While ISRI believes that automotive dismantlers should remove mercury switches prior to sending auto hulks to scrap recycling facilities for recycling, the financial responsibility for ensuring the proper handling of mercury in ELVs should not fall on the dismantling and scrap recycling facilities. ISRI's Design for Recycling® encourages automotive manufacturers to make every effort to design mercury out of automobiles. Furthermore, to create incentives for removing mercury switches from automobiles already in commerce, ISRI believes automotive manufacturers must contribute financial and organizational resources to a mercury switch removal program. Such support should include providing relevant and available information identifying all historic and current uses of mercury as well as support for an effective collection program to ensure proper collection, transportation, handling and recycling/disposal of mercury-containing devices used in automobiles. This program should incorporate a tracking mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. ISRI believes that by participating in such a program the automotive manufacturers will gain a greater understanding of the environmental and economic effects of their design choices and will lead to broad acceptance of Design for Recycling® in the automotive industry.

Lastly, to ensure that mercury switches are properly removed prior to recycling and automotive manufacturers take responsibility for hazardous constituents used in automobiles, ISRI supports legislation that incorporates equitable concepts such as requiring mercury switches to be removed prior to delivery for recycling and obligations for automotive manufacturers to design out and/or take responsibility for, hazardous constituents in their products.

The federal government can take an important step toward clean air by encouraging consumers, car dealers, and manufacturers to replace aged automobiles. Auto manufacturers are required to manufacture new cars with a fleet-wide average of 27.5 miles per gallon (the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard). But there is no provision in current law to reward manufacturers who get old, inefficient cars off the road.

ISRI Supports Legislation to Encourage the Removal of Obsolete Automobiles
ISRI supports federal legislation that rewards manufacturers who voluntarily provide their dealers with incentives to take pre-1980 automobiles in trade on new cars. Manufacturers who do so should receive credit against their CAFE standard for the difference in fuel economy between the new car and the old car taken in trade. Such credit should only be given, however, when the manufacturer can certify that the car has been sent through normal recycling channels.

1. Making Consumer Products Recyclable
   Manufacturers must ensure that consumer products can be safely and economically recycled, using existing recycling technology and methods, when removed from service. Recyclers of consumer products should not have to incur unnecessary costs due to the use of hazardous constituents in the products. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, consumer products should be recyclable without creating risks to human health or the environment from hazardous constituents.
2. Reducing Environmental Risks From Consumer Products
   All newly manufactured durable consumer products should have demonstrated recyclability. In most cases, if a product is found to present environmental risks that make it uneconomical to recycle the product, it should not be sold without design or manufacturing changes that will remove those risks.
3. Controlling Special Environmental Problems
   Some products many not be capable of being redesigned so as to eliminate risk to the recycler. For example, for some applications, there may be no feasible substitute for a hazardous constituent in the product. In these cases, there should be new cooperative arrangements between manufacturers and recyclers to ensure recycling, and recyclers should be relieved of the resulting risks of environmental liability.
4. Assistance to Manufacturers of Consumer Durables
   Manufacturers who are required to alter the design or manufacture of their products should receive transitional assistance, when appropriate. Small business, in particular, should be afforded economic and technical assistance in ensuring their products' safe recyclability. Manufacturers should not be asked to bear all the costs of Design for Recycling®, any more than recyclers should be required to continue to bear all the environmental risks of recycling in that absence of appropriate product design. Design for Recycling® will benefit all of society, and it is therefore fitting that society assist manufacturers in its implementation.

• Until such time as the market for recyclable electronics becomes economically viable, holds producers financially responsible for the collection, transportation and recycling of electronics to the recycler where and when necessary to help ensure that electronics enter the recycling stream. In addition, fees generated should also be used for the development of end-use consumer markets for recycled materials.
• Promotes producer responsibility as described above as the preferred alternative to the imposition of advanced recycling fees (ARFs). Where the legislation implements an ARF over producer responsibility, the existing recycling infrastructure should be given an equal opportunity to participate in the ARF program
• Supports ending producer financial responsibility and ARFs as soon as practicable.
• Consistent with ISRI's Design for Recycling® Policy, requires manufacturers to consider, during the design and manufacture stage, the need to ensure that their products can be safely and economically recycled.
• Promotes the benefits of environmental management systems (EMSs), such as ISRI's Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS), implemented by electronics recyclers as a means to promote and to ensure the proper handling of electronic products destined for recycling.
• Recognizes the use of specifications such as those found in ISRI's Scrap Specifications Circular and certifications such as ISRI's Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS) as effective means of controlling the quality of electronic scrap.
• Includes a ban on the disposal of recyclable electronics. Recyclable electronics are those commodities that can be safely and economically recycled using existing recycling technologies and methods.
• Excludes governmental entities or contractors that are not subject to state and/or federal regulations governing wages, worker safety and environmental compliance, comparable to those required of non-governmental entities. A competitive environment is critical to the long term viability of an efficient and rational electronics recycling infrastructure.

Whereas, there has been significant discussion of the estate tax, which is also informally known as the "death tax," over the last few years, and

Whereas, ISRI Members deem it vitally important to their, and to the Nation's well being, that upon the transfer of a business or farm to one's heirs, such heirs should not be forced to sell such closely held business, partnership, or sole proprietorship in order to pay the Federal estate or gift tax that would otherwise apply under current law. Now, Therefore, It Is Resolved by the Board of Directors of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., that it be the position of ISRI that no Federal estate or gift tax should be due upon the transfer of a corporation, company, partnership, or sole proprietorship, or farm to one's heirs and that such heirs shall maintain the same basis in the business or farm as the transferor.

Be It Also Resolved, that this resolution refers only to the transfer of a business or farm by gift or death and not to the transfer of money or other assets, and that there should be no tax due from an heir by virtue of a transfer of a business interest by gift or death until such time as such heir sells such interest in such business or farm. Be It Further Resolved, that should the Congress of the United States consider an alternative to the approach set forth above to repeal or reduce the estate or gift tax on a business or farm the Board of Directors hereby authorizes ISRI to support such approach.

Materials in the recycling process are not disposed of, as a waste is. Instead, such materials are reused. Failure to distinguish materials in the recycling process from waste precludes or limits the legitimate export of recyclables for reuse in other nations. Such an action is counterproductive since it would lead to a disruption in the markets for secondary materials in the United States, while damaging the nation's balance of payments. It would deny those international markets access to the recyclables they need, while creating a surplus of recyclable material in the United States, which may then become solid waste requiring disposal. And, it would require the exploitation of additional scarce natural resources to meet that demand.

• 1. Recyclables Are Not Solid Waste
  Recyclable material is a valuable product. The secondary materials from household, commercial, or industrial activities, which are acquired for consideration in anticipation of sale for re-use in making new products, are not solid waste at any point in the process leading up to, and including, the export of the material to another country.
• 2. Treaties and Legislation Must Distinguish Recyclable Material From Waste
  Any national or international program dealing with limitations on the export of solid waste must incorporate provisions which recognize scrap materials-ferrous and nonferrous metals, paper, glass, plastics, and textiles-as products which serve as feedstocks in manufacturing processes, and exempt these valuable materials from unnecessary and counterproductive export limitations.

ISRI strongly supports and encourages the voluntary diversion or removal from the solid waste stream of materials for recycling. ISRI strongly opposes attempts to expand flow control to include government control of materials that have been diverted or removed from the solid waste stream for the purpose of recycling.

Materials that have been diverted or removed from the solid waste stream for recycling are the property of their generator. Efforts by government to take possession of, or obtain title to, those materials by imposing restrictions on the generator's ability to sell or donate them are prohibited by the Constitution as a taking of property without just compensation unless and until the owner relinquishes title to the government. The owner may do this by, for example, abandoning or discarding them into the solid waste system or by placing them in government-sponsored curbside or collection center recycling programs. Owners of such materials must be free to decide who will receive them. Private recycling enterprises must be free to accept, purchase, transport, and process these materials in a free and competitive marketplace.

Governing agencies that contract for the collection, processing, or marketing of materials diverted or removed from the solid waste stream that have properly come under their control should do so in a competitive bidding process that is not tied to the mandatory provision of other functions, such as the ability to provide solid waste collection or disposal services. This will ensure economic efficiency, secure the best qualified contractors at the lowest cost to the taxpayer or ratepayer, and take advantage of the expertise of private sector processing and recycling businesses that have experience in these areas.

Furthermore, ISRI believes that the key to increased recycling is the creation of expanded demand for secondary materials. Lead is a metal that can be toxic to humans and detrimental to the environment. Increased demand for secondary lead in spent lead-acid batteries is necessary for environmental reasons to assure that the maximum possible number of these batteries enter the recycling process so that their lead is not released into the environment.

ISRI supports legislation and regulation that establishes a minimum content standard for the use of secondary lead in new batteries. In keeping with such a standard, ISRI supports the use of "marketable credit systems" to allow battery manufacturers that exceed the minimum content standard to sell credits for the tonnage of secondary lead they use in excess of the standard to another battery manufacturer who may find it more desirable, or technically or economically more feasible, to buy the credits than to use the minimum required level of secondary lead.

Given the particular circumstances relating to a specific situation, it is up to the individual recycler to make a determination as to the risks associated with the recycling of pressurized containers and make a business decision as to whether those containers can be safely processed given the recyclers equipment and processing capabilities.

Governmental entities and special interest groups should be cognizant of these risks and respect the decision of professional recyclers who have the knowledge and expertise to make the determination as to whether they will process any type of pressurized containers.

Although ISRI advocates the maximization of recycling, it does so with the strong caveat that all recycling activities should be carried out with worker safety and environmental responsibility given the utmost priority. There are, however, individuals and organizations that represent interests other than the recycling industry who, with all good intentions, advocate the maximization of recycling without a complete understanding of the risks associated with the recycling process. Unfortunately, ISRI has documentary evidence of the injuries and damage that can occur when pressurized containers are processed using today's sophisticated recycling machinery.

ISRI is the single voice of the private sector scrap recycling industry, representing members who have been involved in recycling for many decades (and in some instances over a century). ISRI members, who are professionals in their field, must be allowed to weigh those risks and determine for themselves whether they are equipped to handle pressurized containers in a manner which will protect worker safety and the integrity of the environment.

• The governmental agency responsible for collecting data recognizes that recyclable materials that have not been discarded (i.e., those that have been diverted from the solid waste stream by sale, donation, or other disposition) or have been separated from the solid waste stream and returned to commerce as raw materials, which are used in the manufacture of new products, are not solid waste and should not, in any manner, be confused with solid waste.
• Data collection relative to recyclable materials should be accomplished, if possible, only through recyclable materials reports, not solid waste collection, management, diversion or processing reports.
• Recyclable materials reports should be submitted, if possible, only to the governmental agency responsible for recycling activities, not solid waste management.
• Business operations data collected from private sector recyclers is proprietary and must be accorded complete confidentiality. A mechanism should be created for reporting whereby such data can be collected by a third party (such as a certified public accounting firm, law firm or other entity mutually acceptable to the scrap recyclers and the governmental entity). Data collected through the third party should be publicly reported only in statewide aggregates.
• Recyclable materials reports should be limited to data for which a governmental entity has a legitimate need to know. Furthermore, careful consideration must be given to the methodology for collecting the data to avoid multiple counting of the same materials, which could result in skewed reporting of recycling activities. Rationale for the Position on Reporting Recycling Information Background Pursuant to the laws or policies of many states, the states or their local governments often attempt to quantify the recycling of all materials from residences, businesses and industrial facilities. While there is major disagreement about the need for some or all of such desired information, it is deemed by the requesters to be crucial in assessing the effectiveness of recycling programs and to the solid waste planning efforts of those states, counties and municipalities. If those governmental entities are not afforded the opportunity to include certain recycling activities carried out by private sector scrap recyclers in their recycling reports those entities may not achieve the goals that have been set for them. The economic and political ramifications of "missing" such goals or targets are major. However, at times the legitimacy and the range of requested data become a threat to private industry due to the potential for making public proprietary business information. Scrap is not Waste/ Recyclable Materials are Commodities Legislators, regulators, courts, and others have confused recyclable materials and solid waste for many years. It is true that increased recycling of a given amount of material means less of that material is disposed of as solid waste; clearly, all materials that are recycled are not solid waste. Recyclable materials generally fall into two categories: those which have never been discarded and those that have been separated from the solid waste stream. Solid wastes are uni-dimensional—they are discarded and must be disposed of in a landfill or incinerator. Recyclable materials that have fulfilled their original intended use but which are then sold in commerce clearly have a value and have obviously not been discarded. Since waste is by definition that which has been discarded, e.g., refuse, garbage, and offal, recyclable materials that have been sold in commerce are clearly not waste. Similarly, recyclable materials that have been given or donated by one person to another, including a scrap recycler, are not waste. In this case, the donor has clearly not discarded the material; furthermore, the material obviously has value to the scrap recycler or that scrap recycler would not have accepted it. Where material has been separated from the solid waste stream, that material has, because of its intrinsic value, been removed from the realm of solid waste. Once removed from the waste stream, recyclable materials no longer require management as solid waste and have all the aspects of recyclable materials that are never discarded. Because it is imperative that any reporting of recycling activities be clearly distinguished from solid waste management, recyclable materials reports should be separate and distinct from any solid waste reports. Thus, recyclable materials reporting should never be done in conjunction with solid waste reports, as part of solid waste planning or provided directly, if possible, to the governmental entity responsible for solid waste management. Recyclable materials reports should be submitted to the governmental entity charged with recycling activities within the jurisdiction. It is imperative that the distinction between recyclable materials and solid waste is clearly made. Governmental entities seeking to quantify waste reduction should be advised that such measurement would be more appropriately performed at solid waste disposal facilities. Although the recyclable materials processed by ISRI members are not solid waste, the efforts of the private sector scrap recycling industry do contribute significantly to the reduction of solid waste that is managed through landfilling or incineration. But these are different activities from recycling and should reporting of these activities be deemed necessary, they should be accounted for separately from recycling. Only Count What Is Appropriate It is important to ascertain exactly what recycling activity a governmental entity wants or needs to quantify. Any "counting" program should make certain that assisting governmental entities to achieve their goals does not place an undue burden upon the scrap recyclers and not make public information unless it is directly related to the goals of the governmental entity. In most states, for instance, recycling goals are directed to those materials typically generated by residences and offices (paper, glass, plastic and metal food and beverage containers). Reporting materials other than those specifically enumerated in "recycling laws" or "recycling goals" is inappropriate and beyond the realm of existing authority. Scrap recyclers should be prepared to assist governmental entities in designing a program that will present a true picture of recycling activities. Specifically, a program should be designed to avoid double counting of materials. Reporting by private sector scrap recyclers should be limited to tonnages of materials handled. Governmental entities have no need for information pertaining to vendors or customers, the cost of recyclable materials purchased or the sales price. Confidentiality Any data reported by private sector scrap recyclers must be accorded complete confidentiality. Regardless of any state or local confidential documents laws or ordinances, ISRI strongly encourages reporting to the governmental entities through a third party who will aggregate the data reported to it and in turn, report the aggregate results to the governmental entity. Many state and local confidentiality laws have loopholes whereby certain information may be obtained despite the fact that the reporting entity thought it was submitting confidential business data. The third party, which could be a certified public accounting firm, law firm, or other entity that is trusted and respected by both the private sector scrap recyclers and the governmental entity, adds a needed layer of protection for sensitive data. Ideally, all private sector recycling reporting will be carried out on a statewide basis. Any reports to the public should be made in the statewide aggregate; such a methodology adds additional protection to data. Aggregate reporting limits the exposure of scrap recyclers’ confidential activities by maximizing the number of recyclers reporting in a geographic area.

In its usual forms, scrap presents "hazards" that are qualitatively no different from those of the products from which the scrap is derived. In simple terms, the "hazards" presented by scrap at a processing facility are no different from "hazards" presented by the products themselves (e.g., appliances, structural steel, metal fixtures) in warehouses or office buildings. Arbitrary application of the term "hazardous chemical" to scrap is therefore neither justified nor supportable.

• ISRI OPPOSES any definition of "hazardous chemical" that inappropriately extends to scrap in local, state, or federal "right-to-know" reporting requirements.
• ISRI SUPPORTS the provision of material safety data sheets by manufacturers of hazardous materials, or materials that may release "hazardous chemicals." (Scrap processors do not manufacture "hazardous chemicals" and therefore must not bear the substantial burden of testing and/or evaluating materials. If metallic scrap is deemed "hazardous" under any relevant law or regulation, the manufacturer or supplier of that scrap—not the scrap processor—must be responsible for providing appropriate information in the form of material safety data sheets. Scrap processors' only obligations in this area should be to pass on relevant information provided by scrap suppliers.)
• ISRI OPPOSES any law or regulation that requires scrap processors to prepare material safety data sheets.
• ISRI SUPPORTS training programs to inform employees about "hazardous chemicals" in the workplace and the necessary measures to prevent potential harm from exposure.