Document rpQVOR8obVNLbN5R69K0EJ5pJ

Tl>s Society I ths Plastic* industry, Inc. 605 14th Street, N.W. 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-0270 December 20, 1984 i. . I D 1984 DP,.: ' *1 2;.3n TO: New Jersey Task Force State Government Affairs Caimittee FM: Roger Bernstein RE: New Jersey's Mandatory Recycling Bill The broad coalition (New Jersey Recycling Forum) of municipal and county solid waste officials, recyclers, waste haulers, materials industry repr sentatives, State administrators from the Office of Recycling and Department of Environmental Protection, and bill drafters met for seven hours on December 18 to finalize recommended provisions of the DEP's amendments to the State's mandatory recycling bill. Three proposed provisions which came up for discussion and vote in the Recycling Advisory Ccnmittee session had a direct bearing on plastic packaging: 1. Mary Sheil, Director of the Office of Recycling, proposed that part of the legislation call for a sales tax exemption for products packaged in containers consisting of 50 percent or more recycled material (post consumer) . This proposal would, in ny view, discriminate against plastic packaging which isn't recycled back into its original form and which may not achieve this percentage in the near future. We presented this argument. Others in the coalition raised questions on the implementation and enforcement problems with this proposed provision. tXie'to a lack of support, it was eliminated fran the coalition's guidelines for ^legislation. 2. The Office of Recycling also proposed that all plastic and metal beverage and food containers sold in New Jersey be marked as to composition and that all beverage containers be composed of a uniform material to enhance recycling. This provision was voted down in a earlier steering caimittee meeting and the full Advisory Caimittee of the Forum concurred on December 18 on the basis of impracticality. 3. Specific ultimatums calling for a ban on FVC packaging, and a deposit on other plastic packaging, if a viable recycling system is not in place by July 1986, were amended by the steering caimittee over the objections of the Office of Recycling to read: The industry and the State Office of Recycling shall inv stigate alternative methods for the collection, processing and recycling of tires and plastic containers including the irposition of deposits and shall make reccnmendations to the legislature by July 1986. This language passed on a 11-7 vote. TEN 2823 Whil we were able to deflect sane harsh, restrictive languag singling out plastic as a difficult material to collect and recycle, there is no question that the State of New Jersey nust see substantial short-term progress in the recycling of plastic containers or else punitive legislation with full backing of the Stat will attack the problem head-on. As it is, the bill to be introduced in' 1985 by the DEP should reflect the above statement of conriittxnent of our industry* to move forward in this area. Bob Donovan of Owens-Illinois has been instrumental in defusing sane of the anti-plastics language and our discussion of the Plastic Recycling Foundation is viewed as an encouraging sign by those responsible for solving the State's landfill crisis. But the-mandate to do nuch more in this arena remains, specially since aluminum is the yardstick by which all packaging material is being judged by State officials and environmentalists. cc: L. Freeman F. Corbin J. Lawrence J. Heckman SPI Lobbyists SPI Section Managers TEN 2824