I?m writing to convey KRCs endorsement of House Bill 233GA.
KRC initially opposed House Bill 233 as it was introduced, just as KRC has opposed past iterations of the bill. KRC was concerned that coding bottles with barrier layers not comprised of PET as a 1 would introduce a difficult-to-remove contaminant that could adversely affect plastics recycling and those industries, including the bottling, carpet, and other industries that utilize postconsumer PET plastics.
After much research and discussion with trade associations representing the plastics recycling industry, KRC crafted an alternative to HB 233 that would require manufacturers to use objective, scientific testing conducted in accordance with testing protocols developed by the recycling industry, to demonstrate that manufactured bottles and containers containing barrier layers or other resins will not adversely affect the recycling stream. That alternative was accepted by all parties and is included in the GA version of HB 233.
The website for the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR) is located at http://www.plasticsrecycling.org and explains in greater detail the testing protocols utilized to assure compatibility of containers with the existing plastics recycling framework.
This approach would place Kentucky in the forefront among states in encouraging container manufacturers to design with recyclability in mind, lessens the risk of introduction of incompatible packaging into the plastics recycling stream, and provides the Cabinet with clear, objective, and scientifically defensible standards for determining when containers may be coded as a 1 or a 2 and when containers must be coded as a 7.
KRC supports HB 233GA, and encourages your consideration of same.
cc: Rep. Arnold Simpson