EPA SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON:

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs); RECYCLING PLASTICS FROM 

SHREDDER RESIDUE; REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS

December 12, 2012 (77 FR 74006)

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0902

Introduction

On December 12, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of 

request for public comment in the Federal Register (FR), entitled Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs); Recycling Plastics From Shredder Residue (77 FR 74006). In this notice, EPA sought 

comment on an interpretation of its regulations under consideration that would generally allow 

for the recycling of plastic separated from shredder residue under the conditions described in the 

Voluntary Procedures for Recycling Plastic from Shredder Residue (Voluntary Procedures)

[ISRI. Voluntary Procedures for Recycling Plastics from Shredder Residue, October 24, 2012], 

relying principally on the regulatory provision for “excluded PCB products” (40 CFR §761.3). 

The thirty-day public comment period for this notice closed on Friday, January 11, 2013.

In response to this notice, 28 unique public comments were submitted to the docket established 

for this action, docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0902. The docket is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Docket. This document presents a brief summary of those comments, and where appropriate, 

EPA's response to particular issues raised.

Supportive Comments

Of these 28 unique public comments, 24 were generally supportive of EPA’s interpretation. 

Positive comments were submitted by the Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), metal 

shredders, plastics and energy recyclers, industry and utility associations, consultants and law 

firms.

These supportive comments included a variety of positive environmental attributes associated 

with recycling plastics from shredder residue, such as: appreciably reducing the volume of 

shredder waste disposed of in landfills; saving virgin products (oil) used to make plastics;

reducing emissions and other environmental impacts associated with virgin oil production; and 

achieving environmental benefits similar to those of recycling plastic resin from packaging 

materials, such as reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and waste.

Commenters also noted various economic benefits, from reducing shredders’ operational costs 

and keeping the U.S. scrap industry globally competitive to providing economic benefits through 

investment and jobs in this new recycling sector. Several commenters noted there would be 

competitive benefits to other related industries, such as the automotive and plastics industry. 

Various commenters noted that the technology of recycling plastics from shredder residue is a 

developed technology that is proven, financially feasible, deployed globally and ready to 

implement in the United States.
2

Commenters who spoke to EPA’s analysis of the PCB regulations concluded that EPA has made 

the necessary examination, findings and review to support its interpretation, and that treatment of 

plastics recovered from shredder residue as excluded PCB products would present no 

unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Commenters also noted it was reasonable 

to conclude that PCBs present in shredder residue are from authorized sources <50 ppm.

Five commenters, while supportive of this interpretation, asked EPA to apply this or a similar 

interpretation to the use of shredder residue (or plastics separated from shredder residue) as a 

fuel: both to burn directly (e.g., in cement kilns), or to distill into fuel oil. In response, EPA notes 

that the interpretation explained in the FR notice, was developed by carefully considering the 

Voluntary Procedures ISRI developed. EPA interprets these procedures as providing that 

shredders will only provide residue to a plastic processor/producer/recycler, and only when that 

plastic processor/producer/recycler’s contract states that both parties are following all applicable 

provisions of the Voluntary Procedures [See “Output Control Procedures,” ISRI. Voluntary 

Procedures for Recycling Plastics from Shredder Residue, October 24, 2012]. Today’s 

interpretation is based on EPA’s understanding that plastic separated from shredder fluff will be 

recycled into plastic to be used in products. Therefore, the request for addressing shredder 

residue as fuel is outside the scope of the current interpretation. EPA also notes that the PCB 

regulations place restrictions on the burning of used oil for energy recovery beyond those 

applicable to other PCB products. 40 CFR § 761.20(e).

Critical Comments

One commenter expressed concern that shredders may stockpile fluff for plastic sorting and end 

up abandoning these stockpiles if they go out of business, leaving the state with costly cleanups. 

EPA believes this concern is unwarranted, as shredder residue is less likely to be abandoned if it 

has some market value as a source of recoverable plastics, as opposed to being a waste that 

incurs cost for disposal at a landfill. Further, the Voluntary Procedures are intended to ensure 

that the shredder residue does not originate from materials containing >50 ppm PCBs, so any 

abandoned stockpiles would be unlikely to contain regulated levels of PCBs subject to costly 

disposal measures.

This commenter also observed that shredders will not comply with the procedures if they are 

labeled as “voluntary,” and therefore the word voluntary should be redacted from the title of the 

procedures. EPA notes in response that the Voluntary Procedures have been proposed by ISRI as 

measures their members may use to demonstrate conformity with the excluded PCB products 

exclusion. EPA is not imposing a regulatory mandate on shredders. However, EPA’s 

interpretation makes it clear that following the Voluntary Procedures is necessary to generally 

treat the feedstock as consisting of excluded PCB products and that if shredders and suppliers do 

not follow the Voluntary Procedures, they will need to be able to otherwise demonstrate that the

feedstock and residue meet the exclusion.

Two submissions (one submitted on behalf of nine NGOs) opposed the Agency’s adoption of the 

interpretation.
3

One commenter asserted that EPA’s action does not meet the no unreasonable risk and data 

development standards of sections 2(b)(1) and 2(b)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). EPA’s reply is that it is interpreting regulations that were issued pursuant to the PCBspecific provisions in TSCA § 6(e). The provisions of TSCA § 2(b) are not requirements, but 

statements of policy to guide the Agency in its implementation of the Act. EPA believes that the 

regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 761 and interpreted in the FR notice are consistent with 

these policies. The Agency did make “no unreasonable risk” findings when promulgating the 

regulations, and such findings necessarily incorporated EPA’s consideration of information 

related to the risks, costs, benefits, and other impacts of the manufacture, processing, distribution 

in commerce, and use of PCBs. EPA notes that this interpretation is also consistent with the 

policy statement in TSCA § 2(b)(3) that the Agency should exercise its authority “in such a 

manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological 

innovation.”

One commenter asserted, without elaboration, that EPA needs to explain why its interpretation 

does not violate the Stockholm Convention. The United States is not a party to the Convention, 

but EPA nonetheless believes there are no inconsistencies between this interpretation of 40 CFR 

§761.3 and the convention, which the United States has signed but not ratified. 

One commenter asserted that plastic recyclers have the burden of demonstrating that the material 

is an excluded PCB product and relieving recyclers of this burden is unlawful. EPA, in 

promulgating the definition of excluded PCB products, intended to provide a meaningful way 

for existing products with low levels of PCBs, which were lawful when manufactured, to 

generally continue to be used, processed and distributed in commerce. The burden of 

demonstrating eligibility for a regulatory exclusion was raised and discussed in the FR notice. In 

summary, EPA believes that, for shredders and their suppliers that follow the Voluntary

Procedures, it is appropriate to generally treat the feedstock as consisting of excluded PCB 

products unless there is information specifically indicating that the feedstock does not qualify. If 

shredders and suppliers do not follow the Voluntary Procedures, they will need to be able to

otherwise demonstrate that the feedstock and residue meet the exclusion.

Both commenters asserted that it is inappropriate and unlawful for EPA to amend its regulations 

through the proposed regulatory interpretation and that EPA is adding an unlawful regulatory 

exemption and new rule without sufficient notice and comment or required regulatory analysis 

and data. As discussed in the FR notice, EPA is interpreting the application of an existing 

regulatory definition to activities within a set of specific circumstances (i.e., recycling plastic 

materials recovered from shredder residue at shredder facilities that follow the Voluntary 

Procedures). Interpretations of this nature do not constitute new or amended rules, but in this 

case EPA issued the FR notice and provided an opportunity for comment in the interest of 

regulatory transparency and public participation.

One commenter asserted that EPA must determine how the excluded manufacturing process 

(EMP) exclusion applies to plastic from auto shredder residue (ASR), especially as it is not clear 

why the “recycling” of plastic from ASR would not constitute “manufacturing” subject to EMP 

requirements. In the FR notice, EPA mentioned the possible applicability of the existing EMP 

exclusion to the recycling of plastic from auto shredder residue. EPA went on to explain that’
4

based on examination of available data on PCBs associated with plastics recovered from 

shredder residue and the lack of EMP notifications from manufacturers of plastics, it is less 

likely that PCBs that have been found are associated with plastics result from an excluded 

manufacturing process. EPA also notes that items that contain PCBs that result from an EMP can 

be used, processed and distributed in commerce to the same extent as excluded PCB products.

One commenter maintained that the procedures and interpretation are contrary to law because 

they permit dilution of PCBs. EPA disagrees. Excluded PCB products are defined to include only 

materials that contain <50 ppm PCBs, and where such concentration is not the result of dilution. 

The PCB regulations generally prohibit the circumvention of regulations through dilution (40 

CFR §761.1). The interpretation is based on the judgment that following the Voluntary 

Procedures can prevent the introduction of PCBs at levels >50 ppm. So long as any PCBs <50 

ppm in shredder residue are the result of shredding excluded PCB products, they are not the 

result of prohibited dilution. Where feedstock contains any source of >50 ppm PCBs, the 

resulting shredder residue cannot be considered to be an excluded PCB product.

One commenter asserted that EPA must perform an Environmental Justice analysis and address 

any impacts, asserting that shredders are located disproportionately in low income and minority 

communities. EPA notes that the interpretation is of existing PCB regulations and is not expected 

to change the location of existing shredder facilities. EPA also notes that the purpose of the 

Voluntary Procedures is to prevent the introduction of >50 ppm PCBs into shredders operations,

and use of the procedures could thereby reduce the amount and/or release of PCBs at existing 

shredder facilities that choose to adopt them. EPA also notes that the interpretation may reduce 

the quantity of plastic recovered from shredder residue sent to landfills, which, like shredder 

operations, are often located in low income and minority communities, and in this respect may 

have a beneficial environmental justice impact.

One commenter presented a narrative that scrap metal recyclers have been responsible for 

numerous cases of air, water and soil contamination and the release of hazardous/toxic materials, 

including from fires. The commenter further asserted that PCB-containing materials will 

continue to be disposed of and processed at these facilities, causing PCB contamination of 

recovered plastics, and that the extent to which handling of these PCB contaminated materials 

contributes to health and environmental problems is unknown. EPA considers the general 

observations about the state and practices of the scrap metal recycling industry overall to be

beyond the scope of this interpretation, which concerns the regulatory status of excluded PCB 

products in shredder residue, not the operations of the shredding facilities generally. EPA notes 

that most of the commenter’s examples of PCB materials that may be scrapped are already 

regulated for disposal as PCB waste under 40 CFR Part 761 Subpart D. The purpose of the 

Voluntary Procedures developed by ISRI is to screen incoming materials so that no sources of 

>50 ppm PCBs will be in waste feedstock accepted by the shredder; therefore, the impact of this 

interpretation on shredder operations will be to reduce the likelihood that >50ppm PCBs would 

be received and (mis)managed by such facilities. 

Commenters asserted that EPA must gather and analyze additional data on health and 

environmental impacts, noting a lack of available data on the source and impact of PCBs in 

shredder residue, as well as details of shredder operations. In the FR notice, EPA acknowledged 
5

uncertainty as to the source of the PCBs in shredder residue, but believes that, for shredders and 

their suppliers that follow the Voluntary Procedures, it is appropriate to generally treat the 

feedstock as consisting of excluded PCB products unless there is information specifically 

indicating that the feedstock does not qualify. EPA believes that the interpretation is consistent 

with the intent behind existing EPA regulations regarding excluded PCB products and notes that 

in promulgating the excluded PCB product rule, the Agency determined that the use, processing, 

and distribution in commerce of products with <50 ppm PCB concentration will not generally 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. 53 FR 24210 (June 27, 

1988).

One commenter cited a 2002 California State report [California Department of Toxic Substances 

Control. California’s Automobile Shredder Waste Initiative, Draft Report, November 2002] as 

evidence that PCB levels >50 ppm can be found in automobile shredder residue, and further 

noted that a 2009 Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) report [Argonne National Laboratory. 

Recycling End-of-Life Vehicles of the Future,

December 1, 2009] indicates PCBs at ppm levels are routinely found in ASR. EPA reviewed 

both of these reports in considering its interpretation. The California report found >50 ppm PCBs 

in 2 samples out of 70 taken from 3 shredder facilities in 2001, and also noted a “downward 

trend” in PCB levels compared to data from 1986 [See p. 22, California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control. California’s Automobile Shredder Waste Initiative, Draft Report, November 

2002]. The California report provides no information to assess the operating practices of the 

facilities sampled, so EPA cannot judge how relevant the data are to facilities following the 

Voluntary Procedures. This downward trend, noted by EPA in the FR notice, is supported by the 

2009 ANL results, which are all well below 50 ppm. The trend is further supported by the 

2010/2011 data provided by ISRI: of approximately 100 samples of shredder residue, most were 

<2 ppm and none contained >10 ppm PCBs [ISRI. Summary of Analysis Done on Plastics 

Recovered from Shredder Aggregate, Late 2010/Early 2011].

One commenter stated that EPA should consider a prohibition on the use of recycled plastics 

from auto shredders for use in the manufacture of toys, food, drink containers or any products 

with oral applications, and in addition, EPA must specifically consider potential impacts on 

children’s health from exposure to PCBs in recycled plastics, particularly because plastic is 

commonly a component of products used by children. EPA notes in response that the Voluntary 

Procedures include precautionary measures to include provisions in the plastics sales contracts 

with customers of companies subject to the interpretation expressly stating that such plastic are 

not suitable for use in the manufacture of toys, food or drink containers, or products intended for 

oral applications. In addition, EPA again notes that the Voluntary Procedures have been 

proposed by ISRI as measures their members may use to demonstrate conformity with the 

excluded PCB products exclusion. EPA is not imposing a regulatory mandate on shredders. 

Finally, many products with potentially high exposures (e.g., food and drink containers, 

toothbrushes, teething rings), are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and are 

not within the definition of “chemical substance” under TSCA § 3.

One commenter asserted that the Voluntary Procedures are far too lax to ensure such recycling 

does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, and listed various 

examples of missing requirements (e.g., certification, labeling, sampling, attestations, 
6

notification). As presented in the FR notice, EPA believes that, for shredders and their suppliers 

that follow the Voluntary Procedures, it is appropriate to generally treat the feedstock as 

consisting of excluded PCB products unless there is information specifically indicating that the 

feedstock does not qualify. EPA believes that the interpretation is consistent with the intent 

behind existing EPA regulations regarding excluded PCB products and notes that in 

promulgating the excluded PCB product rule, the Agency determined that the use, processing, 

and distribution in commerce of products with <50 ppm PCB concentration generally will not 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. 53 FR 24210 (June 27, 

1988).

One commenter, citing a report on polyvinyl chloride as building material, asserted that PVC 

when heated produces PCBs and dioxins. The Thornton report indicates that dioxins are 

produced when PCBs are subjected to high temperatures in accidental fires, smelters and 

inefficient combustion and incineration [Thornton, Joe. Environmental Impacts of Polyvinyl 

Chloride Building Materials, 2002]. Based on comments received from plastic recycling 

companies on the 2010 ANPRM [75 FR 17645 (April 7, 2010); EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757-

0186], EPA believes that the formation of PCBs and dioxins at temperatures used to recycle 

plastics is unlikely.

One commenter expressed the opinion that visual inspection is inadequate to ensure that crushed 

cars going to a shredder do not have PCB capacitors or other PCBs. EPA notes that the 

Voluntary Procedures stipulate that suppliers of compacted feedstock such as crushed cars

implement a documented source control program that includes visual inspection of all material 

prior to compaction. 

One commenter questioned the basis for the 10 ppm threshold for shredders to notify EPA 

specified in the Voluntary Procedures. According to data provided by ISRI, no samples of plastic 

were found containing >10 ppm PCBs [ISRI. Summary of Analysis Done on Plastics Recovered 

from Shredder Aggregate, Late 2010/Early 2011]. EPA notes that this threshold reporting 

proposed by ISRI in the Voluntary Procedures is well below the regulatory limit specified in the 

definition of excluded PCB products (<50 ppm PCBs). 
7

References

ANL. Recycling End-of-Life Vehicles of the Future, December 1, 2009.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. California’s Automobile Shredder Waste 

Initiative – Draft Report, November 2002.

ISRI. Summary of Analysis Done on Plastics Recovered from Shredder

Aggregate, Late 2010/Early 2011.

ISRI. Voluntary Procedures for Recycling Plastics from Shredder Residue,

October 24, 2012.

Thornton, Joe. Environmental Impacts of Polyvinyl Chloride Building Materials, 2002.