Gov. Edward J. King yesterday vetoed the bottle-recycling bill, calling it a costly addition to government regulation, but legislative supporters of the bill said yesterday it could be overridden.

The bill, which passed the state senate and the house by margins slightly below the two-thirds necessary to override the veto, would promote conservation and recycling by placing refund values on all soda and beer containers and prohibiting non-biodegradable packaging materials.

"The bottle bill will cost the consumer, according to very reputable economists, at least $100 million more a year, over and above the deposit costs," King said yesterday in a press release. He added, "The demand for alternative packaging, such as returnable bottles, should come from the consumer, not from Beacon Hill."

In contrast to his 1979 statement when he vetoed a similar bottle bill, King did not mention potential loss of jobs as a factor in his decision. He may have changed his mind after a recent trip to Michigan to view the effects of a bottle law there. King was unavailable for comment yesterday.

State Rep. Lawrence R. Alexander, who sponsored the bill in the house, said yesterday the veto indicated a "flagrant disregard for public sentiments," adding that the governor is favoring business over the public interest. Alexander said the bill would create jobs in the recycling industries and added that it would save money to the consumer in the long run.

State Rep. Sandra Graham, who is also a Cambridge city councilor, said yesterday the veto was "one more of the governor's Big Business tricks." Graham said she felt disappointed but not beaten.

State senator George A. Bachrach said yesterday he was cautiously optimistic about a legislative override. "Clearly the public wants it. The governor's veto flies in the face of public interest, public opinion and common sense," Bachrach added.

Douglas H. Phelps, executive director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Group, which lobbied for the bill, said yesterday the bottle bill symbolized concern for the environment referring to a Boston Globe poll that suggested that more than 70 per cent of the public supported the bill.

King's Cabinet Task Force said in 1979 that consumer costs would decrease by 5 per cent a year, after the first year, if the bill were enacted, Phelps added.

Phelps said he was not surprised by the veto, but added, "There will be a bottle bill."