119-S-2110 Data-Driven Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

What the bill does. S. 2110 requires EPA to publish, within two years of enactment, a public report on the feasibility and best practices of reuse and refill systems (e.g., for food service, consumer goods, and shipping). It does not mandate programs, standards, or funding beyond this study. As of October 30, 2025, Congress.gov shows the bill’s latest formal action as referral to the Senate EPW Committee (with a committee meeting noted on October 29); no CBO cost estimate is posted. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…[2]Congress.gov — S.2110 - REUSE Act of 2025 | Overview and status | Congress.gov

Why it matters. Containers and packaging account for roughly 82.2 million tons of U.S. MSW (28.1% of total, 2018 baseline), so reuse/refill could materially affect waste generation and upstream production impacts if deployed at scale. The evidence base indicates reuse can outperform single‑use on climate and materials when high return rates and sufficient reuse cycles are achieved, but results hinge on washing energy/water, return logistics, and user behavior. [3]US EPA — Containers and Packaging: Product-Specific Data | US EPA[4]University of Michigan — Parametric LCA of reusable vs single‑use restaurant fo…[5]University of Michigan — Reusable take‑out food containers can reduce plastic w…[6]Waste Management & Research (via NCBI PMC) — How does plastic compare with alte…

Economic Effects

Direct federal costs are limited to developing an EPA report; downstream impacts depend on if/how jurisdictions implement reuse/refill systems after the study.

• Federal budget: No authorization of new grant programs in the bill text; Congress.gov lists no CBO score to date, implying uncertain but likely modest administrative costs borne by EPA to produce the report. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…[2]Congress.gov — S.2110 - REUSE Act of 2025 | Overview and status | Congress.gov
• Businesses deploying reuse/refill: Potential capital and operating costs for standardised packaging, washing/inspection infrastructure, reverse logistics, and IT tracking; potential savings from avoided single‑use packaging purchases if reuse cycles are high. System‑scale analyses find that, under coordinated models with shared infrastructure and high return rates, returnable packaging can compete economically with single‑use for selected products. [7]Ellen MacArthur Foundation — Unlocking a reuse revolution: scaling returnable p…
• Labor and local economic activity: EPA’s Recycling Economic Information (REI) work indicates recycling and reuse activities supported about 681,000 U.S. jobs (2012 data), with roughly 1.17 jobs per 1,000 tons managed—suggesting reuse/repair/washing operations are labor‑engaging relative to material production. Directionally informative for reuse systems, though not a program‑specific forecast. [8]US EPA — Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report | US EPA
• Municipal finances: High return/collection rates can shift material handling from curbside systems and yield net savings. A New York case study (Eunomia for Reloop) estimated potential municipal savings of ~$40–$109 million per year under a 90% return scenario—illustrative of how well‑designed return logistics can affect local budgets. [9]Eunomia / Reloop — Expanded Bottle Bill impact on New York municipal collection…
• Market structure and supply chains: Source reduction via reuse reduces demand for virgin packaging materials while increasing demand for washing, transport, and refurbishment services; EPA’s WARM framework emphasizes source reduction as the highest GHG benefit lever, and it also provides labor/wage/tax factors to gauge macroeconomic shifts. [10]US EPA — Waste Reduction Model (WARM) | US EPA[11]US EPA — Documentation for the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) | US EPA

Social Effects

• Equity and access: Deposit/return and redemption infrastructure can provide income access and convenient return points, but siting and operating hours can raise neighborhood safety and accessibility concerns; Oregon’s 2025 changes highlight the need to balance public safety with access for frequent redeemers. [12]Associated Press — Oregon lawmakers OK changes to bottle redemption law amid co…
• Behavioral dependence: Environmental performance of reuse is sensitive to user practices—e.g., the number of reuse cycles achieved, washing methods, and whether customers make special trips to return packaging. University of Michigan’s LCA found break‑even after roughly 4–13 uses for take‑out containers, with benefits eroded if even a small share of users make extra return trips by car. [4]University of Michigan — Parametric LCA of reusable vs single‑use restaurant fo…[5]University of Michigan — Reusable take‑out food containers can reduce plastic w…
• Public health safeguards: FDA’s 2022 Food Code and its 2024 Supplement clarify when and how containers may be refilled/reused in retail/foodservice, providing sanitation controls that jurisdictions can adopt when designing reuse programs. [13]U.S. FDA — FDA Food Code 2022[14]U.S. FDA — FDA publishes Supplement to the 2022 Food Code (Nov 2024)
• Community impacts of return hubs: High‑performing deposit systems (e.g., Oregon’s ~88.5% 2022 return rate) demonstrate operational feasibility, but also underline the need for community engagement on site design, hours, and public‑realm management. [15]Resource Recycling — Oregon achieves 88.5% bottle return rate (2022) | Resource…

Environmental Effects

Net outcomes vary by product, material, energy mix, logistics distance, washing technology, and achieved reuse cycles.

• Material throughput: Reuse directly reduces demand for one‑way packaging; given packaging’s large MSW share, even partial shifts affect waste flows and upstream extraction/manufacture. [3]US EPA — Containers and Packaging: Product-Specific Data | US EPA
• Climate and energy—evidence of benefits when reuse cycles are sufficient: Multiple LCAs/meta‑analyses (e.g., take‑out containers, beverage cups) show reusable systems can outperform single‑use across climate and resource indicators when high rotations are achieved and logistics/washing are optimized. Nordic Council and UNEP Life Cycle Initiative syntheses report advantages across most impact categories under typical assumptions. [16]Nordic Council of Ministers — LCA on reuse of packaging in the Nordics – Execut…[17]UNEP Life Cycle Initiative — Single‑use beverage cups and their alternatives: R…
• Sensitivity and break‑even: Peer‑reviewed studies indicate break‑even uses depend on distance, recycled content, and energy mix; below certain reuse counts, lighter single‑use options can perform better, while higher counts generally favor reuse. [6]Waste Management & Research (via NCBI PMC) — How does plastic compare with alte…
• Source reduction priority: EPA’s WARM emphasizes source reduction/reuse as the highest‑leverage option for GHG mitigation relative to end‑of‑life pathways, highlighting the importance of avoiding new material production. [10]US EPA — Waste Reduction Model (WARM) | US EPA
• Countervailing findings in quick‑service dine‑in: Industry‑commissioned EU LCAs (Ramboll for EPPA) contend that, under current European QSR operations, reusable tableware can raise GHG and water use due to energy‑intensive washing; these results are context‑specific and sensitive to assumptions (e.g., grid mix, equipment efficiency). [18]Confederation of European Paper Industries — Press release: Ramboll LCA finds s…

Temporal Analysis

1. Immediate (0–2 years): Informational impact only. EPA scoping, stakeholder consultation, and publication of the report within two years of enactment; no mandated operational changes or funding flows in statute. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…
2. Medium term (2–5 years): If agencies or states act on EPA’s findings, expect pilots and standardization (e.g., packaging specs, labeling, data systems) with localized job creation in washing/inspection/logistics, and learning about user behavior and siting. Outcomes depend on uptake and design. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…[8]US EPA — Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report | US EPA
3. Long term (5+ years): With high return rates, optimized washing, and shared infrastructure, reuse could reduce packaging‑related GHGs and waste; poorly designed systems (low rotations, long backhauls, energy‑intensive washing) could underperform. [4]University of Michigan — Parametric LCA of reusable vs single‑use restaurant fo…[16]Nordic Council of Ministers — LCA on reuse of packaging in the Nordics – Execut…[10]US EPA — Waste Reduction Model (WARM) | US EPA

Unintended Consequences (Risks and Trade‑offs)

• Rebound logistics: Excess consumer travel or long return backhauls can offset climate gains. [5]University of Michigan — Reusable take‑out food containers can reduce plastic w…
• Water/energy burdens: Poorly optimized washing raises GHG and freshwater impacts; technology and grid decarbonization reduce this risk over time. [18]Confederation of European Paper Industries — Press release: Ramboll LCA finds s…
• Equity and access: If return points are scarce or hours limited, burdens fall on consumers without cars/time; conversely, well‑distributed sites can enhance access to deposit income and convenience. [12]Associated Press — Oregon lawmakers OK changes to bottle redemption law amid co…
• Municipal cost shifts: High return rates can lower curbside costs, but require coordination to avoid undermining existing recycling revenue streams. [9]Eunomia / Reloop — Expanded Bottle Bill impact on New York municipal collection…

Assessment

Overall stance: Neutral. S. 2110 is a low‑cost, information‑generating step. The balance of current evidence suggests reuse/refill can deliver environmental and potentially economic benefits when designed for high rotations, efficient logistics, and hygienic, low‑energy washing—yet outcomes are context‑dependent and not guaranteed. The bill’s impact will ultimately be determined by the quality of EPA’s analysis, stakeholder engagement, and how subsequent policies and markets act on those findings. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…[16]Nordic Council of Ministers — LCA on reuse of packaging in the Nordics – Execut…[4]University of Michigan — Parametric LCA of reusable vs single‑use restaurant fo…

Sourcing

Key references underpinning this analysis.

• Bill text and status: Congress.gov S.2110 text and overview. [1]Congress.gov — Text - S.2110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): REUSE Act of 2025 |…[2]Congress.gov — S.2110 - REUSE Act of 2025 | Overview and status | Congress.gov
• U.S. packaging baseline: EPA Containers & Packaging MSW data (2018). [3]US EPA — Containers and Packaging: Product-Specific Data | US EPA
• Economic framing: EPA REI (jobs, wages, taxes) and EPA WARM documentation (source reduction benefits; labor/wage/tax factors). [8]US EPA — Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report | US EPA[10]US EPA — Waste Reduction Model (WARM) | US EPA[11]US EPA — Documentation for the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) | US EPA
• Reuse performance evidence: U‑Michigan LCA on take‑out containers; systematic LCA review of packaging material trade‑offs; Nordic Council comparative LCA; UNEP Life Cycle Initiative on cups. [4]University of Michigan — Parametric LCA of reusable vs single‑use restaurant fo…[5]University of Michigan — Reusable take‑out food containers can reduce plastic w…[6]Waste Management & Research (via NCBI PMC) — How does plastic compare with alte…[16]Nordic Council of Ministers — LCA on reuse of packaging in the Nordics – Execut…[17]UNEP Life Cycle Initiative — Single‑use beverage cups and their alternatives: R…
• Deposit/return practice: Oregon return rates and policy changes; illustrative municipal savings in NY from high return rates. [15]Resource Recycling — Oregon achieves 88.5% bottle return rate (2022) | Resource…[12]Associated Press — Oregon lawmakers OK changes to bottle redemption law amid co…[9]Eunomia / Reloop — Expanded Bottle Bill impact on New York municipal collection…
• Divergent QSR dine‑in findings (context‑sensitive): Ramboll/EPPA study (industry‑commissioned) indicating higher impacts for reusables under certain EU assumptions. [18]Confederation of European Paper Industries — Press release: Ramboll LCA finds s…
• Design/scale considerations: Ellen MacArthur Foundation analysis on returnable packaging economics at scale. [7]Ellen MacArthur Foundation — Unlocking a reuse revolution: scaling returnable p…