Tennessee committee hears push for EPR to fund recycling, supply local manufacturers

NASHVILLE — Members of the Tennessee House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard presentations on state recycling and landfill capacity Wednesday, as proponents urged the committee to consider Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, to create a producer-funded recycling system.

Gary Cohen, volunteer outreach director for the Tennessee Waste to Jobs Coalition, told the panel that Tennessee landfills are being overwhelmed by packaging and that EPR would create a sustainable, non‑taxpayer funding source. “EPR is the answer to TDEC’s objective number 8,” Cohen said. He said packaging accounts for “almost 40% of all solid waste” and cited a statewide recycling rate of roughly 10–12 percent and a participation rate he put at about 47 percent.

Proponents argued that a producer-funded program would instead direct fees from brand owners to a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) to pay for collection, sorting and processing — shifting most costs away from local taxpayers and toward producers and brand owners. Cody Marshall, chief recycling officer at The Recycling Partnership, said, “Collecting recyclables and then processing it is the most expensive part of recycling, and that’s on the shoulders of the local government.”

Why it matters: Supporters said EPR could supply stable, near‑term feedstock for Tennessee manufacturers and reduce landfill growth. Donna Capecchi, vice president of sustainability with Kaiser Aluminum, said the company can use more recycled aluminum “but it all depends on cost and availability.” Don Haines, EHS and sustainability manager at Florham USA, testified that his tile plant could substitute post‑consumer glass for sand and make a marketable green tile, adding that the U.S. tile industry in Tennessee has strong local supply advantages.

Details from presenters and committee members

- Scale and economic claims: Presenters said Tennessee landfills send hundreds of thousands of tons of packaging to disposal each year (Cohen cited “over 900,000 tons” of packaging waste) and that the U.S. landfills bury nearly $1 billion worth of aluminum beverage cans annually. Donna Capecchi told the committee Kaiser averaged about 50% recycled content across packaging products in 2024 and that recycled aluminum is far less energy‑intensive than primary production.

- Industry needs and end markets: Kaiser and other manufacturers said they need a predictable, local supply of sorted recyclables. Don Haines said Florham’s plant is “the United States’ largest single site producer of porcelain tile” and that tile makers could use large quantities of post‑consumer glass.

- Technology and processing examples: Cohen described advanced sortation facilities in other states; he and other witnesses referenced a nearly $100 million facility that processes roughly 250,000 tons into multiple commodity streams with very high contamination‑removal rates.

Committee questions and concerns

Lawmakers pressed presenters on implementation, costs and local control. Representative Jones pressed on governance and whether stewardship organizations would transfer decisionmaking away from local communities; Cohen said he would follow up and deferred detailed governance questions to technical experts. Representative Fritz asked about recycled content limits and contamination; Capecchi said aluminum is “infinitely recyclable” but that specifications and processing determine how much recycled content can be used in a given product. Representative Halsey asked how collection typically works; Marshall and other witnesses explained that systems vary — many successful local programs use curbside separation and material recovery facilities (MRFs), but siting and permitting remain barriers in Tennessee.

Barriers identified by industry groups

Katie Rafferty Evans of the National Waste & Recycling Association warned that EPR in other states is still in rulemaking and implementation stages and urged caution in rushing legislation. Speakers identified Tennessee’s permitting and siting rules — referenced in testimony as the “Jackson Law” — as an obstacle that can block new MRFs, composting sites and other processing facilities when local boards veto permits without arbitration. Evans and others also raised public‑safety and operational concerns about lithium batteries and other “hard‑to‑recycle” items that cause fires in collection trucks and at processing facilities.

No formal action

The committee did not take a vote and no legislation was introduced during the meeting. Members said the presentations would inform ongoing discussion; the committee scheduled additional briefings on recycling and waste management.

Provenance: Committee discussion and presentations on EPR and recycling appeared throughout the meeting, beginning with Gary Cohen’s remarks to the committee and concluding with the National Waste & Recycling Association presentation and subsequent member questions.

Outlook: Presenters and industry groups framed EPR as a way to create funds for collection and processing, build local feedstock for manufacturers and reduce landfill pressure. Committee members asked technical and policy questions about governance, costs to consumers and siting barriers; witnesses encouraged further study, technical detail and attention to permitting and safety issues before proposing statutory changes.