119-S-2110 Investigative Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

What the bill does: S. 2110 requires EPA to produce a public report on feasibility, equity, costs/benefits, job potential, supports, and barriers for reuse/refill systems; it does not create programs or impose mandates. Deadline: two years after enactment. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…

Economic Effects

Direct fiscal impact is limited to EPA research/consultation. Broader economic effects arise only if subsequent legislation or agency actions implement reuse/refill systems informed by the report.

• Agency workload/costs: The bill tasks EPA with compiling domestic/international program evidence and consulting stakeholders; Congress.gov lists no CBO estimate at this time. Expect modest administrative costs compared with implementation bills. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…[2]Congress.gov — S.2110 - REUSE Act of 2025 | Overview page (status, CBO estimate…
• Jobs and industry development (potential, contingent): Recycling and reuse activities supported ~681,000 U.S. jobs (2012 basis) and about 1.17 jobs per 1,000 tons recycled; reuse/repair/logistics could benefit from system growth. Net economy‑wide job shifts from a circular transition are projected to be small but positive by 2040. [6]U.S. EPA — Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report (2020)[7]OECD — The jobs potential of a transition towards a resource‑efficient and circ…
• Business models and cost curves: Analyses highlight four dominant reuse models (refill at home/on‑the‑go; return from home/on‑the‑go). Shared washing/collection infrastructure and packaging standardization are key to lowering unit costs at scale. [8]Ellen MacArthur Foundation — Reusable packaging business models[9]Ellen MacArthur Foundation — Unlocking a reuse revolution: scaling returnable p…
• Capital and operating needs: If pursued later, reuse systems require investment in durable packaging, reverse logistics, tracking, and hygienic washing; interviews with U.S. industries adopting reusable transit packaging cite logistics and upfront cost as adoption barriers. [10]Review of Managerial Science (Springer) — Adoption of reusable transit packagin…
• Market opportunity claims exist (e.g., EMF’s USD ~$10B for converting 20% of packaging to reuse), but realization depends on high return rates and efficient operations. [11]Web search · turn 12 #0

Social Effects

Impacts turn on access, safety, and convenience—factors the EPA report is directed to evaluate (equity, scale, supports, barriers).

• Food safety framework exists: The FDA Food Code (2022, with a 2023 supplement) allows refilling of returnables under contamination‑control conditions; many states mirror or adapt these provisions (examples: DE, WA). The report can map code alignment and gaps. [12]U.S. FDA — FDA Food Code 2022 + Supplement[13]Legal Information Institute (Cornell) — Delaware Food Code: Refilling Returnabl…[14]Washington State Legislature / WAC Archive — Washington Administrative Code 246…
• Equity and access: Reuse/refill benefits depend on convenient sites and consumer time. Public programs expanding beverage‑container redemption sites illustrate how access investments target underserved areas—an approach the EPA report can evaluate for reuse. [15]CalRecycle — California to add hundreds of new CRV redemption sites (access exp…
• Stakeholder expectations: European assessments of reusable takeaway packaging stress that systems must meet consumer expectations for ease and cost while cutting impacts—highlighting the need for design that reduces friction and supports behavior change. [16]European Topic Centre on Circular Economy (EEA network) — EEA ETC CE Report 202…

Environmental Effects

Packaging is a large share of U.S. municipal solid waste. Evidence on environmental outcomes of reuse is nuanced and product‑specific.

• Problem context: Containers and packaging comprised ~82.2 million tons (28.1%) of U.S. MSW generation in 2018, underscoring why scalable solutions matter. [17]U.S. EPA — Containers and Packaging: Product‑Specific Data
• Modeled potential: UNEP’s roadmap estimates that promoting reuse (e.g., refillables, deposit/return) could cut plastic pollution by up to ~30% by 2040 as part of a broader 80% reduction pathway with recycling and material shifts. [18]UNEP — UN roadmap press release: solutions to cut global plastic pollution (reu…
• Life‑cycle variation: Peer‑reviewed and official studies show reuse can outperform single‑use when return rates are high and washing logistics are efficient; results can reverse when washing energy/water are high or items are lost early. Findings vary by product (cups, takeaway containers, kitchenware). [5]University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems — Environmental payback p…[19]Nordic Council of Ministers — LCA on reuse of packaging in the Nordics – conclu…
• Contrasting industry‑sponsored LCA work has argued single‑use can beat reusables in quick‑service settings due to washing burdens; these findings are contested and context‑dependent—reinforcing the need for rigorous, transparent assumptions in EPA’s review. [20]Huhtamaki — Huhtamaki press release summarizing Ramboll LCA (single‑use vs. reu…
• International policy context the report may mine for best practices: the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation entered into force in 2025, embedding reuse/reduction and recyclability requirements across the life cycle. [21]European Commission — Packaging waste – EU rules (PPWR)

Temporal Analysis

1. Immediate (pre‑enactment to enactment): No impact until passage. If enacted, EPA scoping and stakeholder outreach begin. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…
2. Near term (0–2 years post‑enactment): EPA compiles the report (deadline: two years), cataloging sectoral feasibility, equity methods, job potential, costs/benefits, needed supports, and barriers, including state/local/international programs. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…
3. Longer term (post‑report): Any material economic, social, or environmental effects arise only if Congress, EPA, or states act on the report’s options (e.g., pilots, standards, procurement). Impacts will hinge on system design (return rates, washing energy sources, logistics). [5]University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems — Environmental payback p…[19]Nordic Council of Ministers — LCA on reuse of packaging in the Nordics – conclu…

Unintended Consequences and Risks

Documented or credible risks the EPA report is positioned to analyze and mitigate.

• Energy/water burdens from washing could erode or reverse climate/water gains unless systems use efficient equipment, high‑load operations, and low‑carbon energy. [5]University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems — Environmental payback p…
• Affordability pressures: Where water/energy rates are high, cost burdens for small businesses or institutions operating wash hubs can rise; national assessments show millions of U.S. households already face water‑bill affordability challenges, underscoring the need for targeted support if reuse expands. [22]U.S. EPA — Water Affordability Needs Assessment (2024)
• Access inequities: If refill/return points cluster in affluent or urban areas, low‑income or rural communities may face barriers. Recent state moves to expand convenient redemption infrastructure illustrate both the gap and one remedy. [15]CalRecycle — California to add hundreds of new CRV redemption sites (access exp…
• System losses and leakage: Reusable asset losses (breakage, theft, non‑return) undermine environmental and financial performance; European analyses flag return‑rate optimization and consumer‑experience design as critical. [16]European Topic Centre on Circular Economy (EEA network) — EEA ETC CE Report 202…
• Fragmented food‑code adoption could create uneven consumer and business experiences; EPA can map alignment with FDA’s Food Code and identify where harmonization or guidance is needed. [12]U.S. FDA — FDA Food Code 2022 + Supplement
• Evidence disputes: Industry‑commissioned LCAs that favor single‑use in some contexts highlight sensitivity to assumptions (washing loads, energy mix, reuse cycles). The report can set transparent methodological baselines to avoid cherry‑picking. [20]Huhtamaki — Huhtamaki press release summarizing Ramboll LCA (single‑use vs. reu…

Assessment

Overall stance: neutral. The bill is a low‑risk, information‑gathering measure. If acted upon, its downstream effects could be favorable where designs reach high return rates and efficient washing/logistics, but outcomes are context‑dependent and require attention to equity, affordability, and data transparency. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…[5]University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems — Environmental payback p…[16]European Topic Centre on Circular Economy (EEA network) — EEA ETC CE Report 202…

Key Metrics

Sources: EPA MSW Facts & Figures (2018 basis); EPA 2020 Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report; UNEP Turning off the Tap. [17]U.S. EPA — Containers and Packaging: Product‑Specific Data[6]U.S. EPA — Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report (2020)[18]UNEP — UN roadmap press release: solutions to cut global plastic pollution (reu…

Sourcing

Key references used in this neutral assessment (selected):

• Bill text and status: Congress.gov bill text and overview; EPW business‑meeting agenda including S. 2110. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…[2]Congress.gov — S.2110 - REUSE Act of 2025 | Overview page (status, CBO estimate…[3]U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works — EPW Business Meeting –…
• Waste and packaging baselines: EPA Facts & Figures (national overview; containers/packaging). [23]U.S. EPA — National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycl…[17]U.S. EPA — Containers and Packaging: Product‑Specific Data
• Economic impacts: EPA 2020 REI Report; OECD modeling of circular‑economy jobs. [6]U.S. EPA — Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report (2020)[7]OECD — The jobs potential of a transition towards a resource‑efficient and circ…
• Environmental potential and global context: UNEP Turning off the Tap (report/press); EU PPWR overview. [18]UNEP — UN roadmap press release: solutions to cut global plastic pollution (reu…[21]European Commission — Packaging waste – EU rules (PPWR)
• Life‑cycle evidence: University of Michigan CSS 2021 (reusable kitchenware payback); Nordic Council LCA on takeaway containers; EEA/ETC 2025 report on reusable takeaway systems; industry‑sponsored countervailing LCA (Ramboll/EPPA via Huhtamaki release). [5]University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems — Environmental payback p…[19]Nordic Council of Ministers — LCA on reuse of packaging in the Nordics – conclu…[16]European Topic Centre on Circular Economy (EEA network) — EEA ETC CE Report 202…[20]Huhtamaki — Huhtamaki press release summarizing Ramboll LCA (single‑use vs. reu…
• Safety and codes: FDA Food Code 2022 and state implementations (DE; WA). [12]U.S. FDA — FDA Food Code 2022 + Supplement[13]Legal Information Institute (Cornell) — Delaware Food Code: Refilling Returnabl…[14]Washington State Legislature / WAC Archive — Washington Administrative Code 246…
• Equity/access examples: CalRecycle grant expansion for CRV redemption infrastructure. [15]CalRecycle — California to add hundreds of new CRV redemption sites (access exp…