are plastics derived.
        Senator Mullin. We wouldn't have manufacturing today,
    modern manufacturing, if we didn't have plastics, correct?
        Mr. Sunday. Correct.
        Senator Mullin. Ms. Jackson, do you agree with that
    statement?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes.
        Senator Mullin. What is the alternative for manufacturing?
    The Democrats talk about middle-class wages. Middle-class wages
    typically come directly from manufacturing. What is it that we
    are manufacturing that does not have plastic in it today?
        Ms. Jackson. Nothing, and you know what? It would increase
    the cost of everything if we turned to an alternative and it
    would disproportionately impact low-income people who have
    lower incomes. It would be another regressive tax on the poor.
        Senator Mullin. According to your testimony, Ms. Jackson,
    it sounds like you are saying that the environmental justice
    agenda does more harm than good for low-income families. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes. You know, I have the unique opportunity
    to see both sides, when the industry comes in the area and when
    it does not. As an auditor, I worked on Nissan North America.
    Nissan North America moved to Smyrna, Tennessee, where it built
    the largest automotive manufacturing plant. The transformation
    was astonishing. It went from a community that was poor to a
    community that U.S. World News voted one of the top 10 places
    to retire.
        You had poor people in areas that were poor that became
    middle-class. You had middle-class people that became upper
    middle-class, and a lot of upper middle-class people that
    became affluent. They have attractions, they have amenities,
    they have housing, affordability. The amount of prosperity in
    that area has resonated out three counties, three counties.
        I have also had the opportunity to see when an industrial,
    and that wouldn't happen if you do not have an industrial
    complex moving into the area where you are talking about high
    economics.
        I have also see the other side, where all of a sudden you
    have deteriorating buildings, empty storefronts, dilapidated
    housing, people standing on street corners, families that are
    broken.
        We need to balance the fact that people's lives need
    economic upward mobility. We can not just say, we are going to
    take out an industry and leave people poorer than they were.
    Poverty causes the worst health care in this Country. Poverty
    is the one that destroys lives, it destroys health, it creates
    trauma.
        We need to make sure that when we are talking about these
    issues, we take into account the human loss of life, not just
    the environmental impacts.
        Senator Mullin. Thank you. Thanks for your indulgence.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, for your
    persistent focus on the plastics problem that we face.
        Mx. Tandazo, the U.S. plastics recycling rate is less than
    10 percent, once you actually put it in the blue bin. For
    single-use plastics, about 2 percent of the feedstock is
    recycled. The rest is all new. The industry is recommending
    that as an alternative, we go to high heat waste disposal
    facilities, like pyrolysis facilities.
        Do you have a view on what dangers those facilities pose
    for adjacent communities?
        Mx. Tandazo. Thank you for the question. Yes, those are
    what I would consider schemes to deceive this body and anybody
    into thinking that they are actually doing some good. If you
    are burning plastic, you are still emitting the toxics and the
    chemicals. The chemicals that are used to make the plastic are
    still being burned. That happens whether you combust them in
    incinerators or you gas-fire through pyrolysis and
    gasification.
        It does not matter which avenue you choose to process the
    plastic, it is still going to emit some sort of chemicals. What
    is important to think about that is, when we are thinking of
    where these so-called alternative recycling plastic-to-fuel
    industries are going to be sited at, I will most definitely bet
    you it is going to go to low-income communities of color, where
    the industry is already taking control over the zoning laws, so
    they have the support from municipalities to actually go ahead
    and continue to re-site it in these places.
        That is why the EJ law is important, because the EJ law
    would allow communities themselves to hold the corporations
    accountable, actually through a process to prove that their
    operations are not going to harm our communities.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Ms. Lavigne, I am getting ready to re-introduce my REDUCE
    Act bill, that puts a 20 cent per pound fee on the sale of new
    plastic that is destined for single-use products, to try to
    help put that 2 percent number where there is so little
    recycled plastic being put into single-use plastic.
        The plastics industry was not very helpful in that regard,
    and ran ads against my bill in Washington with images of things
    like child car seats and bicycle helmets. I am not really sure
    that those are single-use items in real life. I am interested
    in your view on how the proliferation of single-use, throwaway
    plastic items implicates communities like yours, not only in
    the U.S. but around the world.
        Ms. Lavigne. I think we can gradually get away from so much
    plastics. I think we have too much, and the health effects of
    making these plastics are killing the people, are making us
    sick, giving us cancer. When I was diagnosed with autoimmune
    hepatitis, I didn't know where it was coming from until I did
    my research. It said it came from industrial pollutants. I live
    in a cesspool of pollution.
        I believe that that is where it came from. I feel we can
    gradually go back to the old days when we didn't have so much
    plastic, go back to glass. When I was a little girl, we didn't
    have so much plastic. We weren't sick.
        Maybe we can get together, find solutions, find strategies,
    sit at the table and discuss these things. I would like to be a
    part of that discussion, because we need to find ways to reduce
    so much plastic, and also stop the industries from coming into
    poor communities to make these plastics.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, there are some pretty
    reasonable minimum standards we should start pushing toward.
    One of them was put forward at the Oslo Oceans Conference by
    the European Company Unilever, which has pledged, I think
    starting in 2026, to take out of the world a pound of plastic
    for every pound of plastic that it puts out into the world
    through packaging and through products, to go plastics neutral,
    if you will.
        If a company as big as Unilever can do that, that should
    not be asking too much for American companies. This is an
    announced policy. I think it would have a very positive effect.
    In fact, it would create a market for getting plastic out of
    the world. I think it would be particularly helpful in poorer
    countries to have an international market of waste plastic that
    people can take out of their communities and get paid for
    cleaning up their communities.
        There are plenty of levels of engagement. Clearly, if a
    company as big as Unilever can make a commitment like that,
    that is not an unreasonable ask.
        Thanks for your attention to this problem.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Sullivan?
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague,
    Senator Whitehouse, on this topic of plastics and ocean
    cleanup, he and I have been tag-teaming for a number of years
    on the Save Our Seas Act 1.0, the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, which
    the congressional Research Service called the most
    comprehensive ocean cleanup, ocean debris legislation ever
    passed in the history of the Congress.
        It was very bipartisan, Trump Administration, now Biden
    Administration. We are implementing that.
        There is a lot of bipartisan work going on in this area of
    plastics and cleanup, particularly for our oceans, which I
    think literally everybody agrees with. I am looking forward to
    continuing to work with him and this committee on the next
    phase of that, which I think is very important.
        The title of this hearing, though, I want to dig into the
    topic of environmental justice a little bit more from our
    witnesses. In my State, the great State of Alaska, there is a
    real double standard on environmental justice. The Biden
    Administration talks about how their report on environmental
    justice listed a number of projects that ``will not benefit a
    community,'' including fossil fuel production, pipeline
    development, even possibly roads.
        This is ridiculously naive, in my view. What I worry about
    sometimes is when we talk about environmental justice, the
    Native people, the indigenous people of my State always get
    left out of the Biden Administration's views. Maybe for the
    witnesses, should not environmental justice include indigenous
    people in Alaska? Does everybody agree with that?
        Everybody is nodding. That is not a trick question, it is
    just a pretty basic question. I think the answer is yes, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Yet, whether it is the King Cove Road, that is a road that
    would connect the community of King Cove, it is a Native
    community in Alaska, where they have been trying to build a 12-
    mile, single lane dirt road to an airport that would save
    lives, this Administration is now opposing it. Secretary
    Haaland, every radical lower 48 environmental group opposes
    that. That is not environmental justice.
        We had a bill of mine, the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans
    getting land, Native allotments to Alaska Natives who served in
    Vietnam. Secretary Haaland will not implement that at all
    because radical lower 48 environmental groups do not want
    Native Americans who served in Vietnam when most people were
    avoiding service to get land.
        Is that environmental justice? Hell, no. That is not
    environmental justice.
        The Ambler Road, which this Administration has now
    reversed, that was supported by a number of indigenous
    communities in Alaska, would create jobs.
        My point, Mr. Chairman, is there is a lot of talk about
    environmental justice. When it comes to Alaska Native people,
    indigenous people in my State, almost 20 percent of the
    population, this Administration targets them so often. Their
    claims of environmental justice are just, I do not know. They
    are really harming the people of my State, particularly the
    Native people, the indigenous people.
        I do not want an exception for environmental justice.
    Shouldn't be an exception. Do you guys agree? This is not a
    controversial statement. Indigenous people in Alaska should be
    getting the same benefits that everybody else does under this
    rubric of environmental justice. They do not.
        I am just going to let that stand here, Mr. Chairman. It is
    a big issue for me. It is hypocritical by the White House, by
    the way.
        Let me just ask a general question. Mr. Sunday, Ms.
    Jackson, and again, I worked hard on the issue of plastics and
    pollution and making sure we do not pollute our oceans. One
    thing I do worry about is that if we crack on plastics here,
    the production of that, it is just going to drive it overseas
    to China, places that do not have strong environmental
    standards like we do.
        Is that a concern, and should we be making sure that any
    action or legislation we take does not have the perverse impact
    of driving operations and jobs to China where their
    environmental standards on the production of plastics are not
    nearly as high as ours? Do you have a view on that, Mr. Sunday?
        Mr. Sunday. Yes, Senator, thanks for the question.
        It is the right perspective. As I mentioned in my opening
    statement, the U.S. greenhouse gas emission reductions are
    greater than the next four countries combined. China's is
    greater than all the OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-
    operation and Development, nations.
        Senator Sullivan. China's is going up the other way, and
    ours are going down.
        Mr. Sunday. Right.
        Senator Sullivan. The revolution in the production of
    natural gas, right?
        Mr. Sunday. Yes, sir.
        Senator Sullivan. Ms. Jackson, do you have a view on that?
    We do not want plastic production going to the dirtiest
    producer, which is China, and then taking our jobs away. Do you
    have a view on that?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes. It is our economy that is always being
    attacked, even though we are the least of polluters. China is
    the greatest polluter, but yet they are being able to get the
    benefit of when we attack our economy, when we kill our jobs,
    we push them over to the biggest polluter.
        If you really believe that plastics are a danger to the
    planet, it should be a danger no matter where it is produced.
        Senator Sullivan. Correct.
        Ms. Jackson. Somehow only Americans are being penalized.
        Senator Sullivan. We do not want to kill jobs and then send
    production to China that will pollute the environment globally
    even worse?
        Ms. Jackson. I think it just goes to the narrative that we
    do not really believe this. It is this kind of where we want to
    just signal that we are good people. If you care about people,
    you care about all people. If you believe that plastics are
    harming individuals, why harm other people overseas? How come
    they are expendable? It should not be that way.
        Again, this Country is subject to the most rigorous
    regulations. Those companies are actually meeting those
    standards. If they are not, why isn't Michael Regan in here
    talking about why we are not making sure that our companies are
    not adhering to those standards? Nobody really believes that.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        We are going to have additional 5-minutes rounds as people
    would like.
        One of the things I find interesting about the plastics
    conversation is when we identify some of the significant harms
    that have developed as the production of plastics has
    increased. It is often pointed out that, well, there are
    plastics in almost everything. This is pretty accurate. Nylon
    is a plastic in our clothes, Dacron, et cetera.
        When you have harmful effects, it isn't the right answer to
    say, well, there is nothing that can be done. One of the
    conversations is, how do we distinguish between necessary uses
    of plastic and those that are not necessary. Maybe we can
    reduce those harmful effects by reducing how much we produce.
    When we produce it, how do we produce it in a way that is less
    harmful to the communities in which it is located? How do we
    reduce the emissions and reduce the cancer and the disease
    rates there?
        When it is used in our consumer economy, how do we reclaim
    it in a fashion that it does not end up in our rivers and our
    oceans, affecting our ecosystems? How do we reduce the amount
    of microplastics? I can tell you in the health of our children,
    having the effect that we now consume the equivalent of a
    credit card of plastic a week through microplastics in our food
    and our water, that is a very serious health issue.
        I want to encourage a conversation that is based in reality
    that there are real issues, that plastics have real roles. We
    may be able to work together through this set of hearings to
    develop a set of ideas on how we can keep the essential and
    necessary roles but eliminate the unnecessary, or at least
    eliminate the side effects or reduce them.
        That is the conversation we are engaged in. Ms. Bradford,
    you mentioned single-use plastics. Is that an area you think is
    kind of ripe for us to target to try to reduce?
        Ms. Bradford. Yes, for sure. We had human existence and
    efficiencies prior to single-use plastics. We can have that
    without them, after them. To the point that you were making, I
    think it is the responsibility of every industry in this
    Country to come together and figure out what actually makes
    sense. Yes, we can not power down everything immediately when
    it comes to plastics.
        There are some medical uses, and of course, I use them in
    my lab. We have not always. There are many ways to go back to
    less dangerous, less harmful plastic or non-plastic material.
        Also, we know from recent reports that have come out that
    there are alternatives to a lot of the chemicals that are being
    used that because maybe they are cheaper are not being
    replaced. We need industries, the petrochemical and plastics
    industries, to replace a lot of the chemicals that they are
    using.
        Senator Merkley. One of the chemicals that gets significant
    attention in plastics are endocrine disruptors. Is that
    something you are familiar with?
        Ms. Bradford. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Can you explain that for us?
        Ms. Bradford. Yes, so when you think about the endocrine
    system, you are talking about hormones. Hormones regulate a lot
    throughout the body. Essentially, plastics are, their chemicals
    are disrupting the natural processes of your body. That can
    lead to autoimmune diseases or dysfunction of the kidney,
    liver, central nervous system. Endocrine disruptors have
    several different negative effects and can be carcinogenic as
    well.
        Senator Merkley. There are various studies that have
    suggested that there is a link between plastics which we end up
    inhaling or eating and the effects upon breast cancer, prostate
    cancer, and for that matter sperm production. Should Americans
    be concerned about these types of health impacts?
        Ms. Bradford. I will say, I would be concerned across the
    board with all these things. It is only now that a lot of
    researchers are thinking through not just the historical ways
    in which we thought maybe diabetes or cardiovascular disease or
    kidney disease develops, but what role does plastic now play in
    that. We are seeing that in our Country, we have a lot of
    chronic diseases that we have not gotten under control, that we
    are still seeing increased diagnoses for people. You do have to
    start to wonder, and hopefully we will see more money for
    research in the areas of determining the role that plastics
    plays in disease development.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        I want to turn next to Mx. Tandazo, to the conversation
    about the new law in New Jersey. Is it kind of the bottom line
    that better regulation can reduce some of the harmful effects?
        Mx. Tandazo. Yes, that is right.
        Senator Merkley. Is it a combination of Federal regulation
    and State regulation?
        Mx. Tandazo. I think it will vary depending on the
    situation we are talking about. At the State level it works for
    New Jersey, because it is a small State and it is fairly easy
    to regulate and have larger oversight over the State. At the
    Federal level, it would get a little more complicated because
    of the different zoning policies, the different municipalities
    all having different things.
        Senator Merkley. The incinerators have violated their air
    permits more than 1,400 times since 2004. I think those air
    permits would have been State air permits, am I correct about
    that? Those are State enforcement?
        Mx. Tandazo. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Do we need better Federal regulation, to
    Ms. Jackson's point about, if we are concerned about States and
    places that are violating the emissions or have very high
    emissions, do we need more Federal supervision of how States
    enforce these toxic emissions from plastic production?
        Mx. Tandazo. I think there is an opportunity to do
    something at the Federal level. I think it would definitely be
    more efficient to do something State by State. I think the
    Federal Government can support by emphasizing different
    procedures and regulatory systems that can be implemented in
    different laws.
        It is possible to do it at the Federal level. President
    Biden just signed an Executive Order for Environmental Justice
    this past Earth Month. It would be incredible if we can pass
    that Executive Order into law. Then we would have more Federal
    oversight over not just polluting industries that work at the
    State level, but also polluting industries that work at the
    Federal level. A lot of them do not have full oversight by the
    States, but they have Federal legislation, too.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. We have been joined by Senator
    Markey of Massachusetts.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
    important hearing.
        Here is what I know. Japanese women in Japan contract
    breast cancer at only one-third the rate of Japanese women once
    they move to the United States, and their daughters are growing
    up their whole lives. In other words, there is something in
    American culture that affects those Japanese women once they
    get here. Within the first generation, a Japanese American
    woman has breast cancer at twice the rate as a women of
    Japanese origin in Japan.
        We are doing it to ourselves. Is it in our food? Is it in
    our air? Is it toxics? What are we doing to ourselves? What is
    it that is going inside of the people in our Country that has
    their genes misspell, so that now there is a disease which is
    induced in individuals?
        We know historically that toxics have been identified as
    one of those real culprits. We know that all of you have spent
    your lives working in those issues. Mx. Tandazo, can you speak
    to some specific cost that you have seen as a result of plastic
    waste incinerators?
        Mx. Tandazo. Yes, we can talk about the costs to the
    ratepayers and the costs to their health. New Jersey folks in
    urban communities already face a lot of socioeconomic
    challenges that come from lack of access to proper health care,
    economic resources, healthy jobs.
        Senator Markey. I will come back to you.
        Let me come over to you, Ms. Lavigne. Cancer Alley, people
    are 50 times more likely on average to get sick than other
    people in America. Again, that is kind of an analogy over to
    the Japanese women in Japan, Japanese women here. You are a
    good example of what happens when there is some proximity.
        Can you expand upon that, and what do you think are the
    causes of it and what the remedy has to be?
        Ms. Lavigne. I think that when you come into Cancer Alley,
    you are susceptible to something. I had a young girl from New
    York who came to stay with me for about 5 months, and she
    became ill from breathing the air. She said when she wakes up
    in the morning, she had a headache sometimes. Then she started
    to feel dizzy or lightheaded. She is not from here, and for her
    to experience that, I can imagine what other people coming to
    Cancer Alley will experience there.
        I always ask people to come to the area where I live, next
    to Donaldsonville, that is where the hotels are, and spend a
    night at the hotel and wake up the next morning and tell me if
    you smell something.
        Senator Markey. Yes. When I was growing up in Malden,
    Massachusetts, I lived in Ward Two. I still live in Ward Two in
    Malden, Massachusetts. Every city has a sacrifice ward. The
    Malden River is in Ward Two, three blocks from my house.
        My mother would always say to me, Eddie, whatever you do,
    do not swim in the Malden River. It was black with a pre-Jimi
    Hendrix purple haze over it. I knew I wasn't Tom Sawyer and
    Huck Finn on the Mississippi, reading those books, when your
    mother says, do not swim in the river three blocks from your
    house. It was the chemical companies, the coal companies, they
    all just dumped it all in the Malden River.
        You live in that ward in Louisiana.
        Ms. Lavigne. Yes.
        Senator Markey. You live in the petrochemical sacrifice
    zone.
        Ms. Lavigne. I sure do.
        Senator Markey. Every city has that ward, where everyone
    thinks they can put all of those industries.
        Ms. Lavigne. I do not think that should be. I think we have
    the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. I do not
    think that we should be a sacrifice.
        Senator Markey. Beyond the dollars, the human costs, the
    health care costs, can you just expand on that a little?
        Ms. Lavigne. Yes. I think industry should pay for my
    illnesses. They made me sick.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Ms. Lavigne. You are welcome.
        Senator Markey. Do you agree with that, Ms. Jackson?
        Ms. Jackson. I think that I feel sorry for the illnesses
    that she is suffering. At the same time, I know that there are,
    some studies agree and some studies do not agree. I feel sorry
    and I hope that she feels better. That is all I can say. There
    are lots of studies out there, some say there is a direct
    correlation; some do not. I think we do not know enough
    information to be able to tell.
        Senator Markey. At least from my perspective, I think there
    is a pretty clear correlation that has been established. I know
    up in Woburn, Massachusetts, when I was a young Congressman,
    this mother came to me with her little boy, Jimmy. He had
    leukemia. What she had done was then go door to door to door in
    her ward and she found another five children with leukemia, all
    within three or four blocks.
        I helped to bring in the EPA to do the big study. It
    eventually became a movie called A Civil Action, that kind of
    spotlighted this Woburn case. All those children died. We were
    able to come in there and just make sure we cleaned up that
    site. They were dumping all of those chemicals, Monsanto and
    others, into the ground and into the water. Young children were
    being exposed to it.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Markey, can you stay for another
    5-minute session?
        Senator Markey. Yes, I am sorry. I am sorry to run over.
        Thank you all so much for your courage in standing up. We
    just have to do something about this. This is a crisis in our
    Country.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Mullin?
        Senator Mullin. I just want to followup with Ms. Bradford.
    You stated you are against single-use plastics. What specific
    are you pointing at for single use? What products are you
    talking about?
        Ms. Bradford. Definitely straws, definitely plastic
    bottles. I will not say anything else because I can not think
    of anything else right now.
        Senator Mullin. Are you for recycling, and advanced
    recycling?
        Ms. Bradford. No, because it does not work and it does not
    happen.
        Senator Mullin. Well, then, in your case and everything is
    single use at that point. If you are not for recycling, then
    you can not say you are against single-use and you are OK with
    everything else.
        Ms. Bradford. I am for facts, and I think only 9 percent
    worldwide are actually recycled.
        Senator Mullin. That is why I say that we should focus more
    on recycling. If you can tell me you are for recycling, then
    maybe we can work to something. A while ago you did say you
    were for, you were not against all of it, because you have to
    be realistic. You are against single use, because that is what
    the Chairman asked you.
        If you are for, or against single use, then you must be for
    recycling.
        Ms. Bradford. No. It does not work.
        Senator Mullin. Well, then, that does not make any sense at
    all. You can not exist without plastic today. We have already
    pointed that out.
        I do not know what the alternative is. We talk about this
    all the time. It is like Ms. Lavigne mentioned that glass is an
    alternative. If you remember, sir, at our last hearing we had
    on plastic, for the record I submitted the McKinsey and Company
    study that showed that actually plastic has a less carbon
    footprint than glass.
        Where are we moving toward? What is it that we want to look
    to? If we are still for the middle class, we got to have
    manufacturing. We pointed that out, that we can not do without
    it. We are against it, but yet everybody here is using it. I
    just see a lot of people having a thought process because it
    sounds good, but no one is actually living by what you believe.
        Ms. Bradford. I do not have any single-use plastics in my
    house.
        Senator Mullin. Do you know that for a fact?
        Ms. Bradford. I know that for a fact. I go----
        Senator Mullin. What do you not have? What products? You
    just mentioned water bottles.
        Ms. Bradford. I do not have water bottles like that in my
    house.
        Senator Mullin. Most of these water bottles actually
    recycle, including the one that I am having.
        Ms. Bradford. I do participate in recycling, I just know
    that it does not work internationally. It is not adding up.
        Senator Mullin. Well, I would suggest you maybe doing your
    homework a little bit more when you come up here and you start
    talking about this stuff that you actually understand what it
    is the impact that you are talking about.
        Ms. Bradford. I do my homework. I do understand the impact.
    I know I am wasting my time recycling because most of it is not
    recycled. That is because of the industry and the fact that
    plastic is in everything is because the industry forced us to
    have it.
        Senator Mullin. Well, then quit using plastics.
        Ms. Bradford. The industry is just not making that
    possible.
        Senator Mullin. Well, if you feel that way, then quit----
        Ms. Bradford. I do. I just told you, I do not have single-
    use plastic bottles in my house. I do what I can.
        Senator Mullin. Hold on a second. You are against all
    plastic but you have plastic all around you. If you are against
    plastic, then do not use it. Live by what you are saying. There
    is a lot of people around here that I disagree with, but if you
    would live it----
        Ms. Bradford. I do live it.
        Senator Mullin [continuing]. I respect it--ma'am, you do
    not, because you have plastic on your face, you have plastic on
    the water bottle, you have----
        Ms. Bradford. I do not own companies to create these
    things. I cannot make these things. Until they are available,
    we are stuck with some things. I do what I can.
        Senator Mullin. Do you believe in, do you believe that we
    should have solar systems, or not solar systems, but we should
    have solar panels on our house?
        Ms. Bradford. I am here to talk about what is on the
    agenda.
        Senator Mullin. I mean, they are.
        Ms. Bradford. They are also not single use.
        Senator Mullin. Neither is this bottle. Let's go to Mr.
    Sunday. In your opening statement, you mentioned Shell Gas was
    a big reason why United States have led the world in CO2
    reduction, because the energy and natural gas liquids in their
    manufacturing is less emission intense than overseas
    manufacturing, especially compared to countries like China, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Sunday. Yes, sir.
        Senator Mullin. Can you explain a little bit more about
    that?'
        Mr. Sunday. Yes. As I mentioned, the Clean Air Task Force
    looked at the methane intensities and Shell Gas in Appalachia
    has the lowest leakage of any basin in the world. The increased
    use of natural gas produced in that region, including
    Pennsylvania, has been estimated to be about 60 percent of the
    reason why we led the world in reducing emissions as a Country
    since 2005.
        Big picture, the issue is how do you reduce emissions, keep
    costs down and be reliable. That is the long-term challenge.
    The short-term challenge is every country out there that is
    relying on Russian oil and gas, we should be doing everything
    we can to get our energy over there because it is also going to
    be used more sustainably.
        I can guarantee you, and you can see the Boston Globe
    feature from a couple years ago when an LNG tanker came into
    Boston, when we got Shell Gas in northeast Pennsylvania, the
    most prolific in the world. I definitely want the producer
    standards in my standards versus Putin's regime. We saw what
    that led to.
        Senator Mullin. You know what the difference between the
    two standards are?
        Mr. Sunday. It is an order of magnitude. I mean, it is so
    much so that even if you count for transportation across a
    tanker, Shell Gas in the U.S. shipped across the seas is more
    sustainable than pipe coming in from Russia.
        Senator Mullin. They're not using electricity in the ships
    to bring them here? Or they have combustible motors in them?
        Mr. Sunday. Right.
        Senator Mullin. That is what I was thinking. Trucks to get
    them from Point A to Point B, since we can not build pipelines
    in the east coast right now.
        Mr. Sunday. Right.
        Senator Mullin. With that, sir, I yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        The Chair of the committee has arrived, Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Before I start today, I want to thank all of you for
    joining us. I want to thank our witnesses for coming and
    speaking with us, sharing some ideas with us, responding to our
    questions.
        People sometimes ask me, what is environmental justice all
    about anyway? I just met with a bunch of students earlier today
    from all over Delaware, Future Farmers of America. One of the
    things we talked about was, believe it or not, Matthew 25.
    Matthew 25 goes something like this, when I was hungry, did you
    feed me, when I was thirsty, did you give me to drink, when I
    was naked, did you cloth me, when I was sick and in prison, did
    you visit me, when I was a stranger in your land, did you
    welcome me.
        I think we have a moral obligation to the least of these in
    our society. I think what environmental justice is all about is
    just how do we meet that moral obligation to treat other people
    the way we want to be treated. It is just that simple, the
    Golden Rule, treat other people the way we want to be treated.
        It is an issue that it turns out environmental justice
    invokes quite a bit of passion, as evidenced by the hearing in
    this room today. We meet in this room, not every day of the
    week, but throughout the week, throughout the year. There are
    oftentimes great passions that are vented in this room, as you
    might imagine.
        Environmental justice is also an issue that invokes strong
    emotions that come from the experiences that we have lived in
    our lives and have felt the impact, in some cases, of disparate
    government policies.
        I thank our chairman, Chairman Merkley, I want to thank our
    Ranking Member, Senator Mullin, for inviting you to convene
    here to give you a chance to share your thoughts with us and to
    give us a chance to ask some questions of you. I believe that
    it is incredibly important to create productive space, if you
    will, for having an important discussion like the one here
    today.
        I will close by saying, I will ask a question, we need to
    treat each other with kindness. We need to treat one another
    the way we wanted to be treated. That is what I try to do, as
    Chairman of this committee. I am sure that is the way Senator
    Merkley has chaired this committee hearing today.
        A couple of questions, if I may. Going down the list first
    of all, Sharon, you go first. Where are you from?
        Ms. Lavigne. I am from St. James, Louisiana.
        Senator Carper. Welcome.
        Ms. Lavigne. Thank you.
        Ms. Bradford. I'm Angelle Bradford, I split my time between
    Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
        Senator Carper. Yes, please.
        Mx. Tandazo. I am originally Ecuadorian, but currently
    living in Jersey City, New Jersey.
        Senator Carper. OK.
        Ms. Jackson. I am from Maryland, Kensington.
        Senator Carper. OK, a neighbor.
        Ms. Jackson. Not originally from here. San Diego,
    Nashville, several places around the Country.
        Senator Carper. I like the way you say Nashville.
        Please?
        Mr. Sunday. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
        Senator Carper. All right. Good to see you.
        In April of this year, our President issued an Executive
    Order on environmental justice that directs Federal agencies to
    take steps to address cumulative impacts on environmental
    justice communities. That includes meaningful public
    participation in agency decisionmaking. I always have been a
    strong supporter of engaging with the communities early and
    often.
        We had a great hearing here on permitting reform just a
    couple of weeks ago. Interestingly, the business community was
    the one that was most strong, the strongest on the idea that as
    we move forward with permitting reform, we have to reach out to
    communities that are at risk and follow through early on, get
    their opinion early on. I was very encouraged by that.
        Here is my question. What would meaningful engagement look
    like for each of the communities you have worked with? What
    would meaningful engagement look like for each of the
    communities that you have worked with? How would you like to
    see agencies update their procedures in accordance with the
    Executive Order to foster more meaningful discussions with
    communities?
        Ms. Bradford, would you answer that first, please? What
    does meaningful engagement look like for each of the
    communities you have worked with?
        Ms. Bradford. Meaningful engagement, I think first things
    first, would be transparency. I do not want to say education,
    because we are not dumb in Louisiana, we understand a lot when
    it comes to environmental policies that exist. There are so
    many different agencies involved, it would be really helpful if
    at the Federal level there was more engagement in New Orleans
    and Baton Rouge and in between, all along the Gulf Coast, as it
    pertains to the different commenting periods and procedures for
    decisions around permits for these plants and for plastics in
    particular.
        Senator Carper. OK.
        Ms. Bradford. I think another meaningful thing would be,
    and I often hear the pushback around, well, you can not prove
    this, Exxon pollution led to this, and just really starting
    from a place of understanding that our Country does not have a
    lot of things that other countries do. A lot of these studies
    do admit, being low-income, in poverty, does impact these
    things. Not having universal health care and access to health
    care that is not connected to your job, but also pollution. All
    of this comes together to lead to the outcomes that we see. We
    know that. We are not trying to say, and we need to make sure
    the communities understand that their voice still matters, that
    we can not silence them by saying, oh, you can not prove this
    was because of this, therefore what you are saying is not true.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am.
        Sharon, how do you pronounce your last name?
        Ms. Lavigne. Lavigne.
        Senator Carper. Lavigne, thank you. Same question, if you
    would. What would meaningful engagement look like for each of
    the communities that you have worked with, please?
        Ms. Lavigne. I do not understand the question.
        Senator Carper. Let me go on, Chris, same question if you
    will. We will come back to you, Sharon. Chris, any thoughts?
        Mx. Tandazo. Yes, definitely. I think I would like to
    mention the Environmental Justice law again, because the
    Environmental Justice law actually has meaningful engagement.
    The Environmental Justice law in New Jersey actually has
    meaningful engagement as part of the policy.
        The way it happens is when a facility wants to site a new,
    create a new industry in our community, they have to go through
    a process through the DEP. The DEP then analyzes whether this
    facility is going to have any sort of additional polluting,
    contributing more toxic pollutants to the community. Then it
    calls for a public hearing. The public hearing involves
    community members. The DEP is responsible, not the community,
    the DEP is responsible for holding community hearings in which
    they invite the facility that has the air permits, and they
    invite the community.
        The community then hears the permits and they decide, this
    is what we want, or we do not want this. If we want it, we want
    it with certain, we want it to be healthy in certain ways. Then
    the DEP goes into it, analyzes that. Then the facility has to
    do an environmental justice report back to the DEP to make sure
    they are not actually adding any pollutants.
        If they pass then they get approval for their permit. If
    they do not pass, the air permits get denied. Then they do not
    get constructed.
        This is how the EJ law has made sure the community is 100
    percent involved in the entire process of what facilities are
    going to go into our communities.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
        Sharon, we are going to come back to you, and I am going to
    pronounce your name correctly. Here is a new question. Through
    your testimony, you shared with us the impact that decades of
    pollution have had on your community. Is it St. James Parish?
        Ms. Lavigne. Yes.
        Senator Carper. St. James Parish in Louisiana. Including
    the disparate health outcomes for communities of color. IN
    order to support the Louisiana Department of Environmental
    Quality in addressing these disparities, the EPA recently
    announced a grant to the State agency funded through the
    American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act that would
    set up an air monitoring project in St. James Parish, your
    parish.
        What kind of impact will this EPA grant have on you and on
    your community in St. James Parish? Additionally, are there
    other actions or engagement efforts from EPA that have been
    effective in helping your community in St. James Parish?
        Ms. Lavigne. In my community in St. James Parish, the
    people do not have a voice. The politicians make the decisions.
    They do not follow protocol. We get the bulk of the impact of
    industry and the pollution.
        If the people had a say-so in what is going on in our
    community, I do not think any of this would be happening to us.
    In Congress, we need to involve the people in making these
    decisions, the people that live in those communities that are
    impacted.
        If you want to see what is going on, Congress, you need to
    come to the local communities and see what is going on for
    themselves before they make these decisions. It is killing the
    people. I think we should have people's lives protected instead
    of industry being protected. That is what is happening in St.
    James.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. You have been very
    generous with it, and I appreciate it.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        We are going to go to Senator Markey, and we can come back
    to you if you would like to ask more questions.
        Senator Carper. Go ahead, Eddie.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        When Ms. Lavigne says that you are 50 times more likely to
    get cancer in Cancer Alley, that is a correlation. That is
    twice as much, 50 times as likely to get cancer if you are
    living in those areas.
        Ms. Lavigne. Yes.
        Senator Markey. Renewable energy is displacing fossil fuel
    energy in Texas and Louisiana and States all across the
    Country. The fossil fuel industry is actually looking for a new
    market for their product, and it is plastics that they are
    looking at, where they will use their fossil fuels. When we see
    an increase in plastic production, it does not benefit the
    communities. It actually benefits the oil and gas companies.
        Ms. Lavigne. That is right.
        Senator Markey. The bottom line is that we have a plastic
    bottle right here, they could use another substance to make the
    bottle. They used plastics. You really can not do a lot about
    it. You have plastic in your house, you have plastics right
    here on the dais. We do not get options. That is the problem.
        In the same way that the auto industry didn't want to build
    in seat belts. Are you not going to drive? No, you have to
    drive to work. The auto industry didn't want to put in air
    bags. Are you not going to drive to work or to school? No, you
    have to drive. You want the safeguards, but the auto industry
    didn't want to put it in.
        It took regulations in order to make sure that we would
    have those safeguards in place. By the way, the mining
    industry, they didn't want to put in safeguards for the
    workers. Black lung disease, you just have to run the risk. No
    protections.
        We can see the whole trend here in terms of how these
    sacrifice zones are created here by those plants. Can you just
    expand a little bit more, Ms. Bradford, on your experience on
    this issues?
        Ms. Bradford. Expand on----
        Senator Markey. On the toxicology-related studies that do
    show the correlation to disease, when a human body is exposed
    to these toxic substances.
        Ms. Bradford. Yes. There was a paper published late last
    year by Dr. Terrell and Dr. St. Julien around air pollution
    being linked to higher cancer rates among Black or impoverished
    communities in Louisiana. They concluded that regardless, our
    analysis, I will provide context. Just like I said before, they
    did speak to the fact that low-income communities, low-income
    Black communities in particular do not have access to health
    care and preventive care for sure.
        In addition to that, they were able to provide evidence of
    a statewide link between cancer rates and a carcinogenic air
    pollution in marginalized communities, and suggest that toxic
    air pollution is a contributing factor to Louisiana's cancer
    burden.
        The last time I checked, Louisiana's cancer burden, I
    believe we were second in the Nation and fifth for mortality,
    just for various reasons for those differences. Then I was
    trying to look up studies for Baton Rouge, with their major
    petrochemical complex, with Exxon and Formosa Plastics in Baton
    Rouge.
        The studies are coming out more. It is hard to get the
    point source.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. I agree with you 100 percent.
        Mx. Tandazo, I have 1 minute left. Can I get your
    concluding thoughts?
        Mx. Tandazo. I will followup on this as well. Yes, I do
    think that we have a lot of, it is not just like one facility
    that we are being exposed to. It is not just one fossil fuel
    plant. It is several fossil fuel plants in one neighborhood. It
    would be different if we were like, there is one facility miles
    away from a neighborhood. This is literally sited right next to
    people's houses.
        I think we often tend to forget how much people lack health
    care, to be able to take care of themselves. A lot of these
    communities have socioeconomic challenges and lack access to a
    lot of these resources that, if you actually had universal
    health care there probably wouldn't be as much death happening
    because folks would be able to go to the doctor and check
    themselves and be like, hey, something is happening. I am not
    feeling well. A lot of the people in our communities do not
    have that.
        Senator Markey. This is such an important hearing. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this great group together. We
    have to learn from them and then act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Markey.
        We are getting close to wrapping up, but I wanted to
    mention a couple of things. I like the analogy that my
    colleagues represented about cars. Cars are essential. When
    they were without seat belts or airbags or bumpers or crush
    zones, a lot more people died. In this case, we are trying to
    figure out how the pollution can really be limited, how the bad
    effects can be limited.
        I was kind of struck by the conversation about water
    bottles. We have three examples up here. We have a glass, so it
    can be used a million times. We actually have a pitcher, and
    this pitcher is not glass. I am not sure about the one on your
    table there. They look like maybe those are glass, this is not.
    Both of them are reusable thousands of times.
        Then my colleague had a plastic water bottle. It is
    designed for single use. Some States have deposits on those
    bottles. Oregon was the first to have a returnable deposit, and
    it massively decreased the pollution. At that time it was all
    glass, but it was often shattered, broken glass. As a kid, I
    was a Boy Scout, we were out picking up glass shards all the
    time.
        When we did in Oregon the first return bill in the Nation,
    which was 5 cents, which would be equivalent to a quarter
    today, they just disappeared completely. If somebody else left
    one, you picked it up yourself. For the equivalent of 25 cents
    today, you didn't waste it.
        Then we had another problem, which was the flip top on
    aluminum cans. Those little flip tops were sharp and they were
    being digested by animals and stepped on and feet were cut.
    Oregon said, you can not have detachable flip tops. The
    industry was like, that is crazy, it is impossible to solve.
    The day that went into effect, all the cans in Oregon had an
    attachable flip top. It was a solvable problem.
        There are solvable problems in the plastic pollutions that
    we are suffering from, and that is what we are working to
    solve. There is a difference between a glass that we can use a
    million times, a plastic or glass pitcher, and using instead
    over the course of time, thousands of water bottles. Those
    water bottles, in the States that do not have a deposit on
    their water bottles, the recycling rate is often under 20
    percent. The States that have a deposit, the rates are almost
    always over 60 percent.
        Oregon increased its return from 5 cents to 10 cents, and
    we saw a jump. Five cents is not what it was back in the
    1970's.
        I want to conclude, I know we didn't get to the question,
    but a vote is underway and I guess I am one of the last to
    vote. I have a little bit of time, OK.
        I think to the degree that we can recognize that plastics
    are going to be with us in many capacities, but we can
    seriously reduce the pollution that comes from the production,
    we can seriously decrease the roadside pollution that comes
    from plastic waste, we cannot site any more facilities in
    places where they are going to harm the surrounding
    communities. We can have better regulations on emissions and
    better, if you will, monitoring of those regulations.
        Which brings me to my question. You mentioned in your
    testimony that these incinerators kept operating but they had
    like 1,400, I think it was since 2004, air violations. There is
    a standard, but when you were talking about 1,400 times it was
    documented, who knows how many thousands of times it wasn't
    documented.
        Mx. Tandazo. Right.
        Senator Merkley. They just ignored them. It was just a cost
    of doing business, well, if we get fined, it does not really
    matter. The first time you get fined, it is like, well, shall
    we fix this problem? If you are getting cited over 1,000 times,
    it is clear you are just ignoring it.
        Why did it not work? Why were they not brought into
    compliance with the emission regulations?
        Mx. Tandazo. It is just a lack of oversight or a lack of
    authority to have oversight from the DEP. It was just a lack of
    oversight that they didn't have before, and now they do because
    of the EJ law.
        Senator Merkley. You mentioned that these plants are
    receiving, I thought you said $60 million of subsidies,
    recycling subsidies or renewable energy subsidies.
        Mx. Tandazo. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. They are burning plastic, emitting toxic
    chemicals that harm the surrounding community, and getting
    money from the State?
        Mx. Tandazo. Yes, basically. This is because, again, I
    mentioned earlier the schemes of false solutions and different
    names and terminologies that these industries use, such as
    alternative recycling that was mentioned here today a couple of
    times. That is the same as chemical recycling. The incinerator
    industry uses waste-to-energy to label themselves, or municipal
    solid waste.
        They label themselves this way, at the Federal level they
    have been recognized as a renewable energy resource. They are
    recognized at the Federal level under the renewable portfolio
    standards program, they receive Federal funding, Federal
    subsidies for renewable energy credits.
        Basically, they lied about what operations they do in order
    to make it seem like they are actually green energy. The claim
    is that they are a renewable energy resource because they are
    able to generate energy from burning trash, which would then
    mean that the sources and resources they need in order to
    constantly generate electricity over the decades is trash.
        It means they are dependent on trash. There is no incentive
    here to reduce the amount of trash or plastic pollution that
    goes into anywhere. They need this incentive. They are not
    trying to stop the production of plastic.
        When we have policies like a set of bills on
    responsibilities that can hold them accountable and reduce the
    amounts of plastic, then they are going to have to be held
    accountable. We are actively working to get the incinerators
    removed from the removable portfolio standard, from the Federal
    program.
        That is just $60 million for the New Jersey incinerators.
    We have also been paying out of State incinerators. Overall, it
    is like $160 million that we have paid from 2002 to 2024. I can
    give you the report on that.
        On top of that, the amount of energy they produce is like 1
    percent of energy. That is not renewable.
        Senator Merkley. I recall when I was a kid and camping,
    someone said, whatever you do, do not throw any plastic into
    the campfire, because the fumes are toxic. Everybody knows the
    fumes from plastic are toxic. Yet here we are incinerating it
    and putting those toxic fumes out into the surrounding
    community where they are producing much higher cancer and
    disease rates. Also when the plastic is being made.
        Ms. Lavigne, you mentioned, or the conversation came up
    about sacrifice zones. The idea that hey, we have low-income
    communities, they can not fight something effectively, so we
    will just put this toxic, polluting plant squat in the middle
    of them, and maybe they will get a few jobs. You have fought
    that successfully.
        To what do you attribute your success?
        Ms. Lavigne. I spoke to the Good Lord. The politicians do
    not help us, the Governor does not help us. Industry is
    poisoning us. I had to go to God to ask God what to do about
    the problems in my community, when I saw all these funerals I
    was going to and didn't know why.
        I also wanted to say, when I was a little girl, we didn't
    have this problem. We didn't have pollution. We were never,
    ever sick. My parents, my grandparents, we lived off the land,
    we weren't sick.
        There must be some type of solution that we can come to,
    come to the middle and figure out what we are going to do. We
    do not have to go through everything cold duck with plastic. We
    should gradually come to some conclusion where we can live and
    breathe clean air and drink clean water.
        Senator Merkley. These zones where there is extensive
    emissions that are making people sick and killing them, so-
    called sacrifice zones, Mr. Sunday, would you like your family
    to live in a sacrifice zone?
        Mr. Sunday. I want any facility to operate under the
    environmental conditions that have been done, enacted by a
    majority of the legislature, and then a rulemaking process that
    affords public comment, and then rigorously enforced.
        Senator Merkley. Just to be clear, if you were aware that
    your child is moving to a new location and their proposed
    location is right next to a plant in which there are extremely
    high cancer rates and other disease caused from those
    emissions, you would say, that is just fine?
        Mr. Sunday. This is the other part of public engagement. It
    is not just the voice of the communities where the facility is
    going to be, the discussion from the regulators about what the
    strict standards are going to be enforced at the facility.
    Armed with that knowledge, folks can make their decisions.
        Senator Merkley. Yes, but what would your decision be?
        Mr. Sunday. I think that people need to have economic
    mobility and make the decisions for themselves and be involved
    in the public process.
        Senator Merkley. Well, my answer would be very different. I
    have two children who are just now starting out on their
    careers. They may well be moving a lot. If they were moving to
    a location next to a plant that had high cancer rates and
    emissions, I would say, do you really want to live there? You
    can not undo the damage that comes.
        I think most every parent in the world would say the same
    thing. I realize you are here representing a point of view and
    you didn't want to really answer the question. I suspect you
    wouldn't want your children in that situation next to a toxic,
    death-creating production facility either.
        Let's keep working toward understanding that we have to
    have conversations about the effects. We can not ignore them.
    There are very real health and pollution impacts on humans, on
    communities, on our ecosystems. Then let's figure out how to
    diminish the problem.
        It isn't as simple as it was with no flip tops on cans.
    That was an easy fix. Industry fought that like crazy,
    absolutely cannot figure out how to do it. They had the
    solution instantly, as soon as they were required to do so.
        I think if we create enough conversation about the need for
    change, then industry will help us work together to come up
    with solutions.
        I want to thank you all for bringing your knowledge and
    your real experience to bear. This is an incredibly important
    conversation about one of the least understood yet most
    significant toxic challenges in America.
        With that, the hearing record will remain open through the
    close of business on Thursday, June 29th. We will send
    questions out to our witnesses. We would appreciate a reply by
    Thursday, July 13th.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                      [all]