Number Reviewer Affiliation Section From Page To Page From Line To Line Comment 

1 Mike Sherer Title 

DRE should be destruction and removal efficiency, not "or" on cover sheet. 

We disagree. The Gas Inventories, for using 'or" folloBut, because matstream (capture, the use of 'Destru

2 Mike Sherer 2.2.1 8 17 24 

It is stated that Method 1 does not require access to process tool. However, shutting the tool down and running gases through it with no wafer production is considered access by fab personnel. Can this be changed? 

Yes, this will be m

3 Mike Sherer Overall 

There is no discussion or methodology regarding testing with multiple POU abatement device inlets, which impacts how to do DRE testing and the DRE results due to many factors. Multiple inlets represent probably 90% or more fab installs. Is there any plans for this guidance? 

This will be addre

4 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. 1.3 5 19 24 

This is not true. Based upon extensive experience I can state that the performance of the abatement tool is very dependent upon the effluent of the reactor. What comes out of a plasma using reactor is NOT what goes into the reactor. The type, concentration, and species of PFC out of a plasma reactor is very different than goes into it. I believe this methodology is scientifically unsound. 

The comment neeunsound." It is noreactor is not wha

unsoundness of Mmade is that plascommercially avamajor produced foabatement, or the of NF3. Were this PFC destruction eadvertised system

5 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. 2.2.3 8 36 38 

I do not agree that two FTIR can be used unless there methodology to determine machine to machine variance. This introduces instrument error. 

While it is true, anmeasurement, it inot to say that it iwith confidence wand then the FTIR tool then the protoparticular process collected to achieconcentration meFTIR systems by reliability of the mindependent of th

6 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. 2.2.3 8 39 42 

Absolutely unacceptable. We are assuming we know something about the destruction within the system before testing the system. QMS must be used to measure dilution 

The comment seedilution factor instconditions under conditioins that wwould exclude the "measured" tempwould be such a caware that the bobasis but thought developed, howeof only noble gas

7 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. 2.2.3 8 9 43 4 

Filter is unacceptable. It will absorb fluorinated species and compromise the mass balance. Deal with the particles. 

PFCs do not adsoproducts. 

8 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. 2.2.6 11 15 18 

Where did the 800 number come from? I have seen partial decomposition below this temperature. Again, this is not true 

Please refer to re

9 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. 2.2.6 11 18 21 

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Absolutely unacceptable. You cannot use CF4 as tracer and certainly not SF6.The molecules are inert. Also, they are species being tested. This is absolutely, totally unacceptable. 

Don't you want an 

10 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Table 2 12 

FTIR in Analytical Equipment column: unacceptable We disagree. If C

be used and may 
11 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Table 2 Caption 12 

This is untrue. Please refer to re

12 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Table 2 12 

Neon is totally acceptable. In principle neon 

potential interferecomplication can 

13 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Overall 

I see no methodology used to measure potential losses in the lines or pumps from the reactor. 

Please explain thconsequential los

14 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Overall 

I see no methodology to verify reactor parameters (efficiency, MFCs etc) 

Please explain thDRE. 

15 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Overall 

Far too many unsourced statements. Citing only yourself is not acceptable. 

Most work devoteconfidential or boresults in the peethis still draft protprotocol. 

16 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Overall 

Dilution adjusted methods introduce far too many chances of error. They should not be used. 

We disagree that to measure PFC draft Protocol una

17 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Overall 

Control samples should be used. Redundancy in measurement is required. 

Please explain thmeasurement red

18 Chris Hertzler TechHarmonics Inc. Overall 

I see no comments upon the need for baselining QMS and FTIR against their initial calibration set points. Nor do I see reference to required system pressure to measure various PFCs at various concentrations. This is an important part of the protocol. 

We believe that banalysts performiFTIR systems anTransfer report (rEPA's method 32

19 Joe Van Gompel Title 

Title should read “... Destruction Removal Efficiency ...” not “ ...Destruction or Removal Efficiency...” 

We disagree. The Gas Inventories, follows: If somethmaterials may be (capture, for examusing 'Destruction 

20 Joe Van Gompel 1.1 4 12 15 

“...ISMI’s 2006 guidelines urges care when measuring DRE for PFCs” 

Should read “ISMI’s 2006 guidelines urge care when measuring DRE for PFCs. Also seen at end of section 2.2 (just above 2.2.1), footnote 5, top of 2.2.4, footnote 7 and 8. 

The noted gramm

21 Joe Van Gompel 1.3 5 1 3 

Correct Sematech report number is 06124825A-ENG, not 0612485AENG. The report numbe

22 Joe Van Gompel 2.1.5 7 24 31 

Include hearing protection in this list. Subfabs are always loud due to the close proximity of vacuum pumps. 8 hours in a subfab without hearing protection will almost always exceed OSHA recommendations (85 dB). 

Hearing protectio"(e.g., head prote

23 Joe Van Gompel 2.2.1 8 17 24 

It should be noted that Method 1 can also be done using the mass flow controllers (MFCs) in the process tool such that the process gas of interest (e.g. CF4) is manually flowed through the process chamber with the plasma switched off. In this way there is absolute consistency in the flow of gases between Method 1 and Method 2. 

We believe this is 

24 Joe Van Gompel 2.2.3 8 39 42 

Edwards will push back on the use of combustor temperatures. The TPU does not utilize chamber temperature as a prerequisite for DRE of PFCs (e.g. Sematech 07124899A-ENG). 

We agree. Please that would permit 
25 Joe Van Gompel 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 9 11 

These sections repeatedly mention that the absorbances and ion intensities should be within one decade. Note that this renders impossible the DRE determination to any more than 90%. FTIR and QMS data are valid to 2 decades or more if done properly. In no case should IR data be trusted if the absorbance significantly exceeds 1, but IR data are often valid to < 0.01 A. This detail is also important in that swapping out FTIR gas cells can be tedious and technically difficult, requiring significant purge time and tuning of the optics. Note also that FTIR need not be recalibrated on the spot. FTIR is capable of utilizing previously-calibrated sample spectra. However it is critical that a new background spectrum be collected at reasonable intervals (e.g. at the beginning of each new data series) to account for possible instrumental drift due to temperature. The manufacturerrecommended diagnostics should be run at least daily. 

QMS intensity is nand ion intensities several decades. pointed out in the are bracketed by 

26 Joe Van Gompel Figure 2 11 

Title of Figure 2 has a typo – should be “Responses” not “Responser”. Why are they divided by 14? 

The noted grammnormalized to m/e 

27 Joe Van Gompel 2.2.6 11 7 21 

Both Process flow and Total Volume flow can be measured by QMS. With QMS available, there is no need to measure Process flow using FTIR and PFCs. 

We agree. HowevPFCs 

28 Joe Van Gompel Table 2 12 

The Edwards TPUs work differently, with High Fire and Low Fire. The total flow will vary between these settings, as will the DRE. As there are many Edwards TPUs in use for this application, the protocol should reflect the unique aspects of that POU device. I would be happy to work with you on that. 

The protocol shou

29 Joe Van Gompel 2.2.7 12 26 41 

I will suggest that a single FTIR can be used, but that the gas cell must be changed between the Process flow determination and the Total Volume determination. FTIRs are expensive and you seriously limit the number of people capable of doing the measurements by requiring a matched set. 

One FTIR can be state behavior coshown, however, not to say that it iknowing with conaccomplish this, ais run on the tool for a particular prcan be collected t

30 Joe Van Gompel 2.3.1.1 32 

This should read “When combining ...” not “When combing ...”. The noted gramm

31 Joe Van Gompel 2.3 13 19 

Statistical analysis has never been my strong suit. Someone who understands the statistics should devise a standardized spreadsheet. All who follow the protocol should use this spreadsheet to generate these values, or you will have a pretty wide range of wrong answers at the end of the day. 

This is a good suexperimental met

32 Joe Van Gompel References 21 

Are the referenced reports available for review? They soon will be

33 Joe Van Gompel Overall 

Generally a good protocol. I think details will have to be sorted out to address the differences in the abatement devices (e.g. High Fire for the Edwards TPUs) as well as making the statistical analyses more plugand-chug instead of having everyone work them out for themselves, but this is a very good start. 

Thank you. Pleas
English Translation of General Question JEITA-PFCWG 9/1/2008 Primary EPA Response 9/9/2008 in Japanese 

How do you use this protocol finally ? 

例えばSEMIなどによる、よく知られたDRE測定ための信頼度のある業界基準として確立させたい。

ISMIとJEITAのプロトコルを補完することを考えており、半導体プロセスからの排出を明確にしようと

ています。

Who use this protocol ? エレクトロニクス産業でPFCの排出を報告する誰でもが、F- GHG除害装置の性能について記述する/

量を計ることができます。

Will this protocol be the standard of the USA ? 米国および各国政府によって今後参照されるでしょう。 Will this protocol be the international standard ? 私たちは望みます。それは現在の意図です。 Please show us your detailed schedule. 

EPAは利用できるように準備しています。スケジュールは進行中です。

How do you think to use this protocol ? 世界各国のエレクトロニクス産業が、PFCの除害のDREを測定し報告する、マニュアル(標準方法)とす

ることを意図しています。

Will you use this protocol to make a report of voluntary emission date or mandatory emission date ? 自主的な報告のために推薦しますし;

義務的な報告のために要求することもあるでしょう。

↑ Did you inform Japanese government about this protocol ? Or will you inform Japanese government about this protocol ? 

まだしていません;私たちは次の改訂版で提案することを考えています。(それはステイクホルダーのコメントおよび提案を含んだものとなるでしょう)

How to treat this protocol in connection with IPCC 2006 guideline ? 2006のIPCCガイドラインでは、ガイドラインのユーザは除害装置の性能を保証する責任があると記述

しています。2006IPCCガイドラインには、次のように書かれています。「Tirr2 排出抑制技術・・除害効率ファクタ

は・・実際のプロセス条件で測定され、確認され、技術的に正常なプロトコルの使用、例えば、希釈の影響と同様にC2F6にCF4バイプロダクトを含む既知の測定誤差を含むもの、O2の使用、燃焼技術のどちらについても説明されていること」EPAは、開発中のこの標準プロトコルがこの役割をすることを提案します。(IPCC 2006、3巻、pg。6.20)

Did you know the discussion of NF3 gas in USA ? Is this protocol concerned about NF3 information (or problem) ? 

コメントがプレイサーとスウのJGRL 2008の論文を指す場合、EPAはよく知っています。草案のDREプロトコルにはエレクトロニクス産業で使用され、除害される他のガスと同様にNF3も入れています。

Did you inform the preparation of this protocol to other country ,Korea,Taiwan, and so on ? 全てのWSCの2008年のISESHの出席者に提示し、コピーを渡し、意見と反応を求めました。 Don't you think this protocol restrain the voluntary emission reduction plan ? 抑制はしません、しかし結果の正確さおよび確実性を改善したい。 Did you inform this protocol in the world and collect any information and comment ? はい、9月18日の会合でJEITAのコメントおよびEPAの回答を共有しましょう。 What do you expect for Japanese SIA ? すべてのフッ素系温暖化ガスを使用する電子メーカーが使用を認める、柔軟な昀良の実際的なプロト

コルに対し、EPAに助言し巧妙に作るのを協力してください。

Did you inform SIA ? What action SIA does ? What action WSC does ? SIAにはドラフト版を渡しました。 

↑ SIAからもWSCからもまだ正式なレスポンスかアクションはありません。

Can you accept the easy measuring method proposed from Japanese SIA ? 

コメントが南百瀬氏と杉浦氏の特許のことを指し、セイコーエプソン社の2007年に更新された、2001年

9月のFT- IRを使用した温室効果ガスの測定手順書のことを言っているのであれば、私たちはそれが FT- IRをガス濃度の定量的な測定に使用し、測光の精度に関連したものであるので、草案の「DREプロトコル」を拡大し、補足するための重要な問題であると考えています。さらに、私たちは、草案の「プロトコル」の中で、FT- IRが被検体が除害システムに影響されない場合、

希釈比を測定するのに役立つと記述しています。

Proposal Question JEITA-PFCWG 9/1/2008 Primary EPA Response 9/9/2008 

"Easy Measuring Method for PFCs Quantified by FT-IR Intended to Complement Equipment Environmental Characterization Guideline ("Intel Protocol")" is added to a reference place. 

コメント#22(Q18)のレスポンスを参照してください。

私たちは、この方法の使用が適切でプロトコルの中で言及されるべきであり、したがって、参考文献一

覧表に加えられるべきである、と信じます。

Measurement by the frequency considered to be required for the control of maintenance of abatement equipment is desirable. 

現在定義されるように、DREプロトコルは頻度ではなく測定の方法を示しています。

For example, measurement before and after a maintenance is recommended. EPAは、この時期に範囲を拡大するべきとは思いません。 For the process equipment, if performance stability can be confirmed through process condition management during operation, the number of 

measurements can be reduced because the reaction efficiency and the generation rate of by-products are considered maintainable. 

EPAは、モニターとなる除害システムの性能を非分散型赤外分校器(NDIR)の使用を長期間にわたって評価することを計画しています。 

For the abatement equipment, If the correlations among decomposition rate variation factors including those before and after maintenance, 非分散型赤外分光器(NDIR)の測定が上手くいったら、その結果から、DRE測定、メンテナンスあるい は両方がいつ必要かの指標が決められると考えています。 variation ranges, and variation parameters have been determined or if the abatement equipment is provided with a mechanism capable of confirming that performance is maintained, only daily inspection (monitoring) needs to be conducted, so that the number of measurements can be reduced. 
Makers' own measurement is enabled. 

Everyone makes measurement possible. プロトコルの使用は設備メーカーの測定を有効にし、報告された値に対する信用を与えます。It applies also to the measurement for making a maker's independence improvement. It uses for the continuous control of maintenance of emissions. Application also of measurement of a decomposition rate is enabled. 

このコメントが、草案の「プロトコル」に述べられていた方法がガス利用、工程構成レートおよび排出の It uses also for the continuous control of maintenance of emissions. 連続測定のことを示唆している場合、EPAは同意します。 しかし、それは、草案の「プロトコル」の意図および範囲を越えています。 

連続的な排出のモニタリングには、より多くの実用的方法が存在するかも知れませんが、(例えば28列 にコメントした非分散型赤外分光(NDIR))。 排出の定期点検については、草案の「プロトコル」に述べられていた方法が実用的に思えます。

Measurement by one set of FT-IR is also possible. 

1つのFTIRの使用も可能でしょう。除害システムでは高希釈率に対応して、ガスのセル(より長いビーム路程を使用する)を切り替えること が必要かもしれません。 また、入口と出口の測定を交互にすることが必要でしょう。十分に長いサンプリングで、定常状態の振る舞いを確認することができるかもしれませんが、1つの 

FTIRシステムで十分な精度を達成することができるかを示すことが必要です。

If 2 cm-1 is possible technically as for resolution Verification by the JEITA/Epson method is performed in 2 cm-2 library. 

PFCについては、もし吸光度帯域がかなり広く、その範囲が周囲の変化に従って変化しないならば、 

Calculation speed is very slow in 0.5 cm-2 library use. 

2cm- 1分解能は十分かも知れません。しかしながら、分析担当者は、スペクトル分解能が検量線分解能とマッチしているか、また、その算出 のメソッドで妨害ガスがローレゾリューションの条件で適切である、と保証しなければなりません。 草案の「プロトコル」のFTIRシステムでは2Hzでスキャンを行い、毎分30のスペクトルが取れていま 

す。

How about extending the range in 0.1 to 1.0, if the absorbance range has narrow linearity? 

In the JEITA/Epson method, the straight line range is specified and it measures in the representation library there. ベールの法則の線形の範囲の線形性の範囲が被検体ガスによって変わり、これが重要であるべきで 

From the acquisition data in that case, the linearity of absorbance changes with gas. ある、とコメントが述べている場合、RPSは同意します。 (RPSって何?) 

EPAは、オペレーターが与えられた被検体に対して0.1 - 1.0の吸光度範囲の中で吸光度を維持すれ Also in order to take these in, reference of the JEITA/Epson method is effective. ば、ベールの法則からの偏差によって引き起こされたエラーの機会が昀小化されると考えます。 

Since those methods are shown by especially the Excel sheet, the difference of the result depended on the difference in a worker's skill can be made into the minimum.

現在利用可能なFT- IR分光計は、非線形を扱う2つの方法を提供します:(1)較正データを備えたサンプルを一括し検量線への多項式適合を使用すること、あるいは(2)より弱い

吸収帯を使用する。 ..

An analytical curve check at a spot is not realistic. There, it is considered as means by the check of one kind of representation gas. This is the method of the JEITA/Epson method. 

コメントは、実用的事項について、共通的なオンサイトでの検量ガスや動的な希釈システムへの提案

Since the relative absorption intensity of IR absorption is universal, it is satisfactory by performing compensation of cell length, etc. by check by 

と思います。このコメンターの提案する、経路長の確認、検証は、関係する全てのガスについて良い検量線が取られているのであれば、満足するものと思われます。 

the representation gas which can be prepared with equipment. 典型的に、エチレンは経路長を確認するために使用されます。 Especially the thing for which the analytical curve check of each gas is performed on the spot is impossible by high pressure gas management 実地の校正用ガスおよび動的な希釈混合システムがツールとして利用不可能な時に、経路長リファof each company etc. ンスガスの使用は受理可能かもしれません。

It is impossible also from a field not only a factory administration side but economical for the standard reference gas of all the gas to come to その後、5%の精度標準の達成に対するこのアプローチの影響を評価することが必要になります。hand.
	Although analytical curve accuracy is less than ±5%, 5% of error is already in a certain state in an analytical curve, and it is impossible to obtain 5% of measurement result.
	It is also already 5.4% of accuracy to have united with 2% of error by the correlation coefficient.
	Since there is possibility of decomposition of 600 °C and at least 800 °C or less of external wall temperature of abatement equipment
	

Tracer gas can be the same also by how to enter from the abatement equipment latter part, 

「ホットスポット」が無い状態で、600- 800°Cが燃焼の中で壁温度に反映されていれば、理論上CF4はト

レーサー・ガスとして使えるでしょう。 

CF4の自己発火温度>1100°C(http:/ / www.nationmaster.com/ encyclopedia/ CF4)。 Use of PFC gas is also attained. 

として働きました。EPAが行った制限のあるテストでは、「測定された」壁温度が800C以下だった場合、CF4はトレーサートレーサー・ガスとしてCF4かKrのいずれかを使用して測定されたDREは、高精度と共に、同じ値となり

ました。 . 

On the above-mentioned conditions, use of ethylene is also possible. 

EPAは、燃焼式除害システムでは、エチレンは使えないと思います、なぜなら、600°Cではそれは燃えてしまうでしょう。 

そのようなシステムでは、燃料はメタン(CH4)です。 コメントがC 2F4を指しても、それは燃焼 (自己発火温度は39 2Cです )の中でまた燃え尽きます。

If the dilution rate measurement in meters, such as an anemometer and a flow instrument, is also possible 

EPAは、風速計の使用が求められた測定精度を達成するだろうと思いません。通過する流れの全プロフィルを必要とし、その結果を体積に変換しなくてはなりません。 

理論としては達成可能ですが、EPAは生じるエラーが提案された5%の数値を数倍超過するだろうと思います。 

流量計(マスフローメータのような)測定のために,MFMの通過量をすべて吸引しなくてはなりません。 それは実用的ではないでしょう。さらに、MFMの較正に挑戦しますか? 

誰が、使用する空気を乾かし、湿気のために修正するでしょうか。 

それでは、測定精度が十分とはありえないでしょう。

It is whether 60-point measurement has large load (opinion). 

現代のFT- IRシステムのサンプリングレートで、同じ較正流量の60のデータポイント、1つが2.2秒ごとにデータを 

集めている場合、過度とは思えません。 合計の測定時間は60のデータポイントのためにおよそ2分です。 これらのデータは、さらにスクラバーを出る定常状態濃度を示すでしょう。
Number Reviewer Affiliation Section From Page To Page From Line To Line Comment 

34 Dr. Shou-nan Li ITRI Taiwan 1.1 4 12 15 

This is not correct. In Taiwan, the ITRI Method has been uperformance evaluation of local scrubbers since 2001. Thshown in the following 3 published papers: • Li et al.,(2004). Default values appear to be overestimatifrom fabs. Solid-State Technology, Sep. 2004. • Li et al., (2002). FTIR spectrometers measure scrubber aEfficiencies. • Solid-State Technology, July 2002. • Li et al., (2001). Improved Technique for Evaluating PoinSystems. Semiconductor Fabtech, 14th Edition, June 200

35 Dr. Shou-nan Li ITRI Taiwan 2.2.1 8 17 24 

The process tool is kept off while data is collected. In this PFC (CF4) will not be measured. Please read the followinEdwards and ITRI: Czerniak et al., (2007). Has the Challenge of PFCs really Semiconductor International (2007), Oct. 

36 Dr. Shou-nan Li ITRI Taiwan 2.2.4 9 24 25 

It is stated, the FTIR should be operated at 0.5 cm-1. How

be operated at 0.5 and 1.0 cm-1. 

37 Dr. Shou-nan Li ITRI Taiwan 2.2.5 10 12 13 

This is not necessary. Even in Fig.2, the calibration is not PFCs. Usually, we can use ethylene or other standard gas 

38 Dr. Shou-nan Li ITRI Taiwan 2.2.6 11 15 18 

At this condition of 600C with a catalyst, the DRE for CF4 than 80%. We cannot measure the flow rate using CF4/SFSimilarly, at 800C without a catalyst, the DRE for CF4 and than 30%. Thus, significant error could be produced. 

39 Dr. Shou-nan Li ITRI Taiwan References 21 

All cited references are internal reports from US EPA or Sreader of this protocol reach these cited references ?