` 

# Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

– Revisions to the Electronics Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule:

EPA’s Responses to Public Comments` August 2013



# Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

– Revisions to the Electronics Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule:
EPA’s Responses to Public Comments

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmosphere Programs

Climate Change Division
Washington, D.C.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

v 

### FOREWORD

This document provides responses to public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I. The EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register (FR) on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63538). The EPA received comments on this proposed rule via mail and email. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comments letters are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028.

The EPA prepared this document in multiple sections, with each section focusing on a different broad category of comments on the rule. The EPA’s responses to comments are generally provided immediately following each comment summary. In some cases, the EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar comments in the preamble to the final rulemakin g. Rather than repeating those responses in this document, the EPA has referenced the preamble.

Comments were assigned to specific section of this document based on an assessment of the principal subject of the comment; however, some comments inevitably o verlap multiple subject areas. For this reason, the EPA encourages the public to read the other sections of this document relevant to their interests.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

vi The primary contact regarding questions or comments on this document is:

Carole Cook

, Phone: (202) 343

- 9263 ; Fax: (202) 343

- 2342
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmospheric Programs
Climate Change Division

Mail Code 620 7

- J
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

For technical information and implementation materials, please go to the Greenhouse Gas

Reporting Rule Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporti ng / . To submit a question,

select " Help Center " , followed by “Contact Us.”Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

1.0 Comments on Administrative Procedures

................................ ................................ ...... 1 Page

2.0 Selection of the Stack Testing Option as an Alternativ e to Using Emission Factors

.. 2

3.0 Requirements for Selection of Stack Systems for Testing.

................................ ............ 3

4.0 Stack Testing Requirements for F

- GHGs (Including Testing for By

- products)

......... 6

5.0 Requirements for F

- GHGs Not Detected by Method 320

................................ ........... 12

6.0 Requirements for Alternative Stack Test Methods.

................................ .................... 18

7.0 Accounting for Abatement System Downtime.

................................ ............................ 19

8.0 Calculating the Average Fab

- Specific Emission Factor.

................................ ............. 20

9.0 Stack Testing Frequency

................................ ................................ ................................ 22

10.0 Revision of Default Gas Utilization Rates and By

- Product F ormation Rates

........... 26

11.0 Removal of Provisions for Using Recipe

- Specific E mission Factors

.......................... 32

12.0 Revisions to Allow Reporting Integrated Production and R&D Emissions

.............. 34

13.0 Revisions to Accuracy and Precision Provisions for the Equipment Measuring Gas Consumption

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 35

14.0 Changes to Requirements for Re

- Calculating the Facility

- Wide Gas Specific Heel Factor

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 36

15.0 Changes to Requirements for Verification of the Apportioning Model and General Apportioning Requirements

................................ ................................ .......................... 36

16.0 Revisions to Clarify the Calculation of Annual Fab

- Level N2O Emissions

.............. 45

17.0 Revised Abatement S ystem Destruction and Revision of Default DRE Values

........ 46

18.0 Revisions to Requirements for Establishing Site

- Specific DRE and EPA DR E Protocol (Proposed Appendix A)

................................ ................................ ................... 58

19.0 Revisions to Random Sampling Abatement System Testing Program (RSASTP) Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 70

20.0 Abatement Systems Certification and Maintenance Plans

................................ ......... 74

21.0 Determining and Calculating Abatement System Uptime

................................ .......... 87

22.0 Addition of 3

- Year Reports of Information That Could Be Used to Update Gas Utilization Rates, By

- Product Formation Rates, and DRE Values

............................ 91Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

viii 23.0 Changes to Recordkeeping an d Reporting Requirements

................................ ........ 100

24.0 Proposal to Require Facilities to Calculate Effective Facility

- Wide DRE Factor.

. 103

25.0 Changes to Remove BAMM Provisions and Language Specific to Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 105

26.0 Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in Two Direct Emitter Data Categories

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 106

27.0 General Support for Amendments

................................ ................................ .............. 110

28.0 Out of Scope Comments: General Comments on Other Proposed Rulemakings

... 112Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

ix LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ASTM Acronyms
American Society for Testing and Materials BAMM B est available monitoring methods CAA Clean Air Act CBI C onfidential business information CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH 4 Methane CO C arbon monoxide CO 2 Carbon dioxide CO 2 e C arbon dioxide equivalent
CVD C hemical vapor deposition
DE D estruction efficiency
DRE D estruction or removal efficiency

e

- GGRT Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool EIA Economic Impact Analysis EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESH E nvironmental , safety, and health
FDL F ield detection limit
F

- GHG F luorinated greenhouse gas
FR Federal Register
FTIR Fourier transform infrared GHG G reenhouse gas GWP G lobal warming potential HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HQ Headquarters
HTF H eat transfer fluid
IBM International Business Machines Corporation ICR Information Collection Request IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISBN International Standard Book Number ISMI International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative kg K ilograms LCD L iquid crystal display MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology MEMS M icro

- electro

- mechanical systems mtCO 2 e M etric ton carbon dioxide equivalent

N 2 O N itrous oxide
NAICS North American Industrial Classification SystemComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

x NF 3 Acronyms

N itrogen trifluoride NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management & Budget PFC P erfluorocarbon POU P oint of use ppbv P arts per billion by volume
ppm P arts per million QA/QC Q uality assurance/quality control QMS Q uadrupole mass spectroscopy R&D R esearch and development RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines RSASTP R andom sampling abatement system testing program RSD R elative standard deviation SEMATECH SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology SF 6 S ulfur hexafluoride SIA Semiconductor Industry Association
TI Texas Instruments Incorporated TSD T echnical support document U.S. United States UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 VCS V oluntary consensus standard VOC V olatile organic compound WWW Worldwide WebComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

1 

### 1.0 Comments o n Administrative Procedures

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Numb er: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment : SIA greatly appreciated the opportunity to engage in a technical dialogue with the EPA, as well as the EPA’s decision to grant our petition for reconsideration, propose the withdrawal of t he current rule, and develop a Proposed Rule that provides alternative means of quantifying GHG emissions from semiconductor fabs

. As an indication of how productive this technical dialogue has been from SIA’s perspective, the Proposed Rule addresses most of our substantive concerns and represents a significant improvement over the current subpart I . Nonetheless, as set forth in detail in these comments, there are a number of areas where the rule needs to be modified and improved to achieve the goals share d by both the EPA and SIA of allowing the EPA "to accurately characterize and analyze GHG emissions from facilities in the electronics manufacturing industry while reducing burden to the industry." 77 Fed. Reg . at 63543. To meet this goal, the final rule n eeds to be practical and the rule language needs to be understandable and clear. Many of the comments presented below are made with that in mind. In addition, SIA is providing additional data on the emissions of fab processes and the effectiveness of abatement systems which can be used by the EPA to refine to the emission and abatement factors in this rule.

Just as SIA worked with the EPA prior to this proposal, SIA wants to continue that cooperative process. Close communications between the EPA and SIA after the close of the comment period are critical to enable SIA to explain the importance of the technical changes detailed below, to refine and clarify the Proposed Rule, to facilitate a timely resolution of our con cerns with the proposed rule, and to avoid misunderstandings similar to those that have arisen in the past with regard to this regulation. Indeed, p romulgation of a final rule to replace the current subpart I as soon as possible is vital, so that the SIA m embers will have time to design and implement programs to support the reporting of their GHG emissions by the new methods starting in 2014.

Response: The EPA notes the commenter's suggestions and thanks the commenter for their input and additional data su bmitted during the public comment period. A meeting between the EPA and the Semiconductor Industry Association ( SIA ) was held following the close of the public comment period in which SIA provided the EPA with a Microsoft Power Point presentation summarizi ng their major comments. ( S ee "EPA/SIA Meeting

– March 12. 2013

, " docket number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0100). Another meeting between the EPA and SIA was held on May 8, 2013 in which SIA reiterated their major comments (see “ EPA/SIA Meeting

- May 8, 2013, ” d ocket number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0101 ). The EPA has considered and

, where appropriate, revised the proposed rule to address the comments on the proposed amendments and the additional data provided during the public comment period, highlighted in SIA's pre sentation, as discussed in this document. We are publishing these final amendments in 2013 to give facilities adequate time to implement the proposed calculation and monitoring requirements for estimating emissions in 2014 that will be reported in 2015.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

2 

### 2.0 Selection of the Stack Testing Option as an Alternative to Using Emission Factors

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment : SIA supports the inclusion of the stack test alternative and believes that, as a direct measurement of emissions, stack testing will result in high quality data on emissions from fabs

. Some of the details of this alternative, however, pose challenges to the use of this alternative. Therefore, SIA has a number of comments intended to improve this alternative.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s support in its efforts to provide flexib le, accurate methods to calculate emissions from electronics manufacturing. The EPA is promulgating the stack test alternative in the final amendments to subpart I. The EPA has addressed the various public comments in regards to the proposed amendments thr oughout this document.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment : Intel supports the addition of the stac k test method as another acceptable means of determining annual emissions. Periodic stack testing is widely used throughout industry as a means of calculating emissions of other pollutants, and can provide an accurate assessment of emissions with a represe ntative sample period and a reasonable means of scaling short term results to annual emissions. In general, the proposal meets those objectives but Intel believes that corrections are needed to certain portions of this section.

Response: Please see the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 9.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

3 Comment : IBM strongly supports inclusion of a stack testing option to create fab level, gas specific, emissions factors for use in the estimation of fab GHG emissions As a direct measurement, stack testing is a universally recognized me thodology for measuring emissions. Fabs vary in layout and data collection systems, and so by including both a stack and an emission factor option, the Proposed Rule provides an important level of flexibility to fab operators to find the most efficient way to determine and report GHG emissions.

Response: Please see the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 9.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment : EDF supports the EPA’s proposal to add the option under subpart I of quantifying emissions through the use of stack test. The stack testing methodology relies on direct measurement, and as a r esult, likely provides greater accuracy than the agency’s alternative default emissions factor approach. Likewise, stack testing avoids the need to collect data that is arguably confidential business information and therefore provides significantly greater transparency. As a result, stack testing is preferable to relying on default emissions factors, and we respectfully urge the EPA to incorporate this practice to the greatest degree possible.

Response: Please see the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0 028

- 0095, excerpt 9.



### 3.0 Requirements for Selection o f Stack Systems for Testing.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment : SIA endorses the basic method that the EPA has proposed for identifying stacks with low emissions that would not need to be tested under the Stack Test Option. In that context, SIA agrees with:

**•** The use of the revised T ier 2a factors that are in Tables I

- 11 and I

- 12 to complete the initial assessment of stack emissions;

**•** The inclusion of the effects of abatement (using either the default DREs in Table I

- 16 or site specific DREs, in that initial assessment of stack emissio ns; and

**•** The use of the same revised Tier 2a factors, including abatement, to report the emissions from such low

- emitting stacks.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

4 Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding the stack test option. In the final amendments to subpart I, the EPA is promulgating the requirement , as proposed, to use revised Tier 2a emission factors, considering abatement, to select stack systems for testing and to calculate and report F

- GHG emissions from stack systems that are not tested.

Commenter Name: Da vid Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment : SIA has attempted to compute the revised Tier 2a emissions f actors that appear in Tables I

- 11 and I

- 12 and are to be used to screen which stacks are to be tested under the stack testing alternative. SIA was not able to duplicate all the figures. After an inquiry to the EPA

, the EPA posted in the docket (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0090) an explanation of how the factors in Tables I

- 11 and I

- 12 were derived. Based on our review of that document, SIA recommends the following steps be taken as the rule is finalized and the factors in these two tables are updated:

**•** The EPA shou ld continue to use the default factors by process type and process sub

- type in Tables I

- 3 and Table I

- 4, or the underlying data, as the starting point for the derivation of the simpler factors in Tables I

- 11 and I

- 12. To the extent the factors in Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4 are updated between proposal and final rulemaking, those updated factors should be used to update the factors in Tables I

- 11 and I

- 12.

**•** SIA understands that the EPA ha s used the arithmetic averages of the different process specific factors when deriving the factors in Tables I

- 11 and I

- 12. SIA believes that gas

use weighting is technically more appropriate, rather than sample weighting. We would
encourage the EPA to re

- compute the Table I

- 11 and I

- 12 factors with gas

- use weight. Where gas use information is not available, sample weighting of available EF data would be acceptable.

**•** The EPA should rework the NF3 emission factors to give proper weighting to the emissions fac tor for remote clean, which represents the largest use of NF3.

Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affili ation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 31

Comment : On page 63545 of the preamble to the Proposed Rule, he EPA has asked for comments on how often a fab “reconfigures” the flo w to a low emitting stack system. Fabs don’t generally reconfigure stack systems per se as this would involve the modification of exhaust ductComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

5 systems with extensive unwanted shutdown and interruption of manufacturing. Low emitting stack systems could be r econfigured if there were a major change in fab manufacturing technology. However, in that event, re

- testing would likely be re

- triggered by the criteria in 98.94(j)(8).

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding the reconfiguration of low

emitting stack systems. Based on the information provided by the commenter , the EPA has concluded that reconfiguration of a stack system is a rare event and that any change in F

- GHG emissions from such an event would be reflected in updated fab emission factors as a result of a stack system re

- test triggered by the criteria in §98.94(j)(8). As a result

, the EPA is promulgating the criteria in §98.94(j)(8) for when a stack system is required to be re

- tested with minor clarifications as noted in t he response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 29.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerp t Number: 32

Comment : On page 63545, the EPA asks whether reporters should be allowed to use average fab

- specific emissions factors obtained from stacks tested for low

- emitting stacks [that are not tested]. SIA feels that the use of the emissions factors in Tables I

- 11 and I

- 12, with additional accounting for abatement, using either default DREs or site specific DREs, will be an adequate means of estimating and reporting the emissions of low

- emitting stacks (that are not tested).

Response: The EPA apprec iates the commenter’s input regarding the use of emission factors in Table I

- 11 and I

- 12 to calculate and report emissions from stack systems that are not tested. As proposed, the EPA is finalizing the requirement to use updated, revised Tier 2a emission f actors, considering abatement, to calculate and report F

- GHG emissions from stack systems that are not tested. The final rule will not include a provision that would require or allow the use of fab

specific emission factors developed through stack testing to be applied to low

- emitting stacks that are not tested.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 35

Comment : Proposed 98.93(i)(1)(ii) and (iii) state: “You must use data from the previous reporting year to estimate the consumption of input gas i (98.93(i)(1)(ii)... and ...total uptime of all abatement systems...” (98.93(i)(1)(iii). There will be inst ances, when there will be no data from a “prior reporting year” (e.g., a new facility that just crossed reporting thresholds). SIA recommends that the following sentence, allowing the annual gas usage and abatement unit uptime to be estimated based on gas usage during a time period of 30 days or more, be insertedComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

6 in both 98.93(i)(1)(ii) and (iii). “Where previous year’s data is not available, a fab can estimate annual gas usage and abatement system uptime based on representative operating data from a period covering 30 days or more.”

Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment : While we recognize that the EPA has included exemptions for low

- emitting stacks and for low

- use intermittent F

- gases, we urge the agency to narrow these exemptions to the greatest degree possible.

Response: The EPA needs to strike a balance between the burden of testing stacks that may account for a small percent of a facilities overall emissions, against the need for accurate emission estimates. Therefore, although the EPA agrees with the commenter in principal that these criteria should not be overly broad, the EPA has determined that the criteria in proposed 40 CFR 98.93(i)(2) result in an appropriate number of stacks tested to provide accurate fab emission estimates while avoiding excessive burden from measuring emissions from multiple stack systems. Additionally, the commenter did n ot provide any details or specific recommendations as to how the criteria could be revised. As described in the memorandum “Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facil ities under Subpart I,” Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0085, the EPA selected both relative and absolute annual mass emission limits for stack systems not tested to ensure that testing is focused on the largest emitting stack systems while reducing the burden of testing stacks that account for a small share of total facility emissions. Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing the criteria , as proposed, in 40 CFR 98.93(i)(2) for stack systems exempt from measurement. For additional information regarding exempt ions for low

- emitting stacks and intermittent low

- use fluorinated GHG, please see the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 104, which can be found in Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments.



### 4.0 Stack Testing Requirements for F

- GHGs (Including Testing for By

products)

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 13Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

7 Comment : SIA has a specific concern with the footnote to Table I

- 9. The last three sentences of that footnote refer to field measurement "verification.” This language needs to be revised and clarified. In particular, the footnote says

, "the use of a hygro meter can provide verification of accuracy which must be +/

- 2 percent." This language raises two concerns. First, we do not understand how the verification of the FTIR result is to occur or why it is needed. Second, the reference to a "+/

- 2%" accuracy re quirement is ambiguous. Is the accuracy of the hygrometer required to be +/

- 2 percent or are the FTIR and hygrometer readings supposed to agree within 2 percent ? Further, is that 2 percent moisture or 2 percent of the moisture reading? If it is 2 percent of the moisture reading, meeting that standard will be problematic due to accuracy of FTIR and hygrometer; remembering that not all stacks will be saturated. Also the use of Perry’s Handbook will only work if the stack is saturated and that will not always be the case. SIA recommends deleting the footnote. If the agency chooses to retain this footnote, then it will need to be edited to address the issues listed here. If retained, SIA recommends deleting the text at the end of the footnote starting with "Fie ld measurements should be . . ." and replacing it with the following language: " When testing a wet scrubber stack, the field measurements should be verified to be in line with moisture saturated exhaust concentrations at the measured temperatures. "

Respon se: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input regarding verification of moisture concentrations in semiconductor stack gas streams. Measurement of moisture content is necessary to determine the molecular weight of the stack gas, and in turn to calculat e mass flow rates and correct for dry concentration readings by FTIR . Although extractive FTIR is an acceptable method of determining the volumetric concentration of moisture in semiconductor gas streams, we have determined that it is necessary for the tester to validate the moisture
measurement to ensure the accuracy of the final FTIR results so that inaccurate moisture measurements do not bias the measurement of the target F

- GHG.

The EPA agrees with the commenter that the use of published water vapor pressure curves is applicable only for saturated conditions. Therefore, in the final amendments, we are clarifying that for unsaturated conditions, reporters must perform a single point verification of the FTIR moisture reading using Method 4, or to a NIST traceable hygrometer accurate to ±2 percent relative humidity. We are also specifying that the moisture measurement obtained using FTIR shall agree within 10 percent of the moisture measurement obtained using Method 4 or a NIS T traceable hygrometer.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment : Section 98.94( j)(1)(iv) of the Proposed Rule indicates that stack systems are not required to be tested simultaneously but “you must certify that no changes in stack flow configuration (including, for example, the number and type of process tools vented to each system) occur between tests conducted for any particular fab in a reporting year.” SIA recognizes that it is important to ensure that the system is relatively static over the course of a round of testing, but a certification of “no changes” goes beyond what is nec essary and reasonable.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

8 Indeed, a fab may readily be able to certify that no significant changes have occurred over the relatively short time required to complete the consecutive testing of multiple stacks, but nevertheless, not make a “no changes” certific ation because one or more process tools might have been added to or subtracted from a stack system during that time period, as such an action is a common occurrence in fabs. In other words, as part of normal operation, a process tool might be disconnected or added during a week of testing, but such an action should not invalidate the test. Such an action would not cause a significant change in emissions, since a single process tool (or small number of them) would represent a small fraction of the total. In addition, there is typically a time lag between the time a process tool connection is made and the time the process tool is up to full production and emissions. Therefore, we propose that this certification criterion be modified as follows:

“98.94(j)(1)(iv ) Although all applicable stack systems are not required to be tested simultaneously, you must identify any changes that occurred over the course of testing, including any GHG emitting process tools newly connected to or disconnected from the system. You m ust also certify that no process tools that were in operation at the start of the test period have been moved to a different stack during the test period and that no point

- of

- use abatement systems on active process tools have been permanently removed from service during the test period.”

Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment : Section 98.94(j)(1)(iv) of the proposed rule states that "you must certify that no changes in stack flow configuration (including, for example, the number and type of tools ven ted to each system) occur between tests conducted for any particular fab in a reporting year." While we recognize that it is important to ensure that the system is relatively static over the course of the testing, the certification of "no changes" may be d ifficult to meet as it is possible that a small number of process tools could be added to or subtracted from a stack system in that time period, as this is a common occurrence in fabs. Therefore, we support SIA’s proposed language aimed at ensuring that no changes occur which can have a significant impact on emissions.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding stack flow configuration during stack testing. Please see Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for addi tional details regarding certification of stack flow configuration changes during stack testing.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry AssociationComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

9 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment : The definition of terms for Equations I

- 17 and I

- 18 in the Proposed Rule at Section 98.93(i)(3)(ii)states: “Each time interval in the sampling period must be less than or equal to 60 minutes (for ex ample an 8 hour sampling period would consist of at least 8 time intervals)

. ”

SIA notes that the summed term in I

- 17 and I

- 18 is numerically equivalent to that obtained using the average concentration over the entire duration of the stack test (m=1), and a sks that the requirement for minimum time intervals (tm) over the duration of the 8+ hour stack test either be removed entirely, or be made specific to the use of the FTIR method.

When the FTIR method is used, the sampling period time intervals are typical ly on the order of minutes, and so the requirement for a minimum of a 60 minute time interval is easily achieved. However, if in the future, a provision is made for using the GC

- MS or similar type of appropriately validated method that entails the collecti on and analysis of composite samples that would be collected over the 8+hour sampling period; then the EPA requirement as currently worded, would obligate the sampler to collect a minimum of 8 one

- hour time integrated samples. Such an obligation would be e xcessive, and provide little benefit since the composite sample itself provides an appropriate averaging.

Accordingly, we propose that 98.93(i)(3)(ii) either delete the requirement for minimum time interval, or make it specific to the FTIR method, as follo ws:
“Each time interval in the FTIR sampling period must be less than or equal to 60 minutes (for example an 8 hour sampling period would consist of at least 8 time intervals).”

Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment : The proposed rule requires a minimum 8 hr. per stack testing period. Intel believes this is a reasonable amount of time to ensure a representative sample. However, the rule also states that the results must be reported as 8, 1 hr. samples. This is not typical for FTIR testing, where r eadings are generally taken every few minutes continuously over the entire sample period. In the case of an 8 hr. test, the testing would be performed for 8 hrs. continuously, not in 8 individual 1 hr. blocks. Intel recommends that the language in this por tion of the rule be changed to allow for continuous 8 hr. testing rather than 8 individual 1 hr. runs

. Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding sampling times. See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment forComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

10 additional details regarding sampling times with using EPA Method 320 under the stack testing option.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment : The definition of Equations I

- 17 and I

- 18 in the Proposed Rule at Section 98.93(i)(3)(ii) require each time interval in the sampling period to be less than or equal to 60 min utes. When the FTIR method is used, the sampling period time intervals are typically on the order of minutes, and so the requirement for a minimum of a 60 minute time interval is easily achieved. However, if in the future, a provision is made for using the GC

- MS or similar type of appropriately validated method that entails the collection and analysis of composite samples that would be collected over the 8+hour sampling period; then the Proposed Rule as currently worded, would obligate the sampler to collec t a minimum of 8 one

- hour time integrated (composite) samples. A requirement for 8 or more one hour duration composite samples would be excessive in that situation, and so IBM requests that 98.93(i)(3)(ii) either delete the requirement for a minimum time i nterval, or that it be made specific to the FTIR method.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding sampling times. See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment for additional details regarding sampling times with using EPA Method 320 under the stack testing option.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 002 8

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 33

Comment : In Section 5.1.1 of the EPA support document titled “Technical Support for the Stack Testing Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse F

- GHG Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I

, ” it says: “Please note that in utilizing the work performed by SIA member companies (Intel, IBM, and Texas Instruments) in consultation with the EPA, the use of this method for stack testing to measure F

- GHG emissions at electronics manufacturing facilit ies has been validated using Section 13 of Method 320.” SIA asks that The EPA confirm in the final rule that the agency has determined that the requirements of Section 13 of Method 320 have been fulfilled relative to the application of this method to the m easurement of F

- GHG emissions from semiconductor manufacturing facilities.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding validation of EPA Method 320 for measuring F

- GHG emissions. However, in the final rule amendments the EPA is clarifyin g that Section 13 of EPA Method 320 is not waived for all tests. We are also clarifyingComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

11 that EPA Method 320 validations previously completed do not qualify for all FTIRs

. The EPA Method 320 should be run, as written, for each unique matrix, instrument, or algorithm, as discussed below.

The final rule amends 40 CFR 98.94(j)(2) to specify that each FTIR system (hardware and software) and each tester (testing company) must complete a method validation according to Section 13 of Method 320. Method 320 validatio n is necessary when any change occurs in instrumentation, tester (i.e., testing company), or stack condition (e.g. acid gas vs. base). In addition, measurement of new compounds will require validation for those compounds according to Section 13 of Method 3 20.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 34

Comment : Paragraph 98.94(j)(1)(iv) states that “ ...all applicable stack systems are not required to be tested simultaneously...” SIA feels it is important for the final rule to retain this provision since most of the large fabs are designed to exhaust the large number of tools typically contained in these fabs to more than one stack. Therefore, the contractor performing the stack tests has to move their instrumentation from stack to stack. Using several FTIRs at a time is logistically impractical and less efficient. In addition, there is a lack of qua lified FTIR testing companies. Consequently, the individual stacks are normally tested sequentially.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input and agrees that using several FTIRs is impractical and less efficient. As a result, the final rule inc ludes the provision in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(1)(iv) that “all applicable stack systems are not required to be tested simultaneously,” as proposed.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 104

Comment : Treatment of Fluorinated Gases Used in Small Quantities: As SIA understands the Stack Testing Alternative, a fab is not required to test for a gas that i s not one of the listed "expected by

- products" if the fab chooses to report emissions equal to consumption of that gas. To ensure clarity on this point, SIA requests that the EPA modify Section 98.93 (a) of subpart I as follows: " If your fab uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, you may calculate emissions as equal to your fab’s annual consumption for that specific gas as calculated in Equation I

- 11 of this subpart. If this is done and the Stack Testing Method under 98.94(j) is

us ed, testing for the gas is not required unless it is one of the expected by

- product s ."Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

12 Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment : As outlined in the proposal, EDF supports the use of Method 320 for the stack test measurements and also supports the EP A ’s proposal to allow “alternative measurement methods” that are based on rigorous criteria for the development and approval of such methods.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding the allowance of “alternative measurement methods. ” The EPA is maintaining the provisions for facilities to request approval to use an alternative stack test method in the final amendments to subpart I (see 40 CFR 98.94(k)).



### 5.0 Requirements for F

- GHGs Not Detected by Method 320

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment : The Proposed Rule at Section 98.93(i)(3)(ii)(A) states that in d etermining emissions under the Stack Test Alternative, "If a fluorinated GHG is consumed but emissions are not detected, use one

- half of the field detection limit you determine for that fluorinated gas." This language should be amended by adding to the end of this sentence: "unless the consumption is below 50 kg and the emissions are being reported as equal to consumption pursuant to Section 98.93(a)." SIA agrees that it is reasonable to report the emissions of any other designated fluorinated greenhouse ga s that is consumed but not detected as though it were present at half the FDL.

The Proposed Rule at Section 98.93(i)(3)(ii)(B) states that in determining emissions under the Stack Test Alternative, "If a fluorinated GHG is consumed during the sampling per iod but is detected intermittently during the sampling period, use the detected concentration...when available and use one

- half the field detection limit... when the fluorinated GHG is not detected. ” This language should be amended by adding a qualifier: " This protocol applies unless the consumption is below 50 kg and emissions are being reported as equal to consumption pursuant to Section 98.93(a)." SIA agrees that it reasonable to report the emissions of a gas detected intermittently as though it were pre sent at one

- half the FDL when it is not detected.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

13 Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support for using one

- half the field detection limit (FDL) in situat ions where a fluorinated GHG is consumed but not detected, or detected intermittently. The FDL is the lowest concentration at which at which an F

- GHG can be detected during a specific field measurement. The EPA is finalizing the requirement to use one

half the FDL if a fluorinated GHG is consumed but emissions are not detected. The EPA is also finalizing the requirement to use one

- half the FDL when the fluorinated GHG is not detected for fluorinated GHGs that are consumed but detected intermittently. As sta ted in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 77 FR 63547) the EPA expects that using one

- half the FDL in place of non

detect values in situations where a gas is used as an input gas or is detected intermittently as a by

- product gas will provide a reasonab le estimate of emissions of these F

- GHGs in these circumstances.

As discussed in Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments, we neglected to update 40 CFR 98.93(a) to clarify that the provision allowing fabs to calculate emissions as equal to consumption if their fab consumes less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG only applies to facilities using the estimation methods in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(1) and (a)(2). Because we are clarifying that facilities cannot calculate emissions as equal to consumptio n for fluorinated GHGs consumed in quantities less than 50 kg under the stack testing option, the EPA is promulgating the final amendments to subpart I without the commenter's suggested addition. See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendme nts for additional information.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment : The Proposed Rule at Section 98.93 (i)(3)(ii)(C) says that a gas not consumed during the sampling period that is detected intermittently should be treated the same way as consumed gases are to be treated in Section 98.93 (i)(3)(ii)(B). SIA agrees with this approach.

The Proposed Rule at Section 98.93 (i)(3)(ii)(D) states that if an "expected" by

- product gas of the stack system tested is not detected, it should be treated as though it is present at one

- half the FDL. SIA agrees with this approach to the trea tment of expected by

- products that are not detected.

The preamble to the Proposed Rule at page 63546 asks for comments on whether certain by

products should always be presumed to be present and whether a list of expected by

- products should be provided in the final rule. In order to avoid confusion at the time of testing, SIA requests that the final rule include a specific list of by

- products that are to be tested and eliminate the need for a potentially challengeable determination of what is "expected" or "possible" in each instance. The EPA at p age 63546 in the preamble suggests a list of six chemicals that would be treated as expected by

- products: CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , CHF 3 , C 3 F 8 , C 4 F 6 , and C 4 F 8 . The latest round of data gathering also found CH 2 F 2 , CH 3 F, and C 5 F 8 as by

- products in some instances. SIA members and testing companies recommend that these three gases be added to the list of "possible" by

- product gases to be tested for under the stack test option. However, SIA further recommends that the listComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

14 of "expected" by

- product gases, that will be assumed to be present at half the FDL even if they are not detected, be limited to the five C1 and C2 compounds (CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , CHF 3 , CH 2 F 2 , and CH 3 F) because the four C3, C4 and C5 by

- products (C 3 F 8 , C 4 F 6 , c

- C 4 F 8 and C 5 F 8 ) we re found in only a hand full of tests. (See the by

- product emissions factor supporting data in Table I.3.) Again, those four "possible" by

- products would be tested for and, if detected, they would be reported as detected and at half the FDL for any interva l in that round of testing where they are not detected. If not detected, they will be reported as zero. In the next section (paragraph D, Table II.1) it is shown that the presumption of the presence of the five expected by

- products and the FDLs applied to them should not have a significant impact on the reported emissions.

Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment : One of the key challenges with stack testing methods lies in proper handling of chemicals that are emitted in small enough quantities t hat they are not detected, or intermittently detected in the exhaust stack readings. This problem is more acute in the semiconductor industry, where factory exhaust systems typically have very low concentrations. When this is combined with the fact that th ere are a significant number of compounds that are theoretically covered by this rule, overly conservative assumptions about non

- detect readings could result in significantly overestimating emissions via the stack test method.

Intel agrees with the EPA ’s proposal that for gases that are used in the factory being tested, and which are not detected or intermittently detected in the stack test results, assuming a value of 1⁄2 FDL for non

- detect readings is appropriate. The exception to this should be gases whos e annual use is less than 50 kg, in which case it should be acceptable to assume that emissions are equal to use. There are some fluorinated gases that can be formed as by

- product s and therefore be present as emissions even if not used in the factory. Inte l supports the EPA ’s proposal to develop a limited list of gases that would be treated as expected by

- products. Intel agrees with the SIA recommendation that CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , CHF 3 , C 3 F 8 , C 4 F 6 , C 4 F 8 , CH 2 F 2 , CH 3 F, and C 5 F 8 should be considered possible by

- product s . Of those, the five C1 and C2 compounds (CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , CHF 3 and CH 2 F 2 ) should be treated as "expected" and assumed to be present at half the FDL even if they are not detected, whereas the others would be tested for and, if detected, would be reported as detected and at half the FDL for any non

- detect reading in that round o f testing.. Any other material (i.e. a material not used or detected, and not listed as an "expected by

- product ") should be assumed to have emissions of zero. This approach would help provide clarity in the stack measurement requirements and would reduce t he risk of overestimating by assuming emissions of a number of chemicals which is not in fact present.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

15 Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding detection limits of expected by

- products. Please see Section II.B.1 of the preamble to th e final rule amendments for details regarding testing for expected by

- products and treatment of non

- detects.

In regards to the commenter’s statement “The exception to this should be gases whose annual use is less than 50 kg, in which case it should be acc eptable to assume that emissions are equal to use,” please refer to the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 104.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control N umber: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment : As the EPA notes in the TSD , by

- product emissions from processes at the fab can contribute significantly to overall emissions, ranging from 14

- 24 percent based on data submitted by the semiconductor industry. Accordingly, we support the EPA ’s proposal to require that all fabs using the stack testing method test for CF 4 and C 2 F 6 , even in situations where they are not used as input gases. At minimum, this approach is necessary given the ev idence in the docket that these two gases are routinely emitted as by

- products and must be measured.

The EPA has requested comment on strengthening this requirement to include routine testing for the most common six by

- product gases ( CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , C 3 F 8 , C 4 F 6 , C 4 F 8 , and CHF 3 ), even though they may not all be emitted as by

- products at every fab

. EDF supports strengthening the proposal in this way given that unexpected by

- products were found in the stack test data provided to the EPA by the semiconductor industr y (as summarized in the TSD ). Moreover, the EPA notes that the cost of testing for six, as opposed to two, of these gases is expected to be low, because the tests would be conducted at the same time, with the same equipment and personnel.

Response: The E PA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding testing for common by

product gases. Please see Section II.B.1 of the preamble of the final rule amendments for more details related to testing for common by

- product gases.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vi ce President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment : Table I

- 10 in the proposed rule presents a set of maximum FDLs that SIA

un derstands would apply to any testing carried out under the Stack Testing Alternative. These values have been achieved in very limited circumstances with specifically enhanced FTIR measurement systems. They are not achievable with conventional FTIR systems in normal usage. Stack testing at three fabs was completed in support of the testing alternative and the emissions reports appear in the docket. These limits were not always met. When they were met, it was withComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

16 customized enhanced measurement systems. Thes e limits should be either dropped from the rule or raised substantially as proposed below. If they are not removed or raised, the available testing contractors and equipment will be severely limited. If the FDLs are not met during a test and the test resul ts are consequently considered invalid, very expensive efforts and arrangements for data gathering will be wasted. Therefore, SIA proposes that the limits be increased by a factor of 5. With that change, the fully fluorinated gases will have a maximum fiel d detection limit of 25 ppbv, SF 6 will have a maximum of 5 ppbv, and other fluorinated gases will have a maximum of 50 ppbv. These values will be considered maximum FDLs. However, it is assumed that if stack testing at a site achieves lower FDLs, the lower FDLs would be used for estimating emissions of expected, but not detected gases.

Allowing fabs to use higher FDLs will not affect testing results in a significant way. Table II.1, below, provides a comparison of emissions based on stack test results by I ntel, IBM and TI using different FDL assumptions. The first column of data shows emissions assuming all "expected" by

- products that are not detected have no emissions. For the other two columns it is assumed the emissions from the non

- detected, expected by

- products are emitted at 1⁄2 FDL. The second column of emission data uses the maximum FDLs proposed by the EPA and the third column of emissions data assumes all the EPA proposed FDLs are increased by a factor of 5. The impact of accounting for five expected by

- product s is minor and doesn’t change appreciably for the higher FDLs except in the case of IBM, due to the very low concentrations in their stacks resulting from the fact that IBM’s tools are fully abated.

[See pg. 14 of Docket ID. No EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table I.10: "Impact of By

Product FDLs on Total Emissions.”]

Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment : Table I

- 10 of the proposed rule presents a set of maximum Field Detection Limits that any testing carried out under the stack testing alternative would be required to meet. Intel is concerned that these detection limits are not consistently achievable in all cases, even though they have been achieved in some instances. Field detection limits vary depending on conditions

, and the proposed limits are so low that there is a very real risk a facility could attempt to utilize the stack test method and be unable to achieve these limits. In that instance, a significant amount of time and money would have been spent on a test th at the facility ultimately cannot use. This risk would strongly discourage facilities from using the stack test method. In addition, the proposed limits are likely achievable only by a small number of highly specialized contractors with customized FTIR dev ices. This would limit the number of companies able to provide stack testing services to the industry, and therefore make it difficult for many facilities to arrange such stack testing. Intel recognizes that achieving reasonably low detection limits is nec essary toComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

17 ensure that useful emissions data can be produced via the stack method, but believes that increasing the limits considerably from the current proposal will not have a significant impact on accuracy. Intel supports the proposal in the Semiconducto r Industry Association (SIA) comments to increase the proposed detection limits by a factor of 5. Intel analyzed the data it collected in stack testing performed in July 2011 and shared with the EPA . This analysis is shown in Table II

- 1 in the SIA comments and demonstrates that raising the required detection limits to the level proposed would not have produced a significant difference in emissions reported from the stack
test.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding FDLs . Please see S ection II.B.1 of the preamble for the final rule amendments for details regarding FDLs

.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment : IBM strongly supports, and has devoted considerable resource to the development of, the stack method. IBM would like to amplify a few concerns that the SIA comments express relative to the proposed stack testing metho dology.

Stack testing FDL: Table I

- 10 in the Proposed Rule presents required field detection limits (FDL) for stack testing. In IBM’s own trial stack testing in support of the MRR, these FDL were just barely achieved, and so we are very concerned that mino r variation in instrumentation setup and/or daily operation could prevent the required FDL from being achieved under routine practice. In particular, the proposed FDL for SF 6 , is within only 0.2 ppbv of the FDL that IBM was able to achieve. If during stack testing the FDL were not achieved, the consequence would be that the stack testing would have to be repeated, which of course is very expensive and logistically difficult. Moreover, the impact of raising the FDL to more readily achievable levels would hav e no relevant impact on the accuracy or value of the reported GHG emissions from a fab. As noted in Table 4 of the EPA’s Subpart I Stack Testing Technical Support document, the EPA’s proposed detection limits correspond to very low CO 2 e emissions, and coul d be raised without material impact on a fab’s emissions statement.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding FDL s. Please see Section II.B.1 of the preamble for the final rule amendments for additional details regarding the EPA ’s
prom ulgated maximum FDL s

.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 4Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

18 Comment : EDF supports the EPA ’s proposed maximum field detection limits ( FDLs ), and agrees that FDLs should be lower for F

- Gases with higher GWPs

. Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment

.



### 6.0 Requirements for Alternative Stack Test Methods.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment : SIA supports the testing compan ies in their request to have ASTM D6348

- 03 (2010), "Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR ) Spectroscopy,” included in subpart I as an alternative to EPA Method 320. The ASTM method is much more straight

- f orward than EPA Method 320 and, as such, is easier to understand/ implement. Basically EPA Method 320 requires performing a validation of 12 spiked/ unspiked pairs in addition to the three Quality Assurance (QA) spikes whereas ASTM only requires three analy te spikes to demonstrate acceptable performance. What one loses using the ASTM Method is the ability to generate compound

- specific correction factors should your system not sufficiently recover the analytes . However, using the ASTM method will save time du ring collection and data processing without a detrimental impact to data quality. The QA spike procedure and recovery requirements for EPA Method 320 and ASTM D6348

- 03 are essentially the same (one can’t spike at more than 10 percent of extracted flow rate and must demonstrate recoveries within +/

- 30 percent of expected, respectively).

The testing companies have collected an abundance of data using the ASTM method. Although none of these data involved F

- GHG measurements at semiconductor facilities, the ASTM method has been successfully used in semiconductor fabs for other determinations (e.g., hazardous air pollutants) and was used in Intel stack testing for F

- gas conducted in 2011 to support rule developmen t. In addition, several existing EPA regulations list both EPA Method 320 and ASTM D6348

- 03 as acceptable methods. The RICE MACT ( 40 CFR p art 63 s ubpart ZZZZ ) and the Turbine MACT ( 40 CFR p art 63 s ubpart YYYY ) list both methods. Therefore, SIA asks that th e EPA include the ASTM alternative in subpart I

. Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

19 

### 7.0 Accounting for Abatement System Downtime.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Govern ment Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment : SIA proposes the following corrections/changes to the equations that are to be used with the S tack Test Method:

In Equation I

- 23 for abatement system uptime calculation, the summation sign in front of the fraction should be moved to the numerator of the fraction. The correct form of I

- 23 is [see pg . 17 of Docket Id. No EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 fo r equation.]

The EPA refers to UT f as the total uptime for all abatement systems for fab f. It would be more appropriate to refer to UF f as the average uptime factor for all systems in fab f.

Response: Regarding Equation I

- 23 of the proposed amendments to subpart I, the EPA agrees with the commenter’s recommendation to move the summation sign from in front of the fraction to the numerator. This was an inadvertent error that occurred during transcription for publication in the Federal Register.

The EPA also agrees with the commenter’s recommendation to refer to the term UT f as the average uptime factor for all abatement systems in fab f

, which is a more accurate reflection of the calculated value than tota l uptime, and as such, the EPA has revised the definition of the term UT f in the promulgated amendments accordingly.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment : The Proposed Rule at Section 98.94(j)(1)(i) states: "You must conduct an emission test... with the abatement systems connected to the stack system being tested operating with at l east 90 percent uptime during the 8

- hour (or longer) period for each stack system or at no less than 90 percent of the abatement system uptime rate measured over the previous reporting year." In the preamble on p.63547, the EPA states its intent to have th is apply to the average of uptime of all abatement systems; however, the rule language does not say this explicitly. If it were to apply to each abatement system, a single short outage could invalidate an expensive and time consuming test. Therefore SIA as k that the words: "averaged over all abatement systems" be inserted as follows: " You must conduct an emission test... with the abatement systems connected to the stack system being tested operating with at least 90 percent uptime, averaged over all abatement systems , during the 8

- hour (or longer) period for each stack system or at no less than 90 percent of the abatement system uptime rate measured over the previous reporting year, averaged over all abatement systems

. "Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

20 Response: The EPA agrees with the comm enter that the abatement system uptime requirement during the stack system testing period should apply to the average uptime of all abatement systems and not to each individual abatement system. The EPA recognizes the time and expense required to perform t he required stack test method and does not intend for a stack test to be invalidated due to a short outage of a single abatement system. As a result, the EPA is incorporating the commenter's proposed change into the final subpart I amendments. The final

ru le contains provisions that account for the actual uptime of each abatement system during the stack testing period and the effect on emissions, and the uptime of each abatement system during subsequent reporting periods. Therefore, the effect of one or mor e abatement systems falling below the 90

- percent average uptime criteria will be adjusted for and will not have an adverse effect on the accuracy of the emission factors developed from testing or in the subsequent annual emission estimates.



### 8.0 Calculating th e Average Fab

- Specific Emission Factor.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment : S IA proposes the following corrections/changes to the equations that are to be used with the Stack Test Method:

1. In Equation I

- 17 definition for Sv : the standard volume of gas at 68 F (20 C) and 1 atm . should read 0.0240 m3 /g

- mole. The value of 0.0224 m3 /g

- mole applies to 0 degrees C and 1 atm

.

Molar vol @ 1
atmos (lit/ gmole ) ( m3 / gmole )

Vm (0 C) = 22.414 0.02241

Vm (20 C) = 24.055 0.02406

Vm (25 C) = 24.465 0.02447

2. Similarly, in Equation I

- 18 definition for Sv : it should read 0.0240 m3 /g

- mole at 68 F (20 C). The value of 0.0224 m3 /g

- mole applies to 0 degree C.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input. In the final rule, the EPA has corrected the definition for the standard volume of gas at 68 F (20 C) and 1 atm to read 0.0240

m 3 /g

- mole.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

21 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment : In Equation I

- 19, there appears to be an error in the description of the equation. The
text at § 98.93(i)(3)(iii) should read "E is " where it says "E ij .”

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input. In the final rule, the EPA has corrected the subscript in the text at 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3)(iii) to read “E is ,” which is the mass emissions of fluorinated GHG i from stack system s, instead of “E ij .”

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconduct or Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment : In Equation I

- 20, the definition of EF kf should be similar to the definition of EF if in equation I

- 19 and contain the words "representing 100 percent abatement system uptime.”

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input. It was our intent that the definition of the term for the emission factor for by

- product gas k in fab f ( EF kf

) should be parallel to the definition of the same term for the input gas i in fab f ( EF if

). In the final amendments to subpart I, the EPA has revised the definition of “EF kf

” in Equation I

- 20 to read as follows “Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by

- product gas k, from fab f, representing 100 percent abateme nt system uptime (kg emitted/kg of all input gases consumed in tools vented to stack systems that are tested).”

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment : SIA agrees with the approach taken by the EPA in the treatment of emissions in excess of consumption. In particular, SIA believes it is reasonable to assume that in the case where a test results in an emissions factor over 1.0, that the excess (over one) should be treated as a by

- product. SIA also agrees that in setting the by

- product emissions factor it is reasonable to assume that NF 3 and SF 6 can produce carbon

- containing F

- GHG by

- p roducts and therefore these gases should be part of the denominator in determining the by

- product emission factor.

Response: the EPA thanks the commenter for their input. In the final rule, the EPA is promulgating the proposed procedure to account for emi ssions in excess of consumption under the stack test method in 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). Emissions of a particular gas that are in excess ofComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

22 consumption of that gas (i.e., when the emission factor is greater than 1.0 per unit of gas input) are assumed to be by

- p roduct s formed during the plasma etching and chamber cleaning processes. The by

- product formation emission factors calculated from the stack testing data include all fluorinated input gases in the denominator, including SF 6 and NF 3 .



### 9.0 Stack Testing Frequen cy

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment : The preamble to the Proposed Rule (page 63549 under “Testing Frequency”) states that the EPA ’s intent is to allow facilities subject to subpart I to use stack testing completed in support of rule development to establish initial emissions factors under the Stack Test Alternative. Significant testing in support of the rule was completed in 2011. SIA requests that the EPA clarify that all data collected during the calendar year 2011 regardless of the month that the final Rule is published will meet the “withi n 3

- year” criterion for pre

- rule data collection.

For testing conducted prior to the final rule, a fab may not have collected all required data elements and/or may not have collected all data elements in a manner consistent with all criteria in the final r ule, and abatement systems may not have been certified in the 2011 testing. Therefore, SIA asks that the final rule be explicit that a fab may use pre

- final rule stack test data to set emissions factors under the Stack Test Alternative if the key substanti ve requirements were met, any deviations from the final rule are reported to the EPA , and the EPA provides concurrence with the use of the data. In evaluating whether to accept the earlier test results, the EPA should exercise its discretion to allow the u se of data recorded during earlier testing, even if even if the procedures used do not match exactly what appears as a requirement in the final rule.

Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble for the final rule amendments for the response to this comme nt.

Commenter Name: Patrice Tompkins

- Everidge, WW ESH Director Commenter Affiliation: Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0094 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment : In the preamble to the proposed rule at p age 63549 under “Testing Frequency”

, the EPA states its intent to allow facilities subject to subpart I to use stack testing completed in support of rule development for purpose of initially establishing emissions factors under the Stack Test Alternative. SIA’s comment requests that the EPA clarify that the data gathered in calendar year 2011 regardless of the month that the final Rule is published in 2014 will meet theComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

23 “within 3

- year” criterion for pre

- rule data collection. While TI believes the rule will be finalized in 2013, TI would like to emphasize support for SIA’s concept that 2011 stack testing data will satisfy the “within 3

- year” criterion for pre

- rule data collection if the rule is finalized in 2014. TI underwent significant efforts to develop th e stack testing method. The stack data and methods used validated for the first time the FTIR method for low detection limit fluorinated GHG’s and thus was important for developing the stack testing method. TI’s stack testing efforts were consistent with a ll validation protocols under EPA Method 320 and TI worked closely with the EPA during the tests to make sure that validation applied to the overall semiconductor industry. Accordingly, TI’s 2011 stack testing data should be allowed for use regardless of w hen the final rule is published.

Response: T he EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding the use of data collected in calendar year 2011 for the purpose of initially establishing emission factors under the stack test alternative. Please see Section II.B.1 of the preamble for the final rule amendments for details regarding the use of stack test data collected in calendar year 2011.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment : On page 63549 of the preamble to the rule, the EPA asks for input on the following ...“What other changes in a fab's operation, such as the adoption of specific new process technologies, could trigger the re

- testing requirement?” SIA has evaluated potential new process technologies and concluded that any th at would change the nature of the emissions of GHGs from semiconductor manufacturing would trigger one or more of the six triggers for retesting [specified in items (j)(8)(i) through (vi)]. In that context, SIA believes that the six triggers for retesting in the proposed rule will detect and take into account any new process technologies that will come along in the foreseeable future. In particular, the triggers that will most likely be impacted by the introduction of new process technologies are the change in the consumption of a fluorinated GHG by more than 10 percent of the total annual fluorinated GHG consumption (in CO2e), the change in the consumption of an intermittent low

- use fluorinated GHG, or a decrease by more than 10 percent in the fraction of p rocess tools with abatement systems. The most common technology change in the life of a fab is the change in the critical device line width, which is commonly referred to as the technology node. However, Intel data collected over years and many different t echnology nodes and earlier submitted to the EPA (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0060) indicated that technology node had no significant influence on emissions.

Response: T he EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding changes in a fab’s operation that could tr igger the re

- testing requirement. The data cited by the commenter and found in the docket (item EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0060) show that over a decade of stack testing at one facility, gas consumption was correlated with gas emissions for both CF 4 ( R 2 = 0.9389 ) and SF 6 ( R 2 = 0.8939). The EPA has concluded that these data support the argument that emissions per unit gas consumption are generally stable over time, and that the proposed criteria are sufficient to capture changes that could affect emissions. As a r esult, the EPA is including the proposed re

-Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

24 testing triggers specified in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) in the final amendments to subpart I to ensure that any change which may significantly impact fab emission factors is captured by re

- test requirements.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment : On page 63550 of the Preamble to the Proposed Rule

, the EPA specifically requests comment on the proposed option to allow less frequent emission testing (i.e., the 5

- year testing exemption), encouraging commenters to supply rationale and any available data in support of submitted that supports and justifi es less frequent testing. Importantly, under the rule, the less frequent testing occurs only when the consistency of emissions has been demonstrated in three rounds of testing and the less frequent testing is eliminated if certain changes occur in the fab. Again, SIA feels that the six (6) separate triggers for retesting of stacks contain all the indicators needed to detect significant changes in a facility’s operation and trigger retesting the very next year. In addition, the criteria for less frequent tes ting specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) ensure that the relative standard deviation (RSD) criteria calculated from each of the three initial stack tests are met before a facility is exempted from testing in the next four years; and that only hap pens if none of the six re

- test criteria is met. The previously mentioned Intel data demonstrated this point; where, over the three year period from 2009

- 2011, Intel’s New Mexico fab satisfied the 20 percent RSD for their three largest F

- GHGs.

Response: T he EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding the option to allow reduced testing frequency based on variability in measured emission factors. T he EPA concurs with the commenter’s assertion argument that the scenarios that require a stack system to be re

- tested under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) will likely detect significant changes in a fab’s emissions from changes in operation. T he EPA has determined that the relative standard deviation criteria used to assess the variability of emission factors coupled with the re

- test requirements, in addition to the absolute minimum testing requirement of once every five years, will require electronics manufacturing facilities to perform stack testing and develop new emission factors at a frequency that accurately reflects potential changes in a fab’s emissions, but is not unnecessarily burdensome. As a result, the EPA is finalizing the option to allow facilities to use the same emission factor over multiple years, if the facility can demonstrate low measured variability in emission factors under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(ii) in addition to the scenarios that requires a stack system to be re

- tested under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8).

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Indu stry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 29Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

25 Comment : Referring to a scenario that requires a stack system to be retested, SIA requests that the EPA reword and expand item 98.94(j)(8)(vi) as follows to c learly explain the requirement:

“If a fluorinated GHG being consumed in the reporting year was not being consumed during the stack test and does not meet the definition of intermittent, low

- use fluorinated GHG in 98.98, then you must test the stack systems associated with the use of that fluorinated GHG at a time when that gas is in use” [as stated in (j)(1)(iii)].

Response: the EPA thanks the comment for their input. The original wording of 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8)(vi) merely cross

- referenced 40 CFR 98.94(j)( 1 ) ( iii ) , which is a relatively long paragraph. The change suggested by the commenter provides more context to the reader about which provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(j)( 1 )( iii ) are being referenced, so that the intent of the provision is more clear to the reader. T he EPA is modifying the language in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8)(vi) to clarify the requirement as follows:

“If a fluorinated GHG being consumed in the reporting year was not being consumed during the stack test and does not meet the definition of intermittent, low

- use fluorinated GHG in § 98.98, then you must test the stack systems associated with the use of that fluorinated GHG at a time when that gas is in use as required in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this section.”

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Exce rpt Number: 5

Comment : EDF urges the agency to reconsider its proposal to allow facilities to conduct multiple tests in a single year with the aim of demonstrating low variability and getting exempted from annual testing (subject to certain conditions). See § 98.94(j)(5)(2), 77 F R 63586. Given the magnitude and rate of change in the semiconductor industry, facilities should, at a minimum, be required to do annual tests for a period of 3 years before qualifying for an exemption of up to 5 years. The drive rs of change at a semiconductor facility are complex, and it is quite possible that emission factors could be stable over a one year period but not over a three year period.

Response: See Section II.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for th e response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

26 Comment : T he EPA at 98.94(j)(8) outlines the situations that require a stack system to be retested, recognizing that changes can occur over the life of a fab that would require retesting of stack emissions. EDF agrees that the conditions the EPA has outlined should trigge r retesting

, and we urge the agency to consider additional changes that should also retrigger retesting . In particular, certain changes identified in the context of the Technology Assessment R eport required under 98.96(y) should trigger retesting under 98. 94(j)(8). These include the implementation of new process technologies, introduction of new tool platforms, and introduction of new processes on existing platforms.

Response: See Section II.B.8 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the respons e to this comment.



### 10.0 Revision of Default Gas Utilization Rates and By

- Product F or mation Rates

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment : SIA supports the adoption of the default emissions factor alternative under subpart I

. This method allows the use of emissions factors and abatement efficiency factors that have been derived fr om extensive testing and provide the basis for high quality emissions estimates without disruptive testing in the fab environment where operating uptime is critical to the productivity of the fab. Much of the data used to derive the factors in the proposed rule come from the efforts of the semiconductor industry in advance of this proposal. As discussed below, SIA and ISMI continued emissions factor data collection activities during the settlement discussions to improve the representativeness of the emissio ns factor database.

Supplemental Emissions Factor Data:

On page 63552 of the preamble of this Proposed Rule, the EPA has asked whether new data are available for gas utilization and by

- product formation rates for any of the process types or sub

types in the semiconductor manufacturing industry that could be used to further update the default factors. ISMI has compiled 168 additional data sets. They are presented in Attachment A. The additional data was provided by semiconductor process equipment suppliers and device manufacturers for 200mm and 300mm plasma etch equipment. The 2012 data closes gaps in the emissions factor database and allows for establishment of default emission factors for every gas used in semiconductor plasma etch processes (based on 201 1 ISMI survey).

In the Proposed Rule, the EPA encouraged the use of their "Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet" for reporting emissions characterization data. Semiconductor industry members and equipment suppliers launched the effort to close gap s in the etch emissions factor database at the end of 2011. Prior to the publication of the Proposed Rule, however, ISMI provided a dataComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

27 template to industry members and equipment suppliers in July 2012 designed to ensure uniformity in collection of inform ation. Industry members and equipment suppliers used the ISMI data template in providing this data. It was not practical following publication of the Proposed Rule to substitute the EPA Request Sheet for the ISMI template, and in any event, the EPA Request Sheet and the ISMI template are technically equivalent in terms of satisfying EPA’s information needs to justify subpart I emissions factors.

The ISMI data template used here is the same one developed and utilized by ISMI for collection of the data sets submitted to the EPA during settlement discussions and used by the EPA to update the default factors presently proposed by the EPA in Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4. The additional 168 datasets in Attachment A contain the same data elements as the prior submittal. SIA and ISMI believe that these data elements are still adequate to meet the EPA ’s information needs while avoiding confidentiality issues associat ed with the data fields that were removed from the data set. The Agency should recognize the technical validity and equivalency of these new data sets to the previously submitted data and incorporate them with the previously submitted data to improve the p reviously calculated default emissions factors.

Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for the submittal of new data. Th ese additional data

w ere used for the development of revised gas utilization and by

- product formation rates presented in the final ru le. T he EPA acknowledges the similarities between the EPA Request Sheet and the ISMI template and has accepted the data provided as meeting the EPA's information needs. See Section II.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the EPA's analysis of the submitted data.

Commenter Name: Reed M. Content, Director, Global EHS & CSR Commenter Affiliation: GlobalFoundaries U.S. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0097 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment : T he EPA has encouraged the use of the “Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet” for reporting emissions characterization data. In 2012 GLOBALFOUNDRIES conducted equipment testing for both POU DRE and etch gas utilization determination in support of the SIA comments. This was done using the ISMI data template provided to SIA companies to ensure consistent information was collected. The same data template was used to collected the data SIA provided during settlement discussions that resulted in the current proposed default factors (i n Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4). The additional data is providing with its January 16, 2013 comments contain the same data elements as the prior submittal. GLOBALFOUNDRIES supports SIA’s request that the Agency recognize the technical validity and equivalency of the new data sets, and incorporate them with the previously submitted data to improve the default factors in subpart I

. Response: See response to comments EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2001

- 0028

- 0095, Excerpt 2, and Section II.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule amendments regarding the EPA’s analysis of the new data
sets.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

28 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment : 168 data sets were added to the prior emissions database and used to develop revised default emission factors for 200mm and 300mm etch. The analysis of the integrated data base and the resulting emission factors are shown in Table I.1. Emission factors are now available for every gas used in 200mm and 300mm etch. A minimum of 23 data sets was used to develop emission factors for gases that are 1 percent or more of total F

- gas usage for that wafer size. The four gases with 4 or less data sets are either not used for etch or are much less than 0.1 percent of total F

- gas usage.

[See pg . 7 of Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table I.1: "Revise d Default Emission Factors for 200 mm and 300 mm Etch".]

Table I.2 compares the 2011 default factors to the revised emission factors. When a large dataset was previously available to establish emission factors, the addition of the 2012 data did not appreci ably change the default factors.

[See pg . 8 of Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table I.2: "Comparison of 2011 Etch Default Emission Factors to 2012 Revised Factors ".]

Table I.3 lists the revised default by

- product emission factors for 200m m and 300mm etch based on additional testing completed in 2012. It should be noted that several by

- products, namely C 5 F 8 , CH 3 F, and CH 2 F 2 , not detected previously, were observed during this round of testing. This may be the result of data being provided fo r tool/gas combinations that were not previously tested. These by

- product s have no discernible effect on reported emissions because the by

product emission factors are small and the GWPs of these gases are less than 200.

[See pg . 9 Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OA R

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table I.3: "Revised Default By

product Emission Factors for 200mm and 300mm Etch".]

The commenter also submitted Attachment A: "Additional 2012 Etch Emissions Characterization Data" with Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095.

Respon se: See Section II.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule amendment s for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

29 Comment : IBM strongly supports revision of the emissions factor estimation methodology to a 4 process/sub

- process model consisting of 3 chamber clean sub

- processes and a combined etch/wafer clean process differentiated by wafer size. The SIA data provided conclusiv e statistical demonstration that the 2 factor etch model (grouping emissions factors based on wafer size and gas type) delivered more conservative emissions estimates than either a 3 factor model (with 4 etch sub

- processes) or the EPA Tier 3 Method while s ignificantly simplifying the data collection and management processes required to comply with the regulation.

Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for their support. For the final rule, the EPA has retained the gas and process type/subtype model from the proposed rule for the development of revised default gas utilization and by

- product formation rates. See Section II.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for additional information on the revised emission factors in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Intel suppor ts SIA’s efforts to close the remaining small gaps that existed in the emission factors and believes that the new default factors presented in SIA’s comments are representative of the industry. The triennial report will be utilized to identify and address future emission factor changes whenever that may be required.

Response: Regarding the revised default emission factors presented by SIA , see Section II.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule amendments. Regarding the triennial report, the EPA agrees with the commenter that the triennial report will provide additional information to the EPA to determine whether it is necessary to update the default gas utilization rates and by

- product formation rates in future years. As discussed in section 22.0 of this do cument, the EPA is finalizing the triennial report provisions in 40 CFR 98.96(y) as proposed.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comme nt Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA requested input on the effect of merging the etch and wafer clean categories into a single emission factor for 200mm processes. Intel agrees with the position in the SIA comment s that this will have a minor impact on the accuracy of the emissions estimates, due to the fact that wafer cleans are a low percentage of 200mm F

- gas usage.
Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 5.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

30 Commenter Name: Davi d Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment : On page 63559 of the preamble to the Proposed Rule, the EPA req uested comment on the impact of merging the etch and wafer clean subcategories will have on 200 mm due to number of gases used in both etch and chamber clean. Based on the 2010 ISMI survey of 12

- 200mm wafer fabs , wafer cleans is 2 percent of total 200mm F

- gas usage. The February 28, 2011 "Report to EPA on Etch Emissions Factor Proposal for Fab GHG Emissions Reporting" (Docket # EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0074) reported 2010 wafer clean F

- gas use for 7

- 200mm facilities as 0.8 percent of total 200mm F

- gas use. F ive gases are used in 200mm wafer cleans. Four of the five gases are also used in 200mm chamber cleans and etch processes. One gas is used in etch and wafer cleans. In summary, because wafer cleans is a low percentage of 200mm F

- gas usage, combining wafer cleans and etch processes will have a minor impact on the accuracy of the emissions estimates under subpart I

. Response: See section II.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, V ice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment : On page 63551 in the preamble to the Proposed Rule, the EPA has asked for an explanation of the zeros in the data previously collected and provided by SIA and used by the EPA to calculate the default emissions factors. Because the data came from a wide range of
sources, SIA cannot be certain of the basis of the zero entries in t he data base. They most likely mean that a gas was not present above the detection limit achieved during the test but there is a small chance that the tester did not look for the gas. In the interest of conservative emissions reporting, SIA agrees that it is appropriate to err on the "high side" by determining by

- product factors only using the non

- zero results. The default factors would be less if the zeros were included in determining the average emissions factor. It is likely that the default by

- product

e missions factors would also be lower if the zeros were included at half the detection limit, using the practice proposed by the EPA for measuring the presence of certain gases when implementing the stack alternative. However, it is not possible to do so fo r the default by

- product emissions factors based on the data collected by SIA because the field detection limits ( FDLs ) for each test were not previously collected by SIA . For these reasons, SIA recommends that the EPA retain the approach in the Proposed R ule for determining default by

- product emissions factors from the available data.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

31 Response: See Section II.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment : Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4 use "NA" to refer to situations where data is not available to establish default emission factors for a gas in a specific process/process subtype or where the gas is not produced as a by

- product in the process type/subtype. The footnote for the table states, "NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.” When dat a is not available for gas use in a specific process type/subtype, it is not necessarily an indicator that the gas is not used in a specific process type/subtype. SIA requests that this footnote be clarified to state as follows: " NA denotes not applicable for by

- products and not available for input gases, based on currently available information

. "

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the footnote to Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4 to subpart I should be clarified to avoid the assumption that specific gases may not be applicable to certain process types or subtypes. We also note that the term should avoid the assumption that specific by

- product gases may not be emitted from specific process types or subtypes where data are not available. Therefore, we have r evised the footnote to Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4 in the final rule to clarify that the term “NA” means there are no applicable default emission factors for the gas, as follows: “NA= Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurement s for this gas. This does not necessarily imply that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process type or subtype.”

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry A ssociation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment : SIA has the following comments on the equations that are to be used to determine emissions using the Default Factors Alternative:

1. Equation I

- 6: In the d efinition of ProcesstypeEi, the term "processes" should be "process"

2. Equation I

- 8 and I

- 9: It is recommended that the term a ij *d ij *UT ij be put in a parenthesis to clarify that this term is calculated first and then the product is subtracted from 1.

3. Equation I

- 9: For the by

- product equation, U T jk needs to be replaced with UT ijk as the abatement systems that treat a gas/process or process subtype combination (C ij ) are also treating the gas/process or process subtype/ by

- product combination (C ijk ). This is significant as it allowsComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

32 for setting UT ijk = UT ij where the given set of abatement systems that are treating manufacturing equipment using process gas i are being operated and maintained in accordance with the site maintenance plan for abatement system s for both the input and by

- product gases. The only time that UTijk will not equal UT ij is where the performance of the abatement system for one gas of the possible by

- product s is not meeting manufacturers’ specifications and site maintenance plan requirem ents as compared to all the other gases treated by the abatement system (this is most likely to occur on plasma etch/wafer clean processes). Adjusting the parameter definitions for these equations will simplify the tracking of abatement uptime.

4. Equatio n I

- 10: It is recommended that the term a N2O,j * d N2O,j *UT N2O be put in a parenthesis to clarify that this term is calculated first and then the product is subtracted from 1.

Response: Regarding the definition of ProcessTypeEI in Equation I

- 6, the EPA agrees with the
commenter and has revised the definition accordingly. Although no t technically necessary given the order of operations, the EPA agrees with the commenter that Equations I

- 8 and I

- 9 should contain parentheses around the term aij * dij * UTij , and that Equation I

- 10 should contain parentheses around the term aN2O ,j* dN2O ,j* UTN2O

, in order to clarify the order of operations for each equation.

Regarding the by

- product Equation I

- 9, see Section II.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule amendments.



### 11.0 Removal of Provisions for Using Recipe

- Specific Emission Factors

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 95

Comment : The current subpart I rule has a method for reporting em issions for facilities manufacturing wafers greater than 300 mm in diameter that is based on recipe

- specific factors. This proposal drops that option. the EPA has asked whether anyone is planning on using the recipe method. No SIA member is planning to use the recipe method for any wafer size and, to the knowledge of the members, there is no fab that intends to use the recipe method given the opportunity to use the methods in this proposed rule instead. SIA supports dropping this option.

Response: The EP A thanks the commenter for their input. Based on input received during the public comment period and via electronic

- Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e

- GGRT) reporting for subpart I, the EPA has determined that no fabs have previously used, or intend to use, the recipe method in the current subpart I rule. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposal
to remove the provisions to use recipe

- specific gas utilization and by

- product formation rates in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4).Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

33 Commenter Name : Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment : The current rule has a method for reporting emissions for facilities manufacturing wafers greater than 300 mm in diameter that is based on recipe

- specific factors. T he EPA has dropped that option in the re

- proposed rule and solicited comment on whether any one is planning on using the recipe method. Intel is not planning to use the recipe method and does not believe this option needs to be maintained in the final rule.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 95.

Commenter Na me: Reed M. Content, Director, Global EHS & CSR Commenter Affiliation: GlobalFoundaries U.S. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0097 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment : T he EPA has asked whether any fabs will plan to use the etch recipe method. GLOBALFOUNDRIES would like to confirm that we will not, and we concur with the proposed changes that would remove the etch recipe method, in its entirety, from subpart I

. Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 95.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 97

Comment : SIA recommends revisions to the QA/QC p rovisions in Section 98.94 (g) to make these provisions consistent with the changes to the rule:

1. 98.94(g)(1)(In original rule): Revise to read: "...when measuring and calculating facility specific, recipe specific process and sub

- process type fluorinated GHG and N2O utilization and by

- product formation rates."

2. Delete 98.94(g)(2), as it is no longer relevant.

Response: T he EPA appreciates the commenter's input regarding the provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(g). In the proposed amendments, the EPA removed and reserved paragraphs 40 CFR 98.94(g)(1) and (g)(2) (see 77 FR 63583) because the provisions were directly related to the recipe

- specific gas utilization and by

- product formation calculation methodology, which the EPA also proposed to remove. S ince reporters must use default N 2 O emission factors under theComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

34 final amendments, and the EPA has not received any indication that a facility has developed and/or used a facility

- specific N 2 O emission factor, we agree with the commenter that 40 CFR 98.94(g) (2) should be removed from the final subpart I rule amendments.

However; we have determined that 40 CFR 98.94(g)(1), including the edits proposed by the
commenter , is applicable to any measurements or testing conducted in support of data gathering related to the Triennial Report under 40 CFR 98.96(y). As a result, the EPA is promulgating the requirement to follow the QA/QC procedures in the International SEMATECH # 6012482DA

ENC when measuring and calculating process sub

- type and process type fluorinated GHG and N 2 O utilization and by

- product formation rates for data gathering related to the Triennial Report.



### 12.0 Revisions to Allow Reporting Integrated Production and R&D Emissions

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment : Intel supports the proposed approach §98.96(x) for reporting R&D emissions as a percent range of total emissions, in facilities that h ave combined manufacturing and R&D operations.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 98.96(x) and 40 CFR 98.97(j) as proposed.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 101

Comment : SIA supports the provisions in 98.96(x) that provide a way to report R&D emissions whe re the R&D activities are co

- located with production in an operating fab

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093, excerpt 14.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, En ergy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBMComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

35 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment : IBM strongly supports allowing fabs with integrated manufacturing and R&D missions to report their total combi ned emissions from manufacturing and R&D operations with indication of the percentage of emissions generated from R&D operations. Many manufacturing tools operate with a split mission in support of both manufacturing and R&D, and so this provision of the P roposed Rule eliminates the need to undertake complex, and likely infeasible, gas use tracking and apportioning calculations which would not materially inform the industry level emissions characterization.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093, excerpt 14.



### 13.0 Revisions to Accuracy and Precision Provisions for the Equipment Measuring Gas Consumption

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment : Intel supports the revised Section 98.94(i) which requires flow meters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, and thermometers to meet the calibration and accur acy requirements specified in § 98.3(i).

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. The EPA is finalizing the revisions to 40 CR 98.94(i) as proposed.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliati on: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 98

Comment : SIA supports the revision presented in Section 98.94(i). The prior provisions were technically infeasible in many cases.

Res ponse: T he EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See the response to comment EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093, excerpt 13.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

36 Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment : IBM strongly supports elimination of the industry specific accuracy requirements for meters: The change reflected in the Proposed Rule, subpart I to meter accuracy requirements confor m with Subpart A requirements.

Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See the response to comment EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093, excerpt 13.



### 14.0 Changes to Requirements for Re

- Calculating the Facility

- Wide Gas Specific Heel Factor

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment : IBM strongly supports clarification of the heel factor recalcul ation and change trigger: Modifications were made in the Proposed Rule to more closely align with the industry practice for managing cylinders.

Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for their support. The EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to 40 CF R 98.94(b)(4) and (b)(5) as proposed.



### 15.0 Changes to Requirements for Verification of the Apportioning Model and General Apportioning Requirements

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IB M Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment : IBM strongly supports the EPA ’s proposal to widen the validation requirement for the apportioning model from 5 percent to 20 percent . IBM analyzed apportioning error at both its 200 mm and 300 mm fabs for the period January to July of 2012. The 300 mm fab has implemented a system to collect F

- gas use mass flow controller data from its manufacturing control systems. The initial validati on error for the highest use gas requiring apportioning between process and sub

- process types between the gas use measured at the distribution systemComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

37 and the MFC measured gas use was approximately 5.5 percent . After data review and correction, the error wa s reduced to 3.6 percent for the six month test period. At the 200 mm fab, “modeled” gas use data comprised of a combination of data collected from MFC readings and modeled gas use based on the clean operation’s wafer level gas use on tools that do not rep ort MFC data to the manufacturing control system. The initial validation error between the gas use measured at the distribution systems and the MFC and modeled data was 17.2 percent . It is expected that the validation error could be reduced to between 10 a nd 15 percent through additional analysis, review, and correction of the data, but we chose not to pursue further corrections at this time.

The above described validation results demonstrate the importance of employing the wider validation criteria as cont ained in the Proposed Rule. In the best case gas use tracking scenario, direct measurement of gas use at the tools using the MFCs, the validation error was 3.3 percent

. The experience at our 200 mm fab, which we believe is typical for 200 mm fabs in genera l, indicates that higher errors will occur when less precise modeling methodologies are available for use. Given the EPA’s observations in the Technical Supporting Documentation that a 20 percent validation criterion does not introduce significant uncertai nty into emissions estimates, setting the apportioning validation criteria at 20 percent is appropriate.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's effort to collect and provide data on the achievable difference between the modeled and measured gas usa ge for gas apportioning, that is, the validation error of the gas apportioning model. The data provided support the EPA's proposal to raise the maximum allowable difference between the modeled and measured gas usage for the apportioning model validation fr om 5 percent to 20 percent in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii).

The final rule will raise the maximum allowable difference between the modeled and measured gas usage for the apportioning model validation from 5 percent to 20 percent in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii) , as p roposed.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 36

Comment : SIA strongly supports the EPA’s proposed change to the current 5 percent apportionment model validation criteria, and we believe that establishing the validation requirement at a maximum of 20 percent error is essential to making the gas apportioning process practical for semiconductor facilities, while at the same time resulting in no appreciable reduction in the quality of the GHG emissions estimates.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The final rule will raise the maximum allowable difference between the modeled and measured gas usage for the apportioning model validation from 5 percent to 20 percent in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii) , as proposed ).Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

38 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Associati on Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 37

Comment : In the preamble to the Proposed Rule at p age 63558, the EPA discusses the change in the apportionment model verification criteria from 5 percent to 20 percent clos ure. In that discussion, a statement from the 2011 final rule implementing the BAMM provisions is presented which SIA believes is misleading. It states

, “The EPA reported in the preamble that we had received only a small number of requests to use BAMM, rel ative to the number of facilities expected to report under subpart I.” In the preparation of these comments, ISMI conducted a survey of reporting facilities. Out of 30 facilities responding to the survey, 26 facilities submitted BAMM petitions which includ ed a request for relief from the 5 percent validation criteria. For the record, the need for BAMM relief from the 5 percent apportionment model criteria was wide spread among affected fabs operated by SIA member companies.

Response: As the commenter notes , the EPA had noted in the preamble to the proposed rule titled “ Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I) to Provide Flexibility ” (76 FR 36472, June 22, 2011), that the EPA had received few requests to use BAMM for the apportioning model verification. In the original subpart I promulgated in December 2010, all facilities were allowed to use BAMM until September 30, 2011. Those facilities wishing to use BAMM after September 3 0, 2011, were required to submit an application to extend the use of BAMM to the EPA by February 28, 2011. Given these dates, the EPA expected that facilities that had determined they would need to use BAMM for apportion model verification would have submi tted an application to extend the use of BAMM by June 22, 2011.

For reporting year 2011, 50 facilities reported emissions under subpart I. Of those 50 facilities, 33 actually responded that they used BAMM in place of complying with the apportioning model

v alidation requirement. The information cited by the commenter and the information contained in the reports submitted to the EPA for 2011 were more up

- to

- date than the information available to the EPA during the development of the 2011 final rule implementi ng the BAMM provisions and when developing the proposed rule amendments published in October 2012. The number of facilities actually reporting the use of BAMM for 2011 is consistent with the number reported by the commenter from the ISMI survey of faciliti es. However, of the 50 facilities reporting under subpart I, only six reported a difference between the actual to modeled etch gas consumption that was greater than 5 percent.

Commenter Name: Patrice Tompkins

- Everidge, WW ESH Director Commenter Affiliation: Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0094 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment : In the preamble to the proposed rule at Page 63558, the EPA discusses the change in the apportionment model verificat ion criteria from 5 percent to 20 percent closure but states, “EPA reported in the preamble that we had received only a small number of requests to useComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

39 BAMM, relative to the number of facilities expected to report under Subpart I.” SIA’s comment addresses this particular statement that it finds to be misleading in the 2011 final rule implementing the BAMM provisions. As a result, ISMI conducted a survey in which 26 out of 30 responding facilities required BAMM for relief from the 5 percent validation criter ia. TI believes that the EPA’s statement regarding the perceived low number of facilities requiring relief from the rule is inaccurate. The approximately 30 responders to ISMI’s survey represent a majority of large semiconductor fabs in the US. Out of thos e responders, TI represents approximately 20 percent of the facilities requiring BAMM relief for validation criteria and thus, comprises a sizable portion of the large semiconductor fabs in the US. Also, internal efforts in developing a model at TI for app ortioning were able to meet the 20 percent criteria, and TI supports SIA’s comments in S ection III

. A regarding the EPA ’s proposed change to a 20 percent validation criteria.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, e xcerpt 37.

Comm enter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 38

Comment : SIA supports the EPA ’s proposed change to the validation requirement for the gas apportioning model to 20 percent for the one or two gases with largest use that need to be apportioned. As the EPA has noted in the preamble to the Proposed Rule and the technical support document on the emission factor method, most semiconductor facilities do not meter gas consumption by process tool or process type. [Footnote: Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under subpar t I . Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2012.] Instead, under subpart I , an engineering model must be developed to apportion total gas use for the facility down to either the process or process tool level to support e mission factor calculations. During the comment period, several SIA members developed apportioning models to see if they could meet the current rule requirement for matching use and predicted use of the key gas within 5 percent . The results of that exercis e illustrate some of the difficulties in apportioning gas use to the 5 percent level required under the current rule. Establishing the validation requirement at a maximum of 20 percent error is essential to making the gas apportioning process practical for semiconductor facilities.

The EPA ’s analysis in the technical support document demonstrates that the validation requirement can be set at the proposed 20 percent level with no appreciable reduction in the quality of the GHG emissions estimates. On page 12 of that document, the EPA states that, for the proposed two

- factor emissions model, “... the average uncertainty of the overall [emissions] estimates varies between 11.4 percent and 14 percent for f=5 to 20 [i.e., between 5 percent and 20 percent validation requirements] for 200 mm [and] between 19.6 percent and 25.7 percent for 300 mm”. The differences of 3 percent (200 mm) to 6 percent (300 mm) in the 95 percent confidence intervals of GHG emissions estimates are immaterial to the purposes of the reporting rule. The EPA can set the validation requirement at 20 percent with no material loss of precisionComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

40 in the GHG emissions estimates. In large part, this is due to the fact that the differences in utilization factors between process types are not large and th e gas use in the clean process is much larger than the gas use in etch process. A shift of the allocated gas use by a few percentage points results in small overall changes in the site CO 2 emissions because you are moving a small amount of the gas use to a process type or sub

- type which has a relatively small percentage difference in the utilization rate.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the reduced precision in the overall emissions estimates is acceptable for the purposes of the GHG R epor ting Program when using the proposed 20 percent validation criteria compared to 5 percent validation criteria in the original promulgated rule. The EPA has had determined that this is an adequate balance of the precision of the emission estimates against t he technical feasibility of developing and validating the apportioning model for each facility.

However, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the lack of precision in the apportioning model is minimized by the difference in emission factor s when a single gas is used in both etch and chamber clean processes. For example, the emission factors for C 2 F 6 used for etch and chamber clean at 200 mm fabs are 0.76 and 0.55, respectively, a difference of 28 percent. The emission factors for NF 3 used f or etch and remote plasma chamber clean at 300 mm fabs are 0.17 and 0.018, respectively, a difference of 90 percent. Therefore, one cannot discount the importance of verifying the accuracy of the apportioning models because of these differences in the emis sion factors for gases used in both etch and chamber clean.

It is also important to note that the apportioning model is used to apportion gas usage between tools that have abatement and those that do not, if a fab does not have abatement on all tools. Simi larly, when the same gas is used for both for etch and chamber clean, such as NF 3 , the DRE of the abatement system may be different for the same gas when it is used for etch compared to when it is used for chamber clean because of the difference in the gas flow rate during the etch process compared to the chamber clean process.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Com ment Excerpt Number: 102

Comment: SIA performed a thorough assessment of the two

- factor model, as reported in SIA 2012c [Footnote: SIA’s Response to EPA Etch Alternative Proposal, April 9, 2012. Available in EPA docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028.] This work demonstrated that the threshold for validation of the apportionment model has at most a weak influence on the resulting errors in emissions estimates. This is because the gas usage values estimated by the apportioning model are not used directly but are tr anslated into shares of gas use and then applied to the measured total gas use for the facility. A model with 20 percent error in predicting the total gas used at the facility (which is what the validation requirement controls) could have the shares of gas use by process exactly right. In fact, any error in the shares by process should always be less (and often much less) than the absolute error in predicting total gas use.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

41 In the work reported in SIA 2012c, SIA used a specific case for the size of gas appo rtioning errors for the purpose of testing the precision of the two

- and three

- factor emission models that we considered. The EPA refers to this case as f=SIA and includes this in the analysis presented in the technical support document. This case was used by SIA for its analysis because it was the only case available at that time which could be used to show the size of gas apportioning errors based on available actual data. The relatively high level of apportioning error in that set of data was a strong te st of the influence of apportioning errors on the estimate of emissions. As the EPA notes in the technical support document, the high level of apportioning error in this case is partly a limitation of the data given that gas consumption data used within f= SIA was not collected as per the EPA prescribed method. Specifically, changes in gas inventories were not taken into account and, more importantly, variability in gas volumes due to gas temperature for cylinders stored outside were not included. Temperatur e sensitive gas storage and changes in gas inventories can have impacts on overall gas consumption and, therefore, SIA believes strongly that the f=SIA case is not germane to the issue of setting the validation requirement for gas apportioning models in th e proposed rule. SIA also believes that upon implementation of the EPA ’s gas measurement procedures and with the implementation of the 20 percent validation proposal, fabs will be able to meet the model validation requirements.

For these reasons, the resul ts of the f=SIA case presented in the technical support document are not indicative of the future uncertainties in emissions estimates that will result from adoption of the EPA ’s 20 percent validation requirement. The size of the apportioning errors in thi s case are much larger than would be permitted by the proposed 20 percent validation requirement, and errors of this size will not be allowed under the rule.

Response: the EPA appreciates the commenter's input regarding apportioning error and the basis fo r the 20 percent validation criteria. The perspective provided by the commenter does not result in a change in the rule since proposal, and we are promulgating the revised apportioning model validation criteria as proposed.

We agree with the commenter, to an extent, that the threshold for the validation of the apportionment model has a weak influence on the resulting errors in emissions estimates. As stated on page 15 of 23 in the memorandum titled "Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Gre enhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor facilities under Subpart I," (available in Docket ID EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028) the average uncertainty in industry wide emissions is relatively stable (24.5 percent to 25.6 percent) between 5 and 20 percent uncertainty associated with apportioning of gas consumption. However, as we concluded in the previously mentioned memorandum, uncertainty in average emissions increases when the uncertainty associated with apportioning increases above 50 percent

. Additionally, for cases where the utilization rate between process types is significantly different (e.g., NF 3 used in 300 mm wafer production where the utilization rate for remote clean is 98.2 percent while the rate for in

- situ cleaning is 77 percent, or for C 2 F6 in 200 mm wafer production where the utilization rate for etch is 24 percent compared to 45 percent for in

- situ cleaning) an error in apportionment between process types or sub

- types could have a significant impact on the accuracy of fab emissi ons. Apportioning is also used to divide gas usage between abated and unabated tools where emission differences can be significant.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

42 The EPA agrees with the commenter that the case of f=SIA is not indicative of the future uncertainties in emission estimates since the uncertainty in consumption and apportionment under f = SIA would not be allowed under the final amendments to subpart I.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 39

Comment : Currently, the rule requires that the verification of the apportionment model for the stack method for the time that testing is occurring be based on predicted and a ctual use of gas for a time interval that ends exactly on the day that stack testing is completed. Most gas use accounting is managed on a monthly basis. Allowing the apportioning model to be validated over a period which ends between the first and last da y of the accounting month(s) in which the stack testing takes place simplifies the data collection for locations without significantly affecting the use estimates. Section 98.94(c)(2)(i) allows the representative period to be “...at least 30 days but not mor e than the reporting year.” Enabling locations to use an end date within the accounting month simplifies the data collection without inordinately introducing error

– particularly if the verification period is more than 90 days. The gas usage accounting sys tems at some semiconductor facilities are based on accounting (13

- 4 week months) rather than calendar months. With that in mind SIA asks that 98.94(c)(2)(iv) be revised to read: “...the time period specified in paragraph (C)(2)(I) of this section ends on a d ay between the first and last day of the accounting month for the period which includes the last day you perform the sampling events specified under 98.93(i)(3). You can also use a defined period ending on the last day of sampling event.”

Response: See Se ction II.B.3 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 40

Comment : Proposed 98.94(c)(2)(ii) states, with regard to demonstrating the performance of the apportionment model, one can use either the largest use gas requiring apportioning or two gases so long as the largest use gas is one of the two that are used. Having this option is important, as it is possible that the use of two gases will be similar in quantity and it may not be possible to know which is the largest when the model is under development. Howev er, the rule language for the two gas option does not require that the model be tested to verify that one of two gases is the largest use gas that needs apportioning. With that in mind, SIA recommends the following language change: “You may compare the act ual gas consumed to the modeled gas consumed forComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

43 two fluorinated GHGs and demonstrate conformance according to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section on an aggregate use basis for both fluorinated GHGs if one of the fluorinated GHGs selected for comparison corresponds to the largest quantities, on a mass basis, of fluorinated GHGs used at each fab that requires apportionment during the reporting year.”

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the suggested change would clarify that the reporter must verify that one of two gases is the largest use gas that needs to be apportioned during the reporting year, and are not just the two gases used in the largest quantity and which may or may not need to be apportioned. As a result, we have made the suggeste d change in the final rule language.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 41

Comment : Pr oposed 98.94(g)(4) says that one must: “Demonstrate that, as part of normal operations for each fab , the inventory of gas stored in containers at the beginning of the reporting year is the same as the inventory of gas stored in containers at the end of the previous reporting year.” SIA does not see a practical way to make a “demonstration” unless the demonstration will simply be that the inventory values recorded at the end of one reporting year are used at the beginning of the subsequent reporting year. We propose using that language in the rule.

Delete 98.94(g)(4), as it is duplicative of 98.94(h)(3) and 98.94(h)(3) better describes the requirement.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(g)(4) were not clear in how a facility would make the required demonstration

. As a result of the commenter's input, we are modifying the language in 40 CFR 98.94(g)(4) of the final amendments to subpart I to read as follows: "As part of normal operations for each fab, the invento ry of gas stored in containers at the beginning of the reporting year must be the same as the inventory of gas stored in containers at the end of the previous reporting year. You must maintain records documenting the year end and year beginning inventories under §98.97(a)."

However, the EPA disagrees with the commenter that 40 CFR 98.94(g)(4) should be deleted; it is not duplicative of § 98.94(h)(3) because § 98.94(g)(4) refers to gases used for etch and chamber clean processes, and § 98.94(h)(3) refers to accounting for heat transfer fluids.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 42Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

44 Comment : Eq uation I

- 11 as written is used to determine the annual consumption of gas on a fab basis using inventories. It does not acknowledge, as is done elsewhere in the rule that two or more fabs may be supplied with a gas from a shared system and that apportionme nt may be used in that instance. Similarly, Equations I

- 12 and I

- 13 do not address the circumstances where the gas use is apportioned to more than one fab. SIA recommends that the EPA add the following sentence at the end of the text prior to the equations in § 98.93(c),(d), & (e) “Where a gas supply system serves more than one fab, the equations and their variables are applied to that gas which has been apportioned to each fab served by that system using the model derived in 98.94(c).”

Response: The EPA a grees with the commenter that the suggested changes to 40 CFR 98.93(c), (d), and (e) would clarify that Equations I

- 11, I

- 12, and I

- 13 should be applied to gases that have been apportioned to each fab, where a supply system serves more than one fab. As a r esult, we have made the suggested changes in the final rule.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 43

Comment : Proposed 98.94(c)(2)(v) should be revised to read: “If your facility has multiple fabs with a single centralized fluorinated GHG supply system and two or more fabs that use different methods to calculate annual emissions of fluorinated GHGs, you must verif y that...” The clause regarding the use of different methods to calculate annual emissions is not material to the purpose of this section and creates confusion regarding the process to validate the apportioning method. Regardless of whether a multi

- fab fac ility uses emissions factor, stack, or a combination of the methods to apportion gas use, there is going to have to be apportioning within the fab and between the fabs. Section 98.94(c)(2)(v) applies regardless of the emissions estimation method used.

Resp onse: The EPA agrees with the commenter that 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(v) should require a reporter to validate the apportioning model for each fab, if the facility has more than one fab, because emissions must be reported for each fab, as specified in amended 4 0 CFR 98.96(c). Therefore, the clause regarding the use of different methods to calculate annual emissions is not material to the purpose of 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(v) and could create confusion regarding the requirements to validate the apportioning method. Th e EPA is therefore promulgating 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(v) to remove the phrase, "and two or more fabs that use different methods to calculate annual emissions of fluorinated GHGs" from the first sentence.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

45 

### 16.0 Revisions to Clarify the Calculation of Annual Fab

- Lev el N2O Emissions

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment : Intel believes that the N 2 O process categories should align with the f

- GHG categories to ensure consistency and reduce the potential for confusion. Currently, the use of the term CVD (chemical vapor deposition) does not align with the established process categories of chamber clean and/or plasma etch/ wafer cleaning. Intel supports SIA’s proposal that the EPA change the language in Section 98.93(b)(1) and Table I

- 8 referencing chemical vapor deposition or CVD and replace CVD with

, "processes associated with the chamber clean process type." We also agree with the suggestion that the EPA continue to categorize those processes that do not fall into the processes associated with the chamber clean process type as "other manufacturing process."

Response: See Section II.B.4 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment : SIA wishes to align the N 2 O process categories with the F

- GHG categories to ensure consistency and reduce the potential for confusion. Currently, the use of the term CVD (chemical vapor deposition) does not align with the established process categories of chamber clean and/or plasma etch/wafer cleaning. SIA proposes that the EPA replace the terms "chemical vapor deposition" or " CVD " where they appear in Section 98.93(b)(1 ) and Table I

- 8 with the following phrase: " processes associated with the chamber clean process type ." N 2 O is sometimes used in the deposition processes associated with the in

- situ, remote and thermal chamber cleaning tools and recipes. The application of N 2 O in these circumstances is very similar and the utilization rates are consistent. The EPA should continue to categorize those processes that do not fall into the processes associated with the chamber clean process type as "other manufacturing process."

Response: See Section II.B.4 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

46 

### 17.0 Revised Abatement System Destruction and Revision of Default DRE Values

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commen ter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 44

Comment : The availability of default DREs for use by the semiconductor industry is critical to the viability of this rule. DRE testing is both costly and disruptive to production, even with the improvements in the proposed process for determining site specific DREs. Testing of abatement systems run between $5K and $9.6K/system, depending on the number of abatement systems
tes ted and the ease of accessibility for the testing equipment. A large fab faces a cost of $120K to $500K to complete the initial 20 percent testing for etch and chamber cleaning (covering two years) and then $90K to $375K every three years to update and val idate the site specific DREs. Default DREs allow reporting companies that have invested in abatement systems for GHGs to determine their emissions without having to incur these costs.

SIA and its member companies have worked at considerable expense to gene rate an extensive DRE test database, in support of this rule, so that accurate default DREs could be incorporated into the rule. The additional data collected by SIA before and during the revised subpart I comment period increases the number of fabs contri buting data and the representativeness of the data across the installed base of systems that we inventoried in Table 1 of the “SIA Briefing on Abatement Issues: Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE)” dated January 10, 2012 [Footnote: http://www.regulations. gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0045] and updated in the Table on page 1 in the March 6, 2012 document “Questions for SIA on Abatement System DRE, Uptime, and Related Requirements” [Footnote:http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0073]. Both of these documents are in the docket.

Table IV.1 below summarizes the SIA member abatement system inventory and the number of individual abatement devices that have been tested in support of the alternative default DRE calculation s proposed by SIA later in these comments. It should be noted that the abatement systems reported by Company A were removed from the inventory because it has been determined the POU abatement devices were not designed to abate F

- GHGs. [Footnote: http://www .regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0092] No information from Company A is used here because abatement can be claimed under the rule only for devices that are designed to abate the gases they treat. While devices that are not designed to abate GHGs may produce incidental reductions in some cases, the reductions cannot be claimed under the rule. Therefore, devices that are not designed to abate GHGs are not part of the abatement device inventory and are not germane to the determination o f default DREs. The EPA should not utilize any data on such devices in its assessment of abatement device performance and the determination of default DREs for the final rule.

The testing underlying the alternative defaults is a substantial fraction of the installed base of devices at the companies responding to the 2011 Survey. Although the testing is predominantlyComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

47 of Manufacturer Z devices, this is in fact representative as the U.S. industry’s installed base is predominantly Manufacturer Z devices. In the Proposed Rule, the testing of 15 percent of devices is sufficient to establish a site

- specific DRE after the initial start

- up period. This criterion is met for Manufacturer Z devices and is very nearly met for the entire installed base. In a statistical s ense, the sample of devices tested exceeds the usual 10 percent threshold at which a sample is deemed “large” and brings into play the “finite sample correction” for variance, meaning that the sample is more than a statistical representation and has begun to enumerate the population.

[See pg. 28 of Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table IV.1: "Summary of Abatement Device Testing to Support SIA Alternative Default DREs".]

The default DREs in the Proposed Rule are based primarily on the results of testing carried out by SIA members and their contractors. The information was provided to the EPA and used to develop the defaults in the rule revision. Since that submittal, SIA members have carried out additional testing and collected additional test results. The supplemental data reflect an additional 208 tests of POU abatement device performance, including 143 new tests of etch gas abatement and 65 new tests of NF3 abatement in chamber cleaning. Three companies have conducted testing covering a total of 9 different fabs. The data are presented in Attachment B to
t hese comments. Attachment C presents a detailed analysis of the supplemental DRE data.

[Footnote: In the Proposed Rule, the EPA provided a template for data reporting. SIA was not able to complete this template for the new DRE test results because much of the data gathering had either been completed or was underway before the template was provided. SIA had already been using an alternative template based on the data template SIA used to provide data to the EPA in the course of the settlement discussions. Th e SIA template and the data in Attachment C are consistent with that data template used to provide data to the EPA to support creation of the default factors that appear in the Proposed Rule. We believe there is sufficient information in this summary to as sess the applicability and usefulness of the data while avoiding the confidentiality issues inherent in the template the EPA provided for submittal of data."]

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 46

Comment : SIA has developed an alternative meth od for setting DRE defaults that is conservative and mirrors the approach SIA used in the facility level error analysis for emissions factors, which the EPA accepted as a reasonable and useful analytical approach, in recognizing that the number of individu al devices in a typical fab is an important determinant of variability. The SIA approach to DRE seeks to estimate the lowest average DRE value that any fab could be expected to achieve (“lowest fab

- average”). Specifically, it places the default DRE at the bottom of the distribution of fab averages, by discounting 2 standard deviations below the observedComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

48 average DRE . However, the standard deviation is one that describes the variation of fab

averages , unlike the EPA method which uses the standard deviation of individual device performance.

Fab

- level averages are the reality in emissions reporting. No fab has just one POU device, and site

- specific DREs developed under the rule and used in reporting will be fab averages. Discounting the default to the lowest ex pected fab

- average will fully protect the agency against the risk of under

- estimating emissions in reporting because of a default DRE that is too high. The large majority of fabs will have a higher average and they will have an incentive and mechanism
to o btain site

- specific DREs

.
The commenter submitted Attachment C: "Derivation of Alternative Default DREs" with Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095.

As described in Attachment C, the SIA alternative approach uses a well

- accepted statistical methodology called Components of Variance Analysis to model the variance in the DRE data and separately identify the variation in the average DRE among fabs (σ 2 Fabs) versus the variation in DRE among i ndividual devices in a fab (σ 2 Devices). The variance components method applies a random effects model to the data for the purpose of identifying the sources of variance in a sample and making inferences regarding the size (magnitude) of each source of vari ance. A random effects model is used because we do not know in advance whether a particular fab or device is above or below the average for fabs or for devices within the fab

. Descriptions of Components of Variance Analysis can be found in a variety of ref erences and on the web. [Footnote: See for example, Introduction to Probability and Statistics: Principles and Applications for Engineering and the Computer Sciences Section 13.7. J. S. Milton and Jesse C. Arnold. Irwin McGraw

- Hill. Third Edition. 1995.][F ootnote: See for example, http://www.itl.nist.gov/ div898 /handbook/ prc / section4 /prc44.htm .]

The analysis conducted starts with the conceptual model for each abated gas stated in Eq . 1:

DRE Fab I, Device J = DRE 0 + ΔDRE Fab I + ΔDRE Fab I, Device J ( Eq . 1)

where DRE 0 is the overall average DRE in the data for the gas, ΔDRE Fab I is how much the
average DRE in Fab I differs from the overall average, and ΔDRE Fab I , Device J is how much the performance of Device J differs from the average in its fab . Individual fabs that provide DRE test data will have averages that are affected by both sources of variability. The objective of the variance components method is to estimate how much of the overall variability is associated with the differences among fabs (σ 2 Fabs ) versus the differences among the devices in a fab (σ 2 Devices ). If we pick a fab at random, and it contains N devices abating a particular gas, we would expect its

avera ge DRE to vary from the overall average for the gas by an amount governed by the standard deviation for fab averages: σ = sqrt ( σ 2 Fabs + σ 2 Devices / N ). The lowest average DRE that is likely to be found in a fab can be estimated as:

Default DRE = DRE 0 - 2 · sqrt ( σ 2 Fabs + σ 2 Devices / N ) ( Eq . 1)

where DRE 0 is the average DRE observed in the test data, the variance components σ 2 Fabs and

σ 2 Devices are defined above, and N is the number of individual devices in the fab for this gas and process combination. The average DRE is still discounted by two standard deviations, but theComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

49 square

- root term now gives the standard deviation of the average DRE that a randomly

- chosen fab with N devices abating the gas will have. By taking this approach, we are discounting th e ob served average in two ways:

**•** First, for the standard deviation among fabs to place the default at the bottom of the statistical distribution for the fab

- average DRE

.

**•** Second, for the effect of individual device performance on the average DRE for a fab , to the extent that remains after being attenuated by the number of devices in a fab

.

Because fabs typically abate F

- gases at the point

- of

- use, fabs will normally have large fleets of individual abatement devices. To support this approach, SI A asked its m embers to estimate the number of abatement devices at their fabs for the gases in etch and chamber cleaning. The survey results are summarized in Table IV.2. In chamber cleaning, for example, one typically finds 65 or more devices abating NF3 in a fab , but in some fabs the number could be as low as about 20.

[See pg . 29 of Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table IV.2: "Summary of Responses on the Typical Number of Abatement Devices in Fabs , by Gas Abated".]

Based on the survey responses in Table IV.2, we estimate the smallest number of abatement devices that one is likely to find in a fab to be the following:

Etch : CF4 : N = 20 NF3 : N = 15 SF6 : N = 10 Other C

- Gases: N = 5

NF3 Chamber Cleaning

The numbers are chosen to be at the bottom o f the fab distribution, but not necessarily the smallest numbers reported in the survey, and have been rounded to the nearest 5 to avoid overstating their precision. This approach is consistent with placing the default DRE estimate at the bottom of the fab

- average distribution at a position where only a few percent of fabs would have a smaller N. Almost all fabs will have at least this number of abatement devices, and most will have many more. They are used in the default DRE analysis to provide the value o f N in Eq

. 1. NF3 : N = 20

The SIA analysis is on a composite data set consisting of the existing DRE data in the EPA docket, as screened and used by the EPA in its default DRE analysis to support the Proposed Rule, plus the results of new testing conducted in 2012 and provided with this submittal. The existing data include the 2009 round of testing at a Company E fab under an earlier EPA/industry program, the 2011 testing at th e same fab , and pre

- 2012 testing conducted by Company C over several recent years. The new data consist of the testing conducted this year by three SIA member companies at 9 fabs and by ISMI . The resulting test data base is quite large, having 343 DRE test s in total. We believe this large data base consisting of all available data is mostComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

50 representative of device performance and is a sound basis for setting gas

- specific default DREs under a final rule.

Table IV.3 summarizes the results of SIA’s analysis of the DRE data, including the average DRE observed in the testing and the alternative default DREs developed using Eq . 1 above. The results are presented in comparison to the EPA ’ s proposed defaults. In every case, SIA’s alternative defaults are conservative representations of the average performance of abatement devices in the test data because, by design, they target the fab with the lowest average DRE

. [See pg . 31 of Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table IV.3: "Default DRE Values based on the SIA Analysis"]

[ SIA presents the derivation and calculation of the default DRE values presented in Table IV.3 in C

- 6 through C

- 12 of Attachment C.]

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 45

Comment : In the proposed rule, the EPA develope d default DREs for GHG abatement through a process that severely discounts the available test data on abatement device performance. While the EPA process screens the data to ensure that it includes only properly performing devices, it discounts the default to lie two standard deviations (of individual device performance) below the average DRE. The result is to place the default DRE at the bottom of the statistical distribution for individual device performance. This is a severe discount because the actual D RE for a fab will be based on the average performance of many individual devices. The actual average DRE at fabs cannot be expected to fall as low as the performance of the lowest

- performing individual device, which is what the EPA discounting method impli es.

Should the EPA conclude, for any reason, that an insufficient basis exists to establish default DREs at levels similar to those in the SIA analysis, the agency should not adopt the low default DREs that could result from applying the EPA discounting me thod used in the proposed rule to create the default DREs. For the rule to be a viable method for reporting GHG emissions from semiconductor facilities, it is critical that the default DREs reasonably represent actual system performance. Rather than adopt unreasonably low defaults, the agency should consider and discuss with SIA ways of creating a sufficient basis/justification for establishing reasonable defaults.

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response t o this comment.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

51 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 47

Comment : CF 4 is the most difficult gas to abate, and this is where the largest variability in device performance is observed. SIA’s analysis estimates an alternative default of 75 percent for CF 4 based on Eq. 1, accounting for the effect of individual device variation on the fab a verage using a value of N=20 devices in a typical fab. The alternative of 75 percent is 15 percentage points higher than the EPA ’s proposed default of 60 percent . For NF 3 in etch, the SIA analysis estimates an alternative default of 96 percent based on a v alue of N=15 devices, and for SF 6 an alternative default of 98 percent based on N=10 devices.

As Figure IV.1 shows, the average DREs for abating CF 4 in our data range from 72 percent to 97 percent across six fabs at three SIA member companies. The SIA alte rnative default of 75 percent (green line in the figure) is an appropriate estimate of the lowest average that would be found in any fab. The default of 47 percent (black line) that would be developed from the same data using the EPA ’s discounting method i s clearly discounted too far below the actual performance in fabs to be a reasonable default value. In fact, only four of 66 devices tested had a CF 4 DRE below the EPA method’s 47 percent value. It would be a practical impossibility to find a fab with 20 a batement devices that would have a fab

- average this low.

[See pg. 32 of Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Figure IV.1: "Comparison of Actual Fab

- Average Etch CF 4 DREs to DRE Defaults Based on the SIA and EPA Methods."]

[SIA presents the derivati on and calculation of the default DRE values for CF 4 in pages C

- 6 and C

- 7 of Attachment C.]

For the other carbon

- based gases in etch (excluding CF 4 ), the SIA analysis develops alternative defaults that vary from 96 to 98 percent for individual gases, based on the data for each gas and N=5 devices. The supplemental testing in 2012 provides sufficient test data to develop defaults for C 2 F6 and CH 3 F in etch for the first time, and it increases the total sample size for the other gases. As discussed fur ther below, all of the carbon

- based gases are similar in abatement difficulty, except for CF 4 . In the Proposed Rule, the EPA grouped together the non

- CF 4 etch gases that had data to set a group

- average default of 98 percent . SIA recommends that the EPA

con tinue to group the C

- gases together and set a group

- average default of 97 percent based on the current data.

[SIA presents the derivation and calculation of the default DRE values for other carbon

based gases in pages C

- 9 through C

- 11 of Attachment C.]

Res ponse: Please see Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for information regarding the calculation of default DRE values

.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

52 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 48

Comment : For NF 3 in chamber cleaning, the SIA analysis estimates an alternative default of 88 percent based on Eq . 1 and N=20 devices, compared to the EPA ’s proposed default of 75 percent . In chamber cleaning, the NF 3 DRE for an individual device will vary from a low of 70 percent to as high as 99 percent depending on the characteristics of the clean and the installed abatement device. However, the large nu mber of cleaning steps performed in every fab , and the large number of individual POU abatement devices that are used, will tend to mute the effect of individual device variability on the fab average. In fact, the average NF 3 DRE varies among fabs
to a muc h smaller extent than does individual device performance.

As Figure IV.2 shows, all of the fabs in our data have an actual average DRE for NF 3 in chamber cleaning above 90 percent and the lowest fabs have averages of 92 to 93 percent . The SIA alternative d efault of 90 percent (green line in the figure) is an appropriate, conservative estimate of the lowest average that will be found in any fab . The default of 74 percent (black line) that would be developed from the same data using the EPA ’s discounting meth od is clearly discounted too far below the actual performance in fabs to be a reasonable default value. In fact, only six of the 110 data points for NF 3 falls below this value. It would be a practical impossibility to find a fab with an average NF 3 DRE so low.

[See pg . 33 of Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Figure IV.2: "Comparison of Actual Fab

- Average Chamber Clean NF3 DREs to DRE Defaults Based on the SIA and EPA Methods".]

[ SIA presents the derivation and calculation of the default DRE values for NF3 on pages C

- 8, C

11, and C

- 12 of Attachment C.]

Response: Please see Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for our response regarding the calculation of the default DRE value for NF 3 for the chamber clean process type. The final rule maintains a default DRE of 60 percent that was proposed for all other chamber clean fluorinated GHG that are not listed in the final Table I

- 16 of default DRE values. The EPA currently does not have data to evaluate alternative DRE values f or other fluorinated GHG used in the chamber clean process type , and did not receive any additional data with the public comments on the proposal

.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Ind ustry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 49

Comment : We urge the EPA to reconsider its method for discounting the available data to develop DRE defaults. We recommend that the EPA adopt the SIA procedu re documented in theComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

53 Attachment C and establish revised default DREs comparable to the SIA

- developed alternative DREs for the following reasons:

1. The EPA method of default DRE calculation in the Proposed Rule is overly conservative because it discounts for the entire variability of individual device performance that results from the varied operating conditions existing in a semiconductor manufacturing fab. The SIA method is designed to discount to a similar degree, but only for the variability that exists in fab

- average DREs. 2. In determining the average DRE for a fab, the individual device variability is attenuated by the large number (N) of abatement devices in service in fabs that have chosen to abate F

- gas emissions. As with the variability in the emissions factors, considering the large number of individual devices in an abated fab brings the overall fab average DRE much closer to the overall average of the entire database. 3. For all of the gas/process type combinations, the alternative default DREs developed using the SIA

- recommended approach are less than the average DREs observed in the majority of the fabs that provided testing, demonstrating sufficient conservatism to prevent an under

- estimation of emissions when the alternative default DREs are used in

r eporting. While they are higher than the default DREs in the Proposed Rule, they are designed to represent the fab with the lowest average DRE. Very few fabs will have lower average DREs and, due to the expense of testing, fabs will not obtain site

- specifi c DREs in all cases where their actual DREs are higher. Under a final rule that uses the SIA default DREs, reported GHG emissions will not be understated.

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this c omment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 50

Comment : SIA recommends a modification to the Default DRE for C 2 F6 , CH 3 F, C 3 F 8 , and C 5 F 8 in etch. The Proposed Rule assigns CH 3 F, C 2 F 6 , C 3 F 8 , and C 5 F 8 a default DRE of 60 percent . In the “Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facili ties Under Subpart I” Document (page 5), the EPA notes that 60 percent has been assigned because no measured DRE data was available. SIA has now collected four measured DRE data points for CH 3 F, five data points for C 2 F6 and one data point for C 5 F 8 ; the DR E results indicate that these gases are amenable to abatement. SIA requests that CH 3 F, C 2 F 6 , and C 5 F 8 be included in the list of other etch gases C 4 F 6 , CHF 3 , C 4 F 8 , and CH 2 F 2 that the EPA has grouped together for the purpose of determining defaults (see pag e 4 of the referenced TSD document). A shared default of 96 percent for these gases would be indicated by the data.

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

54 Commenter Name: David Isaac s, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 51

Comment : SIA asks that the EPA reconsider its position that a lack of DRE data for C 3 F 8 necessitates the setting of the default DRE at 60 percent . C 3 F 8 chemistry is very similar to C 2 F 6 , both are fully fluorinated molecules; however, C 3 F 8 will be more amenable to abatement because of w eaker molecular bonds associated with its additional carbon atom when compared to C 2 F6 . Because of the similarity, the C 2 F 6 DRE data should be recognized as applicable to C 3 F 8 , enabling the C 3 F 8 default DRE to be assigned along with the list of other carbo n

- based etch gases, as noted above with a shared default of 97 percent

. Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095_B Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment : The commenter submitted Attachment B: "New and Revised DRE Test Data used in SIA Analysis of Alternative D efault DREs " with Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, containing data tables Table B

- 1 and Table B

- 2.

Tables B

- 1 (Abatement DRE Data for Etch) and B

- 2 (Abatement DRE Data for Chamber Cleaning) document the new and revised DRE test data used in SIA’s analysis of alternative default DREs . The new data consist of the testing conducted in 2012 by three SIA member companies at 9 of their fabs and by ISMI

.
The revised DRE test data consist of historical testing conducted by Company C that were previously s ubmitted to the EPA and were used in its analysis of default DREs in the proposed rule. These data (highlighted in yellow) have been revised to code the fab locations in a manner that is consistent with the coding of 2012 testing by the same company.

In ad dition to the data appearing in these tables, the SIA analysis included: (a) the testing at Company E, Fab B that was conducted during 2011 and was used by the EPA in its default DRE analysis for the proposed rule; and (b) eleven additional CF4 tests that the EPA added to the docket from earlier testing and used in the default DRE analysis for the proposed rule.

In Table B

- 1 , one historical test (cross reference number 213) is marked as deleted. The CF 4 gas that was measured was produced as a by

- product of the process. All other DRE data measure abatement of the input gas. This data point should not be used in the analysis of default DREs

.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

55 Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for the additional DRE data and for identification of the revised or deleted dat a elements that were previously submitted to the EPA and used in the development of default DREs in the proposed rule. The EPA has evaluated the additional data provided and has incorporated the additional data into the existing abatement device inventory. See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the EPA's analysis of the revised inventory and final default DREs

.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment : Intel continues to support a default DRE compliance option. Intel has supplied SIA much DRE testing data and supports SIA’s proposal for the recalculation of default DRE’s based on the expanded dataset, including a significant amount of Intel data. Intel supports SIA’s proposed alternative default DRE’s , which Intel believes to be more representative of actual device performance while maintaining conservatism.

Response: S ee Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments.

Commenter Name: Tom Jones, CHMM, REM Commenter Affiliation: Samsung Austin Semiconductor Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0096 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment : Samsung co nducted a call with the EPA to discuss the results of the CSK Hesta S POU F

- GHG testing that was conducted in the late summer and early fall of 2012. The testing was conducted using the EPA protocol as referenced in subpart I . During the discussion Samsung informed the EPA that the testing did not result in CF 4 Default DRE of 60 percent as prescribed by the Rule.

Samsung achieved positive emissions reduction for NF 3 , CHF 3 , C 4 F 8 , CH 2 F 2 , and C 2 F 6

– which were similar to test results achieved by other SIA tes t participants. Samsung experienced less than desirable DRE results for CF 4 abatement (<60 percent ). Samsung has offered to not include their POU testing results as a part of the original SIA test format and additionally will not use the default DRE’s offered by the GHG Rule until such time that CSK will be able to achieve the
current subpart I minimum 60 percent DRE for CF 4 . Also noted during the call, Samsung did not claim a 60 percent default DRE during the 2011 reporting year (i.e., DRE of 0 percen t was used for all reportable GHG ).

Samsung has established a step plan for the CSK vendor to begin incremental CF 4 abatement improvements over the next year and a half. Results of the CF 4 testing will be provided to the EPA for review.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

56 As a historical r eference, it was explained to the EPA that the CSK POU units were not originally designed to abate F

- GHG but rather received the consequential benefit of F

- GHG abatement due to the operating design for the destruction of other process gases. Samsung’s Sout h Korean facilities use the CSK POU units but maintain a separate centralized F

- GHG abatement system.

Response: T he EPA concurs with the commenter that the POU test data not be incorporated into the abatement system inventory because the CSK POU units w ere not originally designed to abate F

- GHGs

.

Commenter Name: Reed M. Content, Director, Global EHS & CSR Commenter Affiliation: GlobalFoundaries U.S. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0097 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment : GLOBALFOUNDRIES has made a very considerable investment in POU abatement for F

- GHGs, consistent with our commitment to environmental protection and ongoing industry

wide voluntary initiatives to reduce PFC emissions. GLOBALFOUNDRIES has taken great care in selecting and installing efficient and effective POU devices, and conducted DRE testing in 2012 in support of the SIA comments on the Subpart I Revisions Proposal.

Therefore, we are particularly concerned with the Agency’s proposal to heavily discount the proposed defaults DREs to the second standard deviation of the mean. Should the Agency decide to finalize the subpart I rule using the heavily discounted DREs, we will be faced with the prospect of investing significant resources in testing POU devices to develop site

- specific DREs, or reporting emissions using the extremely conservative defaults which will greatly overestimate emissions. Since Fab 8 will have more than 250 POU abatement devices, testing 20 percent of our fleet at full build

- out would cost approximately $500K (over the first two years) and then testing 15 percent over the next three years would cost approximately $375K. While we are already planning to continue POU testing in 2013 (as the facility is still starting up many new tools), we a re very concerned about high recurring testing costs solely due to unnecessarily conservative default DREs.

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments. The final rule options allow flexibility for facilities who wish to refl ect the emission reductions from abatement systems for reporting purposes. The EPA notes that the final rule provides for facilities to have the option to develop site specific DREs for specific gas and process combinations, while also using default DREs f or other gas and process combinations. See the response to comment EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, e xcerpt 59. Facilities are not obligated to measure DRE , or facilities may wish to use a combination of default DRE and measured DREs for different gas and proces s types.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

57 Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number s : 5 and 13

Comment : IBM strongly supports the provision for default DREs for F

- gas abatement systems based on measured DRE data submitted to the EPA by SIA, the simplification of the site specific DRE testing requirements, and the use of the site maintenance plan as the metho d to assure that abatement units are delivering consistent F

- gas destruction over time. While SIA and IBM have significant comments on needed improvements in these provisions, IBM strongly supports the EPA ’s efforts to establish representative, industry le vel default DREs, a cost

- effective, statistically valid methodology to create site

- specific DREs, and simplify the abatement system
assurance process.
IBM wants to express its strong support for the SIA proposed method for revising the default DREs conside ring the fab level variation in average DRE for each process/gas type rather than the individual variation present in the measured DRE data points for each process/gas combination. SIA provides a statistically sound analysis, using the same basic methodolo gy that the EPA accepted for analyzing variations in the etch emissions factors and validating their representativeness at the fab operations level. The SIA method provides a conservative assessment of the representativeness of the default DREs at a fab le vel while providing DRE values that will provide a reasonable estimate of emissions levels at abated facilities. The defaults proposed by the EPA in the Proposed Rule discount the default DRE by 2 standard deviations of the variation of the total dataset f or each process/gas combination, setting default DREs that are inordinately conservative and not representative of the reduced emissions that IBM has achieved by abatement of its F

- gas using wafer manufacturing tools. Importantly, rather than adopt unreaso nably low defaults, which will be of no practical use, the agency should consider instead other actions that will create a sufficient basis for establishing reasonable defaults, in the range of the levels supported by the SIA analysis.

Response: T he EPA t hanks the commenter for their input. See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment : In the 2010 final rule, the EPA required use of a default destruction and removal efficiency ( DRE ) of 60 percent unless measured values were available. In this proposal, the agency has reviewed additional data submitted by the semiconductor industry and proposed certain updated default DREs in Table I

- 16 (77 FR 63598) but retained a 60 percent DRE in cases where data is unavailable. EDF supports both the EPA ’s proposed revisions to Table I

- 16

an d the Agency’s decision to leave the default DRE at 60 percent for those situations in whichComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

58 better data are not available. EDF also supports a DRE of zero unless the procedures in 98.94(f) are followed.

Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for their s upport of the proposed default DREs for those F

- GHGs where data are unavailable. The EPA has reviewed additional data provided by the semiconductor industry during the public comment period and is revising the proposed default DREs for CH 3 F, C 2 F 6 , and C 5 F 8 where data w ere provided. See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment and the rationale for the final default DRE values. In the final rule, facilities must follow the QA procedures in 40 CFR 98.94(f) w hen using the default or site

- specific DREs to calculate emissions.



### 18.0 Revisions to Requirements for Establishing Site

- Specific DRE and EPA DRE Protocol (Proposed Appendix A)

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment : Regarding adequate mixing in duct work for tracer gas determination of dilution, in the preamble to the rule, the EPA requests data, if any, from tests in accordance with Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1 (an adaptation of the protocol in Section 8.1.2 of EPA Method 7E , 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 4). SIA did provide the EPA justificat ion for the use of this method for abatement system testing. See document # EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0051 [Footnote: http://www.regulations.gov/#! documentDetail ;D=EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0051 ] and document EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0052. [Footnote: http://www.regulati ons.gov/#! documentDetail

Request by the EPA for test data to demonstrate adequate mixing in ducts: ;D=EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0052 ]

a) One of the testing companies made a presentation at an SESHA (Semiconductor ESH Association) conference in April of 2012 whi ch contains data using FTIR demonstrating that the concentration distribution within the duct was uniform, and not stratified. These tests were performed following EPA Method 7E stipulations for stratification tests. The company made a three point traverse at 17 percent , 50 percent and 83 percent in each duct (to mimic EPA Method 7E) and collected about 10

- 20 data points per depth using FTIR (time required was ~10 sec./point). All data points met EPA Method 7E acceptance criterion of 5 percent from mean.

b) The same testing company conducted tests at one of its clients comparing the FTIR tracer technique with the QMS tracer technique for determining POU abatement device (POUAD) effluent flow. The data from these tests is shown below in Tables II.2 and II.3 . The relative percent difference (RPD) of each individual measurement from the mean of the three measurements in Table II.2 clearly demonstrates adequate mixing (i.e., homogeneity) of the injected tracer and POUAD effluent per the requirement set forth in EPA Method 7E (<5Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

59 percent ). The data was collected at an operational POUAD attached to an Etch tool. The EPA Protocol for Measuring DRE (EPA 430

- R

- 10

- 003) was followed for determining the effluent flow by QMS and the 2009 ISMI Guideline technique was foll owed for FTIR/Tracer effluent flow determination with a few notable deviations:

i. The stratification determination was performed following EPA Method 7E requirements for traverse locations and acceptance criteria

ii. Existing ports were used and the abs ence of stratification was verified using EPA Method 7E.

[See pg. 16 of Docket Id. No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table II.2: "FTIR POUAD Outlet Flow Tracer Release" and Table II.3: "QMS/FTIR POUAD Outlet Flow Result Comparison.”]

c) In a 2010 study ( Tech Transfer # 10095115A

- ENG), ISMI compared the use of quadrupole mass spectroscopy (QMS) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy for determining the volumetric flow of point

- of

- use (POU) abatement system effluents. The flow rates determined b y FTIR and QMS were consistent with one another. For each POU abatement system, the sample gas was extracted from a port between eight and nine duct diameters downstream from the SF6 injection location. The results from the stratification tests showed

cons istency in the SF6 concentration (<2 percent variation) across the ducts, demonstrating homogeneity of the effluent in case of all three of the systems tested. The study showed that FTIR provides a suitable alternative to QMS measurements and that mixing i n ducts is adequate for accurate flow measurements. A copy of this study was supplied to the EPA previously and is already in the docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0052.

Response: The EPA appreciates the additional data submitted in response to comments. These
two studies concur with the result of the study already included in the docket (item EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0052 )

, and further demonstrate that the adaption to EPA Method 7E in proposed Appendix A to subpart I is appropriate for determin ing whether or not adequate mixing was being achieved in ducts during the flow measurements in point

- of

- use abatement device DRE testing.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Docume nt Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 59

Comment : SIA supports the proposed amendments to subpart I to the procedure to determine site specific DREs

. The testing necessary to the development of site specific DREs will be expensive and will disrupt fab operations to varying degrees. Therefore, it is important for fab owners to have the option of developing site specific DREs for specific gas and process combinations, while defaultComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

60 DREs can be used for other gas and process combinations. This feature of the Proposed Rule is critical and must be retained.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed amendments to subpart I. The final rule will retain the provision that reporters may use a comb ination of default and facility

- specific measured DRE values in calculating GHG emissions.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2 011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 65

Comment : SIA supports allowance of an alternative to the EPA DRE Protocol EPA 430

- R

- 10

- 003 by EPA incorporating key aspects of the 2009 ISMI Environmental Characterization Guideline in Appendix A. Based on testing company feedback, SIA has the following specific comments on the proposed changes to the DRE testing methods in Appendix A:

Appendix A(a)(1): It is not appropriate for the mass spectrometer used for POU abatement DRE testing to be required to meet the det ection limits specified for FTIR stack testing. These limits are already being contested by the industry as too low for the stack application and the F

- GHG concentrations at POU abatement systems are expected to be significantly higher than at the stack. F TIR detection limits for POU abatement system testing are listed in the EPA DRE Protocol, Section 2.2.7 Table 3. If the EPA insists on specifying QMS detection limits for POU abatement testing in the rule, limits in DRE Protocol 2.2.7 Table 3 are more appropriate.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the stack testing maximum FDLs in T able I

- 10 to subpart I are not appropriate for the DRE testing with QMS, and the final rule references the FDL s in the EPA D RE Protocol section 2.2.7, Table 3.

However, it should be noted that Table 3 in section 2.2.7 of the DRE protocol lists minimum detection levels for FTIR, not mass spectroscopy. It should also be noted that Table 3 does not include all the gases for which DRE values are listed in Table I

- 16 in the final rule amendments. Not included in Table 3 are CH 3 F, CH 2 F 2 , C 4 F 6 , and C 5 F 8 . Therefore, the EPA reserves the right to revisit the issue of maximum FDLs in the future to determine whether maximum FDLs should be established for additional gases and specifically for DRE testing with QMS.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 66Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

61 Comment : Appendix A(a)(6) requires a QMS sampling frequency for etch processes in the range of 0.5 to 1 cycles per second, and for chemical vapor deposition processes in the range of 0.25 to 0.5 cycles per second. CVD clean pro cesses can be up to 40 minutes in duration while etch processes can be on the order of 10 seconds. A sampling frequency requirement for QMS should not apply when QMS is used to analyze tracer gas for determining abatement effluent because the process is at steady state flow. When utilizing QMS to determine DRE , sampling frequency should default to that specified in section 2.2.4 of the EPA DRE Protocol.

Response: T he EPA’s proposed sampling frequencies in the proposed Appendix A were taken from documents previously provided by the commenter . Section 2.2.4 of the EPA DRE Protocol, referenced by the commenter, says, “QMS measurements should be taken following the best practice guidelines specified in the guidance prepared by International SEMATECH Technolog y Transfer #0612485A

- ENG (December, 2006). 11 ”

Footnote 11, cited above, references App A.1 of the 2006 SEMATECH document. App A.1 of that document specifies, “Typical etch sampling frequencies should be on the order of 0.33

– 1 Hz. CVD processes are longer and can tolerate sampling frequencies of 0.1

– 0.33 Hz.”

However, the SIA’s stated intent in having the EPA include proposed Appendix A in the rule amendments was to incorporate elements of the 2009 version of the SEMATECH document (instead of the 2006 ver sion), because these are not reflected in the current EPA DRE protocol. See EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0051, Proposal to Incorporate ISMI 2009 Guideline References in Subpart I, May 17, 2012. The proposed frequencies are the same frequencies specified in the 200 9 ISMI guidelines.

The SIA offered no further explanation of why, in this particular instance, the 2006 ISMI guideline element should be used in place of the 2009 ISMI guideline element. Therefore, the EPA is not revising the proposed frequencies and is k eeping them as proposed.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 67

Comment : The field proc edure calls for the use of a calibration transfer standard (CTS) in a number of instances beginning in Appendix A(b)(1). CTS spiking is unnecessary and references should be removed from this Appendix. Historically, the use of a CTS was necessary to enable the accurate transfer of FTIR spectral calibrations between laboratory and field instruments. It characterized certain instrumental properties of the spectrometer (such as resolution, baseline and wavelength drift), as well as adding the ability to field check characteristics of the g as sample cell (such as pathlength and pressure). The modern implementation of software that performs real

- time wavelength normalization (i.e., frequency shifting), baseline correction and cell pressure measurement have made CTS spiking unnecessary and req uirements for CTS spiking should be removed from the Appendix. The FTIR instrumental diagnostics (resolution, baseline and wavelength drift) can and should be checked and reported for each emissions test by simplyComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

62 sampling ambient air, then inspecting the appropriate H 2 O (and/or CH 4 and CO) absorbance bands.

Appendix A(b)(6) references CTS which, as explained above

, is no longer applicable. This reference should be revised:

“(6) Preliminary analytical routines. For the proposed absorption pathlength to be u sed in actual emissions testing, you must prepare an analysis method containing all of the effluent compounds at their expected maximum concentrations plus the field calibration transfer standard compound at 20 percent of its full concentration as needed .”

Appendix A(b)(14) references CTS which, as explained above

, is no longer applicable. This reference should be revised:

"(14) Post

- test calibration. At the end of a sampling run and at the end of the field study, record the spectrum of the calibration tr ansfer standard gas diagnostic checks of the interferometer and sample cell, as referenced in paragraph (b)(1) . The resulting " final field calibration transfer standard spectrum diagnostic spectra '' must be compared to the initial field calibration transfe r standard spectrum diagnostic spectra to verify suitable stability of the spectroscopic system throughout the course of the field study."

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s recommendations to remove the calibration transfer standard (CTS) language. CTS provides a quality assurance check on various parameters and the commenter did not offer an alternative for CTS. The EPA disagrees with the commenter on the value of CTS and the final rule includes the references to the use of CTS that were i ncluded at proposal. The use of a CTS, which can be done with one of the subject fluorinated GHGs of interest, provides a relatively cost

- effective and technically simple check to ensure the quality of the data being collected, and provides quality control s on additional parameters than achieved through dynamic spiking

. In addition, the CTS criteria are tighter than those achieved through dynamic spiking because dynamic spiking can introduce uncertainty from the change in the stack concentration of the spik ed compound and because of sampling system biases.

The 2009 SEMATECH Guidelines cited by the commenter in developing the proposed Appendix A, (see EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0051, Proposal to Incorporate ISMI 2009 Guideline References in Subpart I, May 17, 2012) include the use of CTS. I n the May 17, 2012 document, the commenter asserted that the use of CTS was not required and its use should be limited. The commenter asserted that the use of a CTS is necessary, in certain instances, to validate optical pathlengt h for spectrometers where cell optical pathlength is variable, and for fixed pathlength spectrometers, the use of a CTS standard is not needed and should not be required.

However, in their comments on the proposed Appendix A, the commenter is suggesting that all references to CTS should be removed , rather than limited, but did not provide a further rationale for the complete removal of the CTS

.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

63 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Indus try Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 68

Comment : Appendix A(b)(3) states, "A minimum of four reference spectra must be available for each analyte..." This is not practical in a lot of cases, nor is it necessary. Virtually all F

- GHG absorbance spectra have broad instrumental line widths and scale linearly over a very wide optical depth ( ppm * pathlength ) range. SIA suggests Appendix A(b)(3) be revised to address any

non

- linearity as follows:

(3) Criteria for reference spectral libraries. On the basis of previous emissions test results and/or process knowled ge (including the documentation of results of any initial and subsequent tests, and the final reports required in Sec. 98.97(d)(4)(i)), estimate the maximum concentrations of all of the analytes in the effluent and their minimum concentrations of interest (those concentrations below which the measurement of the compounds is of no importance to the analysis). Values between the maximum expected concentration and the minimum concentration of interest are referred to below as the ``expected concentration range

. '' If the quantitative analysis for a calibrated spectral reference of a given analyte cannot be shown as scaling linearly across the expected concentration range, a A minimum of four reference spectra must be available for the analyte . When that set of s pectra is ordered according to absorbance , the absorbance levels of adjacent reference spectra should not differ by more than a factor of six. Reference spectra for each analyte should be available at absorbance levels that bracket the analyte's expected c oncentration range; minimally, the spectrum whose absorbance exceeds each analyte's expected maximum concentration or is within 30 percent of it must be available. The All reference spectra must be collected at or near the same temperature and pressure at which the sample is to be analyzed under. The gas sample pressure and temperature must be continuously monitored during field testing and you must correct for differences in temperature and pressure between the sample and reference spectra. Differences bet ween the sample and reference spectra conditions must not exceed 50 percent for pressure and 70 40 [ deg ]C for temperature.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the added language suggested by the commenter because it appears to allow reporters to determine wh ether there is a linear response without calibration spectra. The calibration spectra are need ed to determine whether the analyte will scale linearly across the expected concentration range, and the determination cannot be made without them. A minimum of f our reference spectra was specified in the proposed rule because two reference spectra cannot be used to determine whether or not the response is linear (i.e., two points can always be connected with a straight line). The proposed language was consistent w ith the 2009 ISMI guideline document.

However, a minimum of three reference spectra may be sufficient for a small expected concentration range (e.g., a difference of 30 percent of the range between the low and high ends of the range), but a minimum of fou r spectra are needed where the range is greater, especially for concentration ranges that may differ by orders of magnitude.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

64 If the measurement method is not linear then multiple linear ranges may be necessary. If this approach is adopted, then linear range must be demonstrated to pass the required quality control.

The final rule has been revised to provide this added flexibili ty to use only three reference spectra in certain limited cases, and to specify when a minimum of four reference spectra is needed, and when multiple linear may be used.

The EPA agrees with the commenter that the maximum allowed difference between the samp le and reference spectra temperature can be reduced from 70 to 40 degrees C. Reducing the maximum allowable difference in temperature between the sample and reference spectra conditions from 70 to 40 degrees C would make this criteria more stringent (i.e., less difference is allowed), thus mak ing the sample and reference corrections more reliable. Therefore, the EPA is incorporating this change into the final rule amendments for appendix A.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 69

Comment : Appendix A(b)(4)(i) states, "Dynamic and static reference sample preparation methods are acceptable, but d ynamic preparations must be used for reactive analytes." This reference should be removed because fluorinated greenhouse gases are not reactive.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the fluorinated GHGs currently being used are not reactive. In that case, static reference sample preparation methods can be used. However, if situations exist in which the analytes are reactive, then dynamic preparations would be appropriate. This language is also consistent with the 2009 ISMI guidelines. Therefo re, there is no disadvantage in leaving this language in place because it offers guidance on how to handle reactive vs. non

- reactive analytes, even if it is not immediately applicable . As a result, the EPA is finalizing this provision as proposed

.

Comme nter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 70

Comment : Appendix A(b)(4)(ii) states if a non

- linear de tector is used, you must correct for the effects of this type of response on the resulting concentration values. This is done via settings on the detector preamp board and software settings. As such collected FTIR reference concentrations are corrected dur ing collection. We suggest A(b)(4)(ii) be removed from the rule or revised as follows:Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

65 "(ii) If a mercury cadmium telluride or other potentially non

- linear detector (i.e., a detector whose response vs. total infrared power is not a linear function over th e range of responses employed) is used for recording the reference spectra, you must correct for the effects of this type of response on the resulting concentration values. As needed, spectra of a calibration transfer standard must be recorded with the lab oratory spectrometer system to verify the Appropriate calibrations of absorption pathlength and other diagnostic aspects of the system performance (such as resolution, baseline offset and wavelength drift) must be accurately quantified and included with the reference(s). All reference spectral data must be recorded in interferometric form and stored digitally."

Response: The EPA disagrees with the changes to remove the calibration transfer standard (CTS) language and replace them with the suggested language. S ee the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 67.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Comment er Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 71

Comment : Appendix A(b)(5) provides requirements for the sampling system. The ISMI guideline applies to process emissions ch aracterization from a wide range of semiconductor
processes. F

- GHG compounds characterized in DRE testing are virtually inert to most commonly used gas sample handling materials; thus, the stringent requirements for sampling system preparation are excessiv e, not required, and costly to implement. Appendix A(b)(5) should be revised:

"Sampling system preparation. Construct a sampling system suitable for delivering the proposed sample flow rate from the effluent source to the infrared absorption cell. For the compounds of interest, the surfaces of the system exposed to the effluent stream must be limited to stainless steel and Teflon; because of the potential for generation of inorganic automated gases, glass surfaces within the sampling system and absorption cell must be Teflon

- coated. You must demonstrate that the system, when sampling from a simulated source at the estimated effluent source pressure, delivers a volume of sample at least four times the maximum sampling system volume in a time shorter than the proposed minimum time between consecutive infrared analyses. "

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters suggestions to revise the test specifying the construction of the sampling system because this will depend on the actual gases being sampled. Howe ver, in place of deleting the text as suggested by the commenter, t he final rule retains the text but restates the specifications as guidance depending on the compounds being sampled, rather than fixed requirements and specifications. We have also revised the last sentence of the paragraph so that instead of specifying that the sampling system deliver a volume at least four times the expected maximum required volume, the sampling system is only required to deliver a volume of sample that results in a necess ary response time. In practice, the amount of gas neededComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

6 6 to exchange 99.9 percent of the gas sample is approximately equal to seven times the volume of the measurement cell.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affi liation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 72

Comment : Appendix A(b)(8) uses the terms "field study" and "field application" which are not defined. A(b)(8) requires dynamic spiking which is impossible to do if the sample matrix is continuously changing. The operation of process or abatement systems is too vari able to utilize spiking as a reliable means to validate analytical methodology. SIA suggests the following changes for clarity:

"(8) Spectroscopic system performance. The performance of the proposed spectroscopic system, sampling system, and analytical me thod must be rigorously examined during and after a field study. Several iterations of the analysis method may need to be applied depending on observed concentrations, absorbance intensities, and interferences. During the field study, all the sampling and analytical procedures envisioned for future field applications must be documented. Additional procedures not required during routine field applications, notably dynamic spiking studies of the analyte gases, may be performed during the first field study. Th e se additional procedures need to be performed only once if the results are acceptable and if the effluent sources in future field applications prove suitably similar to those chosen for the field study. If changes in the effluent sources in future applications are noted and require substantial changes to the analytical equipment and/or conditions, a separate field study must be performed for the new set of effluent source conditions. All data recorded dur ing the study must be retained and documented, and all spectral information must be permanently stored in interferometric form."

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s changes because FTIR measurements require a QC procedure to confirm the quality of the data meets method requirements. Dynamic spiking captures errors from a variety of potential method issues (e.g. transfer line leaks, matrix interference bias, instrument response changes). Dynamic spiking can be done with the use of
two systems when the system is constantly changing.

Additional procedures not required during routine field applications, notably dynamic spiking studies of the analyte gases, may be performed during the field study. These additional procedures need to be per formed only once if the results are acceptable and if the effluent sources in future field applications prove suitably similar to those chosen for the field study.

If the process cannot be operated under the same conditions long enough to complete the
requ ired IR spiking test and meet the applicable QA criteria, then two IR systems, un

- spiked and one spiked, may be necessary to support the quality of the measurements.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

67 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 73

Comment : Appendix A(b)(10), (11), and (12) should be revised as follows to revise references to CTS:

"(10) Pre

- test calibration. Record a suitable background spectrum using pure nitrogen gas; alternatively, if the analytes of interest are in a sample matrix consistent with ambient air, it is beneficial to use an ambient air background to control interferences from water and carbon dioxide. F or variable pathlength Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers, introduce a sample of the calibration transfer standard gas directly into the absorption cell at the expected sample pressure and record its absorbance spectrum (the ``initial field calibrati on transfer standard spectrum''). Compare it to the laboratory calibration transfer standard spectra to determine the effective absorption pathlength . Compare it to the laboratory calibration transfer standard spectra to determine the effective absorption pathlength . If possible, record spectra of field calibration gas standards (single component standards of the analyte compounds) and determine their concentrations using the reference spectra and analytical routines developed in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) of this appendix; these spectra may be used instead of the reference spectra in actual concentration and uncert ainty calculations. Diagnostic checks of the interferometer and sample cell must be performed, as referenced in paragraph (b)(1)."

"(11) Deriving the calibration transfer standa rd target analyte spiking gas ( es ) from tool chamber gases. The calibration tra nsfer standard target analyte spiking gas ( es ) may be derived by flowing appropriate semiconductor tool chamber gases under non

- process conditions (no thermal or plasma conditions and with no wafer(s) present) if compressed gas standards cannot be brought o n

- site."

"(12) Reactivity and response time checks. While sampling ambient air and continuously recording absorbance spectra, suddenly replace the ambient air flow with calibration transfer standard an analyte spiking gas introduced as close as possible t o the probe tip. Examine the subsequent spectra concentration results to determine whether the flow rate and sample volume allow the system to respond quickly enough to changes in the sampled gas. Should a corrosive or reactive gas be of interest in the sa mple matrix it would be beneficial to determine the reactivity in a similar fashion, if practical. Examine the subsequent spectra concentration results to ensure that the reactivities of the analytes with the exposed surfaces of the sampling system do
not limit the time response of the analytical system. If a pressure correction routine is not automated, monitor the absorption cell temperature and pressure; verify that the (absolute) pressure remains within 2 percent of the pressure specified in the propose d system conditions."

Response: T he EPA disagrees with the change to remove the calibration transfer standard (CTS) language. Please see response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, e xcerpt 67.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

68 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Governme nt Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 74

Comment : The ISMI guidelines are broadly written to apply to all semiconductor process emissions testing. Dynamic spiking is impossible to do if the sample matrix is continuously changing. The operation of process or abatement systems is too variable to utilize spiking as a reliable means to validate analytical methodology. DRE testing involves relative measurements (inlet vs. outlet) and analyte spiking as described here does not apply. SIA suggests striking Appendix A(b)(13).

Response: T he EPA disagrees with the change to remove the calibration transfer standard (CTS) language. Please see response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, e xcerpt 67.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Associatio n Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 75

Comment : Appendix A(c)(1): this section indicates that one can only introduce the non

reactive, non

- native gas in between the POU thermal oxidizer and wet scrubber. This loc ation is generally inside the POU abatement device cabinet, and in some cases cannot be accessed with a port to inject a gas or may not be safe to access due to heat and liquid in this transition section. Another location to inject non

- reactive, non

- native gas is in the POU abatement device exhaust duct after it leaves the POU abatement exhaust cabinet and where it can be easily accessed. This should be changed to: “ You may introduce the non

- reactive, non

- native gas used for determining total volume flow an d dilution across the point

- of

- use abatement device in the exhaust of the POU abatement device at a location between the thermal oxidizer of the and the scrubber .”

For abatement devices operating in a mode where specific F

- GHG such as CF 4 , which has relat ively high bond energies and are not readily abated at lower operating temperatures, it should also be permissible to spike these non

- reactive gases through the POU abatement system where the gas can be added prior to the abatement system. The turbulence incurred in traversing through the abatement system provides adequate mixing in this scenario. This alleviates the need for two sample ports post

- abatement system, r educing costs to fabrication facilities where the additional fittings may not be present in the installed base. In some cases, second fittings may not be logistically possible if the distance of exhaust duct between the abatement unit and corrosive exhaust header plenum is very short.

The risk associated with this procedure is incurred by the fab . If the abatement unit does not exhibit zero DRE for the F

- GHG chosen to spike through the abatement unit then the determined dilution will be higher than the actu al dilution. Under this scenario the reported DRE will be lower than the actual DRE . The fab working in consultation with the abatement vendor and testing company should determine if this approach is appropriate. This approach is potentiallyComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

69 suitable for d evices that operate at multiple temperatures and also for devices where the abatement can be completely turned off like some plasma treatment solutions.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., one of the testing companies, has provided additional data supporting this approach as a viable option for determining total flow across abatement devices.

In Figure IV.3 below, CF 4 has been spiked through an abatement unit and post abatement unit using a 1 percent CF 4 in nitrogen blend. The CF 4 emission profiles are shown for each set of spike flows. Analysis of the data are contained in Table IV.4 below. The resulting determined total flows agreed to within 3.4 percent

. Appendix A(c)(1) should be further amended with the addition of, “For abatement systems operating in a m ode where specific F

- GHG are not readily abated, you may introduce the

non - reactive, non

- native gas used for determining total volume flow and dilution across the point

- of

- use abatement device prior to the POU abatement system. ”

[See pg . 44 of Docket Id. N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 for Table IV.4: “Data analysis of emission profile observed in Figure X below” and Figure IV.4: “CF 4 emission profile observed during spiking through and post

- Abatement unit.”]

Response: The EPA agrees with the comment and ha s revised the location specification so that it can be at any point in the exhaust of the POU abatement device.

We have also revised this section to allow the use of a F

- GHG as tracer that is more difficult to destroy than the target compounds being measured , as suggested by the commenter , but we are also including in the final rule that this must be based on the thermal stabilities of the target and tracer. This approach is similar to the Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial Burn Results for Hazardous Waste Incineration and the use of an incinerability index to select surrogates for DRE (EPA/625/6

- 89/019). (See also 40 CFR 264.342(b)(l).) The EPA is specifying that thermal stability be used to select the tracer in order to avoid s ituations in which the atmospheric half life of the GHG could be used to select the tracer. The atmospheric half

- life of GHGs does not necessarily compare with thermal stability, although some correlation may be observed for certain compounds , so it should not be used to select tracers

.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 76

Comment : Appendix A(c)(2) contains a typo where, between 10 percent and 20 percent , it states, "...take samples from three points at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 percent of the measurement line and use the average of the three measurements. “ or " should be " and .”

Re sponse: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input and has correct ed Appendix A(c)(2) as suggested. When the non

- reactive, non

- native gas concentration deviates by more than +/

- 10.0Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

70 percent, but less than 20.0 percent, samples must be taken from three poin ts located at 16.7, 50,0, and 83.3 percent of the measurement line and the average of these three samples must be used to determine the abatement device flow rate.



### 19.0 Revisions to Random Sampling Abatement System Testing Program (RSASTP) Schedule

Commenter N ame: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 60

Comment : Because the testing is so costly and there are often hundreds of POUs in a large fab

, it is important to allow, as the agency has proposed, the determination of the site specific DRE to be based on a sample of the abatement units.

Section 98.94(f)(4)(ii)(A) ( 77 FR 63585) states testing of a sample of 20 p ercent of the units must completed in the first two years. After that a minimum of 5 percent must be done each year but some of that can be done early. That is, one can do 15 percent in year one and none for the next two years. It is most likely that companies will do testing of 15 percent in a single year as a matter of efficiency and cost

- effectiveness. SIA would like one change. Having done testing of 20 percent of the units in the first two years, we would like to be able to defer the 15 percent testing to year 4 or 5 rather than having to do at least five percent in years 3 and 4. We believe this is consistent with the intent of this section as described in the preamble. We propos e the following language change. Simply retain the first part of the second sentence, which says

, " For every 3

- year period following the initial 2

- year period, a random sample of 15 percent of the installed abatement systems must be tested for each gas and process sub

- type or process type combination." Remove the rest of that sentence.

Response: T he EPA appreciates the commenter's input regarding the sample size and frequency under the RSASTP . We disagree, however, with the commenter's proposed change to r emove the requirement to test a minimum of 5 percent of abatement systems for each gas and process type or sub

- type combination per year after the first two years of testing.

The proposed amendments would significantly reduce burden in two distinct ways. F irst, facilities would no longer be required to select systems based on abatement system class, as required in the December 2010 version of subpart I, but rather are required to test a percentage of abatement systems for each gas and process type or sub

- ty pe combination. As explained in the technical memorandum titled "Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I," ( D ocket ID EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2011

- 0028) the EPA proposed to remove t he abatement system class paradigm because testing by gas and process type/sub

- type would simplify apportionment and uptime calculations, abatement system categories based on gas and process type/sub

- type combinations would be consistent with calculation m ethods for subpart I default emission factor based methods, andComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

71 broader categories of abatement systems would reduce the number of systems that need to be tested, all of which would result in a reduction of burden for reporters. Second, facilities would

no longer be required to test 20 percent of abatement systems in each abatement system class per year, but rather 10 percent for each gas and process type combination for each year in the first two years, and 15 percent for every 3

- year period after with the requirement that at least 5 percent are tested per year until the 15 percent requirement is met. As explained in the technical memorandum titled "Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Faciliti es under Subpart I," ( D ocket ID EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028), we believe the proposed changes would reduce testing burden by requiring fewer tests while providing sufficient information to ensure that the DRE values used represent current system performance as ab atement systems age.
The proposed amendments would allow reporters to meet the entire 15 percent requirement in year three for efficiency and cost

- effectiveness, as the commenter suggested. It was not our intent to allow facilities to skip all testing in y ears 3 or 4, as stated by the commenter , unless the required minimum amount of testing is already completed. Our intent was to require reporters to perform some amount of testing in every year of each three year period until the 15 percent requirement was met to ensure that an appropriate amount of DRE data were being collected in a timely manner so that emissions calculations performed using site

- specific DRE values were as representative as possible with consideration of sampling burden on reporters.

For efficiency, the final rule allows reporters to complete the required testing of 20 percent of systems in year one, skip testing in year two, and then complete the required testing of 15 percent of systems in year three. This approach would be consistent w ith the commenter's desire to consolidate testing as much as possible for efficiency, but also to spread testing costs over of a period of time with some intervening years with no testing.

It is also important to note that subpart I allows reporters to use a combination of default DRE values and measured DRE values for different gas and process type/sub

- type combinations (but not within a combination). Therefore, facilities may choose to test only abatement systems for those gas and process type/sub

- type co mbinations for which they feel the default DRE values are not representative for their facility, and this approach would also reduce the amount of required DRE testing.

Because the amendments significantly reduce the amount of sampling burden for reporters , and the need still exists to sample a representative number of abatement systems in a timely manner, the EPA is not finalizing the change as suggested by the commenter

.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affilia tion: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 61

Comment : Given that the abatement system count in a particular gas and process type will change over time, SIA asks that the rule cla rify that the determination of the percentage testedComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

72 will be at the time the test actually occurs. This means that if 5 percent are tested a year and units are added or removed between that year and the next, that round of testing still counts as 5 percent . We ask that the following sentence be added to Section 98.94(f)(4)(ii)(A), " The percentage of units tested will be determined from the abatement system count at the time the testing begins for the given three year period of the testing. "

Respo nse: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 62

Comment : In the preamble to the proposed rule (page 63549 under "Testing Frequency") it is stated that it is the EPA ’s intent to allow facilities subject to subpart I to use stack testing completed in support of rule development for purpose of initially establishing emissions factors under the Stack Test Alternative. SIA asks that a similar approach be applied to DRE testing and its application to determining site specific DREs under the rule. SIA reque sts that the EPA modify the language of 98.94(f)(4)(iii) to clarify that all DRE test data collected in 2011, or later, will qualify for use in determining site specific DREs for the locations where the testing occurred. SIA recommends that a sentence be a dded at the end of 98.94(f)(4)(iii) which states:

" You may include the results of DRE testing conducted in or after 2011 for use in determining the site specific DRE for a given process/gas combination in accordance with the requirements of 98.94(f)(4). "

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 63

Comment : Under the proposed rule, Sections 98.94(f)(iv) and (v) ( 77 FR 63585) deal with how low tested DREs are managed. These two sections are dependent on the "Operational Mode" and "Uptime" definitions in § 98.98. The key statements from these two definitions are that an abatement system should be considered "operational" when it is in the operational mode, which requires that the system is properly operated with the range of parameters defi ned in the site specific abatement system maintenance plan, as built on the manufacturers’ recommended maintenance program. In the maintenance plan, the fab will specify what the key operating parameters are that will be used to determine "uptime.” They wo uld not include a minimumComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

73 DRE , as the testing data has shown that the DRE values are distributed and some units may have lower DREs than the manufacturer’s expected DRE because of fab or process specific conditions. The parameters in the site maintenance p lan would be checked/ verified on a periodic basis. Thus, if one gets a lower than expected DRE during a test, one can check the key parameters and if they are in range, one can still validate that the system is running in accordance with the site abatemen t systems maintenance plan. Thus, if you do a test and the DRE is low where the unit has been properly operated and maintained, the test falls under the requirements of § 98.94(f)(iv), which calls for the use of the results in determining the site specific DRE , and retesting is not triggered.

Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for their input regarding instances where the DRE of abatement systems are below the design and default DRE

. The EPA concurs with the commenter’s interpretation of the site mai ntenance plan and how to account for measurements that may be affected by improper maintenance or operation of the abatement systems.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Associ ation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 64

Comment : The second issue is the determination of uptime for a unit found not to be in compliance with the site maintenance plan requirements. For that, SIA makes the fo llowing proposed changes to rule language:

Section 98.94(f)(4)(v) ( 77 FR 63585): This section should be revised as follows: "...In lieu of retesting with in the reporting year, you may:

1. Use the measured value in calculating the average destruction or removal efficiency for the reporting year then include the same system in the next year’s abatement system testing in addition to the testing of the randomly selected systems for the next rep orting year. Include the measured DRE for the unit in the calculation of the site specific DRE for the gas. The measured DRE for that unit must be included in the site specific DRE average until corrective action is completed and the abatement system is re tested. Corrective action must be completed in a reasonable time, but retesting can be deferred to the next testing period. Any affected abatement units must be tested in addition to the randomly selected 15 percent sample

.
2. Exclude the measured DRE for that unit in the site specific DRE average until corrective action is completed and the abatement system is retested. However, in that instance the abatement system will be treated as down until the retest is completed

. "

Allowing inclusion of the lower D RE in the site specific average enables a location to choose whether it wants to accept a lower DRE for its site specific value for a given gas, as a low DRE value will have an inordinate impact on the site DRE given that the average is based on

measuremen ts from 30 percent of the units, or if it wants to manage its uptime number forComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

74 different units. The benefit of choosing the lower DRE is being able to maintain a consistent uptime across all the gases, simplifying management of the calculations.

Respons e: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.



### 20.0 Abatement Systems Certification and Maintenance Plans

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment : The Proposed Rule at Sections 98.94(f) and 98.96(q) says that in order to use the default DREs or site specific DREs in concert wit h the default factors option or the stack test option:

**•** One must certify and document that the abatement devices are specifically designed to abate the GHGs,

**•** One must certify and document/verify that the abatement devices were installed in accordance wit h manufacturer specifications, and

**•** One must certify and document that the abatement are operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer specifications and the site maintenance plan for abatement devices.

These requirements pre sent several pra ctical challenges:

[T]he manufacturer’s specifications may no longer be available. Even when they are available, the specifications can be general and do not specifically call out how to manage and maintain the abatement devices. Typically, this requires t he fab to create a site specific maintenance plan, which will be based on a combination of available manufacturer’s updated specifications and/or the fab specific procedures developed through subsequent operating and maintenance experience. Material change s to the manufacturer’s specification requirements for their abatement systems may be necessary to address process or equipment specific requirements in an operating fab.

Some process types may require parameters outside of the manufacturer’s specification requirements to address complications introduced by specific material types, reaction products, or to meet specific safety requirements. "Tuning" of operating parameters and/or maintenance schedules different from the abatement system manufac turer’s recommendations are required to optimize system operation in these cases. Examples of maintenance plan adjustments beyond the original manufacturer’s recommendations to maximize the DRE for CF 4 abatement were discussed in docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 002 8

- 0046 item 4a.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

75 [T]he purpose of the site maintenance plan is to ensure that the abatement devices are operated and maintained correctly. To that end, the plan should be a dynamic document that incorporates improvements in how the abatement devices are se rviced and maintained, including corrective actions that are taken when the causes of abatement system failure or outage are determined. In addition, proper set

- up of abatement device in GHG abatement mode after maintenance will be addressed. Therefore, by their nature, these plans may depart from the original manufacturer’s specifications.

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engin eer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The proposed rule requires that assumptions be made about abatement destruction removal efficiency ( DRE ) in order to adjust annual emissions calculations for abatement downtime and does not allow one to assume a DRE of zero, as would be an option under the emission factor method. While this is a logical approach for a stack test method, other portions of th e rule require that a DRE assumption of zero be used if a facility cannot meet certain requirements for certifying the design and installation of an abatement device. The net result is that a facility which is unable to meet these certification requirement s (for example, one with older abatement equipment where such certification may be difficult to obtain) is effectively disqualified from using the stack test method as they may not assume zero efficiency, yet cannot meet the requirements to assume somethin g other than zero. Intel supports revising the DRE certification requirements that are presented in the SIA comments. Under this approach, the use of default DRE values is dependent upon certifying and documenting that the systems are installed, operated, and maintained according to the site maintenance plan. This is consistent with the way in which other pollution control devices are handled in many facility air permits.

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the r esponse to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 53

Comment: For existing o lder abatement systems, it is not always possible to determine now (or in the future) that they were installed in accordance with manufacturer specifications at the time of their original installation, which in many cases preceded this rule. Records of the manufacturer’s intent and installation requirements may not have existed and, if they did exist,Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

76 they were not kept. Importantly, process tool(s) and gases/liquid precursors may have changed since the initial installation. It is critical that POUs be oper ated and maintain properly in the periods when emissions are being reported and that the current infrastructure and system configuration are appropriate for the abatement application. It is not germane whether the POUs were installed in a particular way in the past, as some of the systems at specific fabs have been in operation for up to a decade.

Response: Please see Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice Presid ent, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 55

Comment: It should be noted that abatement system operational parameters such as gas and fue l flows are set during the maintenance process and cannot be adjusted during the operational cycle. SIA documented that fact in the response to item 4b in document ID EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0046. The fab specific maintenance plan, which is required under § 9 8.97(d)(9) to be "built on the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance program", is the appropriate document to serve as the basis for certifying the installation, operation and maintenance of the abatement systems.

Response: The EPA appreciates the comm enter’s input regarding adjustment of abatement system operation parameters . Please see Section II.B. 5 of the preamble of the final rule amendments for more details related site specific maintenance plan for abatement systems

.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 56

Comment: SIA proposes a modified set of requirements for the abatement sy stems associated with the use of the default DREs, the site specific DREs, and the stack test option. [O]ur proposal would modify the certification of original installation for existing units, basing the certification on best available information and the site maintenance plan and shifting the substance of the obligation to the fab owner rather than the device manufacturer:

**•** One must identify the abatement devices or group of abatement devices by equipment manufacturer and model number or type for which GHG removal or destruction efficiency will be claimed and document the basis for the determination that they are capable of doing so, which may include, but not necessarily be limited to, design information from the manufacturer. This will be done on a gas spe cific basis. That is, oneComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

77 may identify an abatement device or group of abatement devices as capable of abating certain gases but not all.

**•** One must create and implement a Site Maintenance Plan for those abatement devices or groups of abatement devices. One should consider the manufacturer’s recommended operations and maintenance requirements, but the plan may also incorporate improvements that arise out of the fab specific experience in managing abatement devices and corrective actions arising out of investi gations of device performance issues.

SIA proposes the following changes to the language in the rule:

**•** § 98.94(f)(1) (FR 63584): Revise to read: " You must certify and document that the abatement systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained according to the manufacturers’ specifications site maintenance plan by adhering to the procedures...

**•** § 98.94(f)(1)(ii) (FR 63584): Revise to read: : "You must certify and document that your abatement systems are operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications and according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems..."

**•** § 98.96(q)(FR 63588): Revise to read "... single c ertification that all abatement systems at the facility have been installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained ..." A lso revise to read "...as specified in 98.97(d). The certification will be provided for the F

- gases for which the devices are expected to treat as documented in 98.97(d)(5)(i). "

Response: T he EPA acknowledges that DRE performance for different F

- GHGs may vary for each type or model of abatement system, and that an abatement device may be capable of abating certain F

- GHGs but not others. As such, the EPA agrees with the commenter that facilities should be able to provide a certification for each abatem ent system or group of abatement systems on a gas

- specific basis for the F

- GHGs the devices are expected to treat. We have revised 40 CFR 98.96(q) and 40 CFR 98.97(d)(5)(i) to specify that the relevant certifications will be provided for the F

- GHGs for whi ch the abatement systems are expected to treat.

With respect to the issue of relying on manufacturers specifications versus the site maintenance plan in 40 CFR 98.94(f)(1) when facilities are using default DRE values or site

- specific DREs
, please see Secti on II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments.

Regarding the suggested language for 40 CFR 98.96(q) for a single certification, see response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, e xcerpt 57.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Governm ent Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 78

Comment: Section 98.96(q)(FR 63588): Revise to read "... single certification that all abatement systems at the facility have been installed, maintained and operated in accordanceComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

78 with the manufacturer’s specifications and according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained ..." Also revise to read "... as s pecified in 98.97 (d). The certification will be provided for the F

- gases for which the devices are expected to treat as documented in 98.97(d)(5)(i). "

Section 98.97(d)(5)(i)( 77 FR 63591): Revise to read, " The number of abatement systems of each manufacturer, and model numb ers, and the F

- gases the unit(s) are certified to abate and the manufacturer’s claimed fluorinated... "

Based on the SIA review of the DRE data, there may be situations where an abatement unit which is designed to treat F

- gases may:

1. Treat some, but not all F

- gases, exhausted to an abatement unit such as CF 4 in a low fire combustion unit, or

2. A fab may not be able to achieve acceptable treatment for given F

- gas in the actual operational conditions in the fab.

In these two cases, the fab would not certify t he unit for that particular F

- gas and would not claim a DRE for that F

- gas in the situations where the abatement unit was receiving that F

- gas in its inlet stream. These conditions would be identified in the abatement system records retained under § 98.97(d).

Response: T he EPA acknowledges that there are situations in which an abatement unit may treat some, but not all, F

- GHGs exhausted to the unit or in which a fab may not be able to achieve the default DRE for a specific F

- GHG based on the operatin g parameters of the fab

. The EPA concurs with the addition of a clarifying sentence suggested by the commenter for 40 CFR 98.96(q), and has incorporated the suggested language into 40 CFR 98.96(q) in the final rule.

The EPA has also adopted the suggested revisions to 40 CFR 98.97(d)(5)(i) to clarify that reporters must specify the F

- GHGs the units are certified to abate.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document C ontrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 57

Comment: As written in the Proposed Rule, it is not clear if a certification is required for each abatement unit or if a single certification will cover all the abatement units at the f ab. Given that this certification has to be provided through e

- GGRT, it should enable a single certification be given for the abatement units reported in § 98.96(p)(1).

Section 98.97(d)(1)( 77 FR 63591): Revise to read:Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

79 (i) Documentation to certify that each abatement system or group of abatement systems is installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications the site maintenance plan.

(ii) Documentation from the abatement system supplier or the fab operator describing the abatement system’s designed purpose and emissions control capabilities for fluorinated GHG and N2O for which the systems or group of systems is certified to abate

. (iii) Certification that the any abatement system or group of abatement systems abating fluorinated GHGs or N 2 O for which where emissions are being reported and DRE reductions are being claimed are were specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement of those gases

. The change in (iii) above is important so that the regulatory lan guage is clear that the documentation requirements are specific to those abatement units for which DRE reductions are being claimed. As currently written, 98.97(d)(1)(iii) can be read that a certification is required for all abatement units, whether or not abatement reductions in emissions are claimed.

Response: For reporting purposes, the proposed amendments to subpart I require in 40 CFR 98.96 (q) that the facility provide certifications for all abatement systems reported in § 98.96(p)(1) through which fluorinated GHGs or N 2 O flow at the facility, and for which the facility is reporting controlled emissions.

For recordkeeping purposes, facilities must maintain documentation of the certification for each abatement system or group of abatement systems. Therefore, the EPA concurs with revisions to 40 CFR 98.97either (d) (1) ( i ) and (iii) to clarify that documenta tion may apply to each abatement system or groups of abatement systems.

Please see Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for changes to rule language related to the use of manufacturers specifications in the site maintenance plan, as suggested in 40 CFR 98.97(d)(1)(i) and (ii).

The EPA agrees with the commenter that reporters should be able to provide the required certifications for either single abatement systems and gas and process combinations, or for groups of abatement systems, an d this needs to be reflected in the reporting system. To provide flexibility for reporters and to reflect the final rule language, the EPA intends to modify the current subpart I reporting form used in the EPA 's electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool ( eG GRT ) to allow facilities to certify all abatement systems for each gas/process combination, or to certify individually each abatement system for each gas/process combination. For example, some facilities may elect to claim abatement for only a portion of t heir devices with certain gas and process combinations, and some abatement systems may be subject to different certification requirements depending on whether the facility is applying default DREs or site

- specific DREs to those specific devices.

The EPA al so agrees with the commenter's revisions to 40 CFR 98.97(d)(1)(ii) to clarify that the documentation for the abatement system's designed purpose and emissions control capabilities is required for the fluorinated GHG and N 2 O emissions for which the system is certified to abate.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

80 Regarding the suggested revisions to 40 CFR 98.97(d)(1)(iii), the introductory paragraph of 40 CFR 98.97(d) states that records must be maintained "For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N 2 O flow at your facility , and for which you are reporting controlled emissions". Therefore, the addition of the phrase "and DRE reductions are being claimed" is redundant. The final rule does not include this added phrase.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Governme nt Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 103

Comment: Section 98.98 Operational Mode ( 77 FR 63593): Revise to read: " Operational mode means the time which an abatement system is properly installed, maintained, and operated according to the manufacturers’ specifications site maintenance plan as required in 98.9 3 4(f)(1) and defined in 98.97(d)(9). This includes being properly operated within the range of parameters as specified in the operations manual provided by the manufacturer the site maintenance plan for fab abatement systems."

Response: T he EPA appreciates the commenter's input regarding the definition of operational mode. By following the site

- s pecific abatement system maintenance plan, reporters ensure that the abatement systems used are performing to the default DRE or the site

- specific measured DRE ; therefore, we believe that clarifying that abatement systems are operating in accordance with t he abatement system site maintenance plan in the definition of operational mode is necessary so that reporters are required to accurately account for periods when abatement systems are not meeting default or site

- specific DREs in their emissions calculatio ns. The EPA is adopting the commenter's suggested change to the definition of operational mode in the final amendments to subpart I.

However, please see Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments on the relevance of manufacturer's specifications to the development of the site maintenance plan

.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Exce rpt Number: 58

Comment: The definition of “abatement system” in section 98.98 was not proposed for revision in this rulemaking. However, SIA is proposing a revision to that definition to clarify which abatement systems are covered under the requirements in subpart I . There are abatement units installed in fabs for purposes other than GHG abatement, including but not limited to solids removal, pyrophoric destruction, and VOC emissions control. Under the current rule language, it appears that if any of the regulated GHGs are exhausted to these units, one is technically required to manage them under the requirements of subpart I . These types of units are notComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

81 designed for fluorinated greenhouse gas treatment and any treatment which does occur is incidental and would not be capable of being certified under the rule requirements. Inclusion of the “designed to” phrase clarifies that only system designed to treat F

- gas emissions are covered by the requirements of the regulation. With this in mind, SIA proposes the following revisions to this definition:

98.98: Abatement system means a device or equipment that is designed to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs and N2O in waste exhaust streams from one or more electronics manufacturing production processes.

Response: Please see Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Intel also agrees with SIA’s proposal to modify the requirements pertaining to use of the default or site specific DREs . The proposed rule at Sections 98.94(f) and 98.96(q) says that in order to use the default or site specific DREs with the default factors option or the stack test option:

**•** One must certify and document that the abatement devices are specifically designed to abate the GHGs

,

**•** One must certify and document/verify that the abateme nt devices were installed in accordance with manufacturer specifications, and

**•** One must certify and document that the abatement are operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer specifications and the site maintenance plan for abatement devic es.

This approach presents challenges for older abatement systems, where it may not be possible to determine that they were initially installed in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Some of the systems have been in operation for a significant time, a nd process gases or other parameters may have changed in that time. While it is critical that POUs be operated and maintain properly, documenting installation in the past under a different set of circumstances is not the best way to achieve this.

For some of the older equipment, manufacturer’s specifications may no longer be available and even when available may be general in nature and not specifically identify abatement system management and maintenance procedures.

Intel supports the SIA proposal for a modified set of requirements for the abatement systems associated with the use of the default DREs or the site specific DREs . This approach would require the facility to identify abatement devices by equipment manufacturer and model numberComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

82 or type for unit s where a removal or destruction efficiency will be claimed, and document the basis for that determination. A Site Maintenance Plan that considers the manufacturer’s recommended operations and maintenance requirements, but which may also incorporate improv ements driven by fab specific experience or conditions should be the documentation required to allow the use of these DRE values.

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments and response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 , excerpt 56.

Commenter Name: Patrice Tompkins

- Everidge, WW ESH Director Commenter Affiliation: Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0094 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: In the EPA proposed rule Sectio ns 98.94(f) and 98.96(q) it states that in order to use the default D REs or site specific DREs in concert with the default factors option or the stack test option:

**•** One must certify and document that the abatement devices are specifically designed to abate the GHGs,

**•** One must certify, document and verify that the abatement devices were installed in accordance with manufacturer specifications, and

**•** One must certify and document that the abatement is operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer sp ecifications and the site maintenance plan for abatement devices.

SIA, in their comments in Section IV.C, specifically state that all references to manufactures specifications should be removed in the final rule.

TI supports all SIA comments pertaining to t hese changes and worked closely with SIA in developing justifications. TI agrees that a company’s specific Site Maintenance Plan(s) which addresses installation, operation and maintenance of an abatement unit beyond manufacturer specifications more effect ively manage the installation as well as the operation and maintenance of abatement systems. Specifically, many of TI’s abatement systems were installed prior to the rule in accordance with TI’s internal methods, which may have used manufacturers’ specific ations as a basis but were necessarily modified to fit site specific applications. Consistent with SIA’s comments TI would modify and/or create site maintenance plans to the extent TI intends to certify abatement units under the final rule.

Response: See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments and response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 56.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

83 Commenter Name: Patrice Tompkins

- Everidge, WW ESH Director Commenter Affiliation: Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) Document Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0094 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: In the EPA proposed rule Sections 98.96(q) and 98.97(d)(5)(i), the EPA states the following:

**•** § 98.96(q): For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N 2 O flow at
y our facility, for which you are reporting controlled emissions, a certification that all abatement systems at the facility have been installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and according to the site maintena nce plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained in your records as specified in Sec. 98.97(d). SIA comments that this section should be revised to read “...specified in 98.97(d). The certification will be provided for the gases for which the devices are expected to abate as documented in 98.97(d)(5)(i).

**•** § 98.97(d)(5)(i): The number of abatement systems of each manufacturer, and model numbers, and the manufacturer’s claimed fluorinated GHG and N 2 O destruction or removal efficiency, if any. SIA comments that this section should be revised to read, “The number of abatement systems of each manufacturer, and model numbers, and the F

- gases the unit(s) are certified to abate and the manufacturer’s claimed fluorinated...”

Based on the SIA review of the D RE data, there may be situations where an abatement unit which is designed to treat F

- gases may:

**•** Treat some, but not all F

- gases, exhausted to an abatement unit such as CF4 in a low fire combustion unit, or

**•** A fab may not be able to achieve acceptable treat ment for given F

- gas in the actual operational conditions in the fab.

TI would like to emphasize its support for SIA’s comments in section IV.H. While TI continues its overall reduction goals for GHGs, certain abatement systems may not be installed and maintained in such a way to destroy certain F

- GHGs such as CF 4 , which would require additional infrastructure, system equipment and operation modifications. Therefore, it is important to provide for the ability to certify an abatement system for gases the system can effectively destroy.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, excerpt 78.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 14Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

84 Comment: The requirement that a fab establish, maintain, and execute a site maintenance plan, built on the manufacturer’s specifications, for the F

- gas abatement units provides the necessary
means to a ssure that abatement systems will be managed and maintained to achieve the default DRE values. IBM recognizes that variability was observed in the measured DRE values for CF 4 in initial testing of EFK abatement devices for etch processes in 2011 (docket do cument EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0048) and, to a minor extent, in the measured DRE values for NF 3 used in chamber clean processes (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0047) for the same time period. The DREs for the other F

- gases and NF 3 used in the etch process were consiste ntly high with limited variation in DRE values as compared to the NF 3 and CF 4 DRE values. The abatement testing results for 2012 (provided as file “IBM 2012 DRE measurements data.xlsx”) demonstrate that execution of an effective site maintenance plan provi des the basis to assure that site abatement systems are, on average, performing at or above the default DRE values as calculated by the SIA method presented in the SIA comments. IBM improved the site average DRE for CF 4 by 31 percent with reduced variabili ty from 2011 to 2012 through improvements in the site maintenance plan procedures. Similarly, the average DRE for abatement of NF 3 from the chamber clean process improved by 6.8 percent

. Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for their input. We agree tha t a site maintenance plan built on the manufacturer’s specifications will provide assurance that abatement systems meet the default and site

- specific DREs . As noted by the commenter , during the review of DRE test data for the revision of the default DRE
, t he EPA noted that some low CF 4 and NF 3 DREs in the test data resulted from variation in flows through the abatement system and from operating and maintaining the abatement systems outside of the manufacturer specifications. Because the high variability in the available DRE data was directly associated with operating outside of the manufacturer’s specifications, the EPA proposed a requirement for facilities to develop, follow, and keep on

- site a maintenance plan for abatement systems that is built on the man ufacturer’s recommended maintenance program. The EPA has retained this requirement in the final rule. T he EPA has revised 40 CFR 98.97(d)(9) to include more detailed minimum requirements for the site specific installation and maintenance plan, and to requi re that facilities include the manufacturer’s recommended specifications and maintenance program, where available. See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: In the event that the EPA wishes further assurance of abatement system performance beyond that provided by the site maintenance plan requirements and in recognition of the fact that any alternative proposal that the EPA considers for the final rule needs to be presented in the

com ments to the rule, IBM asks that the EPA consider this: a limited, one time DRE validation testing by those fabs or manufacturers electing to use the default DREs with the default emissions factors calculation option to demonstrate attainment of the defaul ts rather than setting unnecessarily conservative, low default DREs. IBM does not think that validation testing isComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

85 necessary, as the SIA member semiconductor manufacturers have made significant improvements in their site maintenance plans to address the di fficulties in abating CF4 and have demonstrated, in the data provided to the EPA , that combustion units maintained to abate CF4 reliably destroy other F

- gases at destruction efficiencies of 97 percent or better ( T able IV.3, SIA comments to revised subpart I rule October 2012). A limited, one time validation testing program may be warranted to provide assurance to the EPA that a fab is meeting or exceeding the default DRE values for its abatement systems. IBM wants to be clear that we also recommend that lim ited validation testing not be required of those electing to use the stack testing method, because the defaults play only a limited role in adjusting measured emission factors for abatement system downtime.

The elements of such a testing program would be a s follows:

**•** Etch Abatement: For each group of etch abatement units for which one wishes to use the default DREs from Table I

- 16, one must complete a test of the CF 4 DRE of a random sample of at least 10 percent or 3 (whichever is more) of the abatement devi ces in that service at the fab. If there are abatement units treating etch processes which do not include CF4, then the fab must measure the DRE for the gas with the lowest number of carbon atoms and the highest number of fluorine atoms on 10 percent or 3 of the units, whichever is greater. If the average DRE for those tests equals or exceeds the default DRE for the tested gas in Table I

- 16, all etch process default factors may be used.

**•** Chamber Clean Abatement: For each group of chamber clean abatement unit s for which one wishes to use the default DREs from Table I

- 16, one must complete a test of the DRE of a random sample of at least 10 percent or 3 (whichever is more) of the abatement devices for each chamber clean process/gas combination in that service a t the fab.

**•** Where a company has multiple fabs using the same equipment types on a given process type and gas combination, the company may test a random sample of at least 10 percent or 3 (whichever is more) of the abatement units at 2 or more fabs (where th e equipment is in use at multiple fabs operated by the same company). If the average DRE for those tests equals or exceeds the default DRE of the tested gas in Table I

- 16, those default factors may be used company

- wide for this combination of abatement equ ipment type, process and gas combination.

**•** If this performance specification is not met, one can either take no abatement credit, or use this initial round of testing as a starting point to proceed with the setting of site specific DREs as that process is p resented in the Proposed Rule. Alternatively, if this performance specification is not met, the testing regimen and qualifying process can be carried out subsequently, if and when improvements in the abatement systems performance have been achieved or are anticipated.

**•** Where companies have performed DRE testing at their fab in or after 2011, the DRE results from those tests can be used to meet the requirements of the validation testing program. This provision would mirror 98.94(j)(7) under the stack testing requirements, which allows fabs to use “results of emissions testing conducted after [DATE 3 YEARS BEFORE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].”

**•** Retesting under this provision is triggered by either the replacement of more than 30 percent of the devices in a particular GHG abatement service with a different type or design of abatement device, or the addition of abatement devices of a different type orComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

86 design such that 30 percent of the devices are of a different design. This level of change is assessed annual ly and retesting must be completed within 12 months.

As stated above, validation testing to validate that default DREs are met or exceeded at a fab would not apply to fabs using the stack testing option under subpart I . For the stack testing results to be representative of normal operation, it is important for the abatement systems to be operated in the same manner during the test and the period between tests but the exact DRE of the devices is not. When relying on the stack test method, the impact of both process chemistry and abatement are inseparable and inherent in the stack testing results. The concern under the stack test option should be that the abatement equipment operates in the same manner both during the testing and durin g the reporting period an d not whether the default DREs are met or exceeded. The maintenance plan provides that consistency. Under the stack testing option, DREs are only needed to make adjustments to the reported emissions for abatement systems downtime. With abatement systems ac hieving high uptime levels, the adjustment will be small and the default factors can be used for that purpose. Keep in mind, under the stack test option, if the abatement devices are not meeting the default DREs then the adjustment for downtime will result in a small amount of over reporting emissions, driven only by the period of downtime of the abatement devices.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for the suggested option of limited, one time DRE validation testing. Following the revision of the defa ult DREs and the abatement system certification and site maintenance plan requirements, the EPA has determined that this option is not necessary in the final rule. First, as discussed in section II.B.5 of the final rule preamble

, the EPA has elected to rev ise the approach to determine the default DREs for the etch and clean F

GHGs, based on the statistical approach recommended by several commenters . This approach conservatively estimates the default DREs so that the y represent the minimum average level of

c ontrol that can be expected from the aggregate of abatement systems at a fab that are designed to abate F

- GHGs and N 2 O without

, additional testing demonstrations.

Additionally, we have clarified the final rule monitoring requirements to specify that report ers must only report abatement of emissions from abatement systems that are designed to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs and N 2 O , or those for which the DRE has been measured according to 40 CFR 98.94(f) , and that reporters must certify and document that all abatement systems are installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the site maintenance plan. The EPA has also clarified the requirements of the site maintenance plan to require that facilit ies must include the manufacturer’s recommended specifications and maintenance program, where available, to ensure that the abatement systems are able to meet the default DREs. See Section II.B.5 of the preamble to the final rule amendments.

If the manufa cturer’s recommended maintenance specifications are not available, and facilities wish to claim abatement in their reported emissions, then facilities continue to have the option to properly measure site

- specific destruction or removal efficiencies followi ng the requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4). This option provides the testing and protocols necessary to verify that the abatement systems are meeting a specific DRE. Facilities also have the option to report their annual emissions without abatement.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

87 For the se reasons, the current rule contains provisions sufficient to ensure that claimed DREs, whether default values or site

- specific values, are being achieved by the facilities claiming abatement of F

- GHGs or N 2 O, and additional validation testing to use the default DREs is not needed.



### 21.0 Determining and Calculating Abatement System Uptime

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 79

Comment: Equation I

- 15b should be eliminated. The calculated abatement unit uptime for the process gases for which the abatement system is certified for treatment is the same for by

product treatment. Where the unit is not effective for one or more of the by

- product gases, it will not be certified to treat that gas and the DRE will be zero. Where a unit has a lower uptime for a subset of the certified gases, that lower, gas specific uptime would be appl ied to applicable by

product gas( es ).

98.93(g): Modify the text as follows: "...by using Equation I

- 15 a and Equation 15b of this subpart. Use Equation I15a for the calculation of uptime for tools using each input gas, and I

15b for the calculation of uptime for tools emitting a given by

- product ." Companies will have abatement uptime data organized by input gas type. The uptime for the input gases will match the uptime for the by

- product gases. As discussed above, there is no nee d to perform a separate calculation of abatement system uptime for by

- product gases and enabling companies to calculate uptime by the combination of input and by

- product gas will simplify calculations and recordkeeping while not reducing the accuracy of th e uptime data.

98.93(i)(1)(3) ; 98.93(i)(4) ; 98.94(f)(2); 98.97(d)(6) ; 98.97(q) : Remove the reference to equation I

- 15b

. Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that only a single uptime equation is needed and has removed Equation I

- 15b from the final rule, and modified Equation I

- 15a (Equation I

- 15 in the final rule) so that it is applicable to both abatement systems treating input gases and by

product gases.

In developing the proposed rule amendments, the EPA developed separate equations under the assumption that the population of abatement systems treating a particular input gas could be different from the population of abatement systems treating a by

- product gas because not all input gas and process combinations create the same by

- product gase s. However, the uptime calculated by Equations I

- 15a and I

- 15b is used in Equations I

- 8 and I

- 9, respectively, and in those latter two equations, emissions are tied to the consumption of the same input gas, C ij
. Therefore, uptime only needs to be calculate d for the abatement systems receiving the input gas, C ij , and separate uptime does not need to be calculated for the by

- product gas.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

88 As the commenter correctly notes, where an abatement system is not certified for the treatment of a particular by

- product g as from an input gas, the DRE for that gas will be zero, and the uptime of the system will be irrelevant.

The EPA has also made the other conforming changes in other sections of the final rule to remove the references to Equation I

- 15b as noted by the comm enter

.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 80

Comment: Equation I

- 15(a) : The definition of Td ijp references the definition for "Operational Mode.” The "Operational Mode" definition references 98.93(f)(1). This reference is incorrect; it points to a reserved section in the equations list. The correct reference is 98.94(f)(1). It is important that this reference be corrected.

Response: T he EPA appreciates the commenter’s input and has corrected the reference for “Operation al Mode” in the promulgated amendments to 40 CFR 98.94(f)(1).

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 81

Comment: Definition of UTijp (eq. I

- 15a) and UTpf (eq. I

- 23): Revise the last sentence in the definition to read: " If you have process tools that have been idle with no gas flow through the
process tool and the abatement system shut down due to reduction in manufacturing throughput, quality issues, or other operational manageme nt reasons, you may calculate total process tool up time using the actual time that gas is available to flowing through the
process tool with the abatement system operating

. "

The proposed language above better defines the conditions in which a facility will want to exclude the process tool time from the uptime calculation because the process tool is not available to manufacturing and the abatement unit will be shut down to conserve fuel. The act of shutting down the abatement unit (the creation of downtime) should be combined with the stopping of gas flow to indicate when the process tool has been idled for an extended period of time for production demand, quality, or other reasons. As currently written, the last sentence can be read to suggest that tool upti me must be tracked by time the gas is flowing in the tool as was required in the original subpart I. As discussed in our comments, most fabs cannot track gas flow time and match it to abatement system uptime without an inordinate and unnecessary investment of resources.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

89 Response: T he EPA thanks the commenter for their input regarding the determination of abatement system uptime. We disagree, however, with the commenter's assertion that the last sentence in the definition of UTijp and UTpf requires facilities to track process tool uptime by the time the gas is available to flow through the tool. In the proposed amendments, the EPA specifically included the option, not the requirement, to calculate total uptime using the actual time that gas is flowing through the tool for reporters that have the capability and desire to collect such data. We emphasized that the ability to count only the time that the process tool has gas flowing through it was an option in our discussion of abatement system uptime in the preamble to the proposed amendments (see 77 FR 63564).

In addition, the EPA does not believe that it is necessary to define the conditions in which a facility will want to exclude the process tool time from the uptime calculation. If gas is n ot flowing (or is not available to flow) through a process tool, then the potential for emissions from that tool is eliminated and the consideration of abatement system operation is no longer necessary for the period of no flow, regardless if flow was stop ped for a reduction in throughput, quality issues, or other operational management reasons as cited by the commenter . As a result, we are not promulgating the changes to the definition of UTijp in Equation I

- 15a and UTpf in Equation I

- 23 of subpart I as su ggested by the commenter that include the reasons the tool is shut down.

We are also not including in the definition the specification that the abatement systems are operating because Equations I

- 15a and I

- 23 of subpart I are used to calculate an uptime fa ctor for the abatement systems and are intended to account for the times that the abatement system is not operating while gas is available to flow through the tool.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 83

Comment: Recognizing that the EPA may not accept SIA’s proposals to consolidate or eliminate some of the proposed equations, SIA is providi ng specific comments on corrections required in those equations if they are retained in the document.

Equation I

- 15(b): This equation and the definition notes need to be modified as follows. UT jk needs to be changed to UT ijk , Td jkp needs to be changed to Td ijkp , and UT jkp (incorrectly listed as UT kp in the definitions section) needs to be change to UT ijkp . The definition of the variable i = input gas needs to be added after the definition for UT kp and before the definition for j. Similar to the discussion regarding equation I

- 9, the by

- product calculation needs to be correlated to the combination of input gas/process type or subtype/ by

- product to be consistent with equation I

- 8, which is calculating by

- product s by input gas type and to simplify the manageme nt of abatement system uptime at the facilities. This change will not affect the accuracy of the by

- product emissions calculations at an abated facility.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

90 Response: As described in the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, Excerpt 79, the EPA is removing Equation I

- 15b from the final rule and using just a single, Equation I

- 15, to calculate abatement system uptime.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 94

Comment: SIA proposes the following revision to the definition of uptime consistent with the earlier comments on the tracking of abatement systems uptime: Uptime means the ratio of the total time during which the abatement system is in an operational mode and operating in accordance with the site abatement system maintenance plan , to the total time during which production process tool(s) connected to that ab atement system are normally in operation.

Response: See Section II.B.6 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affili ation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: IBM strongly supports revision of the tracking requirements for abatement system uptime: This change as proposed in the Proposed Rule allows companies to u se existing recordkeeping approaches while calculating a conservative estimate of abatement system uptime at significantly lower cost than required under the prior rule.

Response: T he EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding abatement system uptim e. The EPA revised the method of determining abatement system uptime in the proposed amendments to reduce the technical burden associated with measuring uptime for individual process tools. Based on input received from industry, the EPA acknowledges that s ignificant investment would be required by facilities to install hardware and/or software to track when gas is flowing to a process tool and identify if the abatement system is or is not operating while gas flow is occurring. As a result, the EPA is promul gating the proposed method for tracking and determining abatement system uptime.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

91 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt N umber: 10

Comment: The amount of F

- GHG destroyed in abatement systems is an extremely important value because it represents GHGs not emitted by the fab

. The EPA has proposed a new method for estimating the “uptime” of abatement systems. In this alternative simplified approach, uptime is calculated for all abatement systems for a given gas and process type or sub

- type combination, instead of by individual abatemen t system. The proposed method also allows fabs to assume , as a default

, that amount of time a gas is flowing through the tool connected to the abatement system is equal to the maximum amount of time a tool could be operating each year (e.g., 100 percent up time).

EDF is concerned that the method outlined in the proposal could underestimate F

- GHG emissions because facilities would be allowed to assume 100 percent uptime operation of the abatement system as a default. Given that the fabs are measuring or estim ating the downtime, and since an abatement unit cannot be simultaneously both down and up, it seems an unwarranted simplification to allow use of a 100 percent uptime default if the reporter has determined that the abatement unit was down during the year. If the reporter has acknowledged that there was downtime, then, at a minimum, the uptime factor should be corrected to reflect the admitted downtime. EDF respectfully requests that the EPA review and revise this approach to avoid underestimation of emissio ns.
Response: T he EPA believes the commenter may have misinterpreted the provisions regarding the calculation of the average uptime factor for abatement systems in the proposed amendments to subpart I. A reporter is allowed to assume that a process tool ( not the abatement system connected to that tool), if installed for the entire year, was operated for 525,600 minutes per year. However, the reporter must track the total time that the abatement system was not in operational mode as defined in 40 CFR 98.98 when any process tool connected to the abatement system was in operation. A facility is not allowed to assume 100 percent uptime for any abatement system, but rather they must track the downtime of each abatement system for which they are claiming destruct ion or removal efficiency, and use the measured downtime to determine the average uptime factor of all abatement systems connected to process tools for each input gas and process type or sub

- type. Please refer to the document titled “Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,” Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028 for additional information regarding accounting for abatement system uptime.



### 22.0 Addition o f 3

- Year Reports o f Information That Could Be Used to Update Gas Utilization Rates, By

- Product Formation Rates, and DRE Values

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry AssociationComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

92 Documen t Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 86

Comment: T he EPA seeks comment on whether triennial reports should include additional information. In particular, on page 63566 the EPA offers a suggestion for potential additional information that appears to be a reinstatement of the recipe based testing established in the current rule, which SIA is strenuously opposed: “...the triennial report could include a specific set of measurements o f gas utilization rates, by

- product formation rates, and/or DRE values. This could include the gas utilization rates and by

- product formation rates measured for all new tools acquired by the facility over the previous 3 years as well as gas utilization rat es and by

product formation rates measured for new processes run on existing tools at the facility. Measurement of emission rates from the introduction of new processes on existing tools could result in increased burden; however, the EPA could limit this b urden by requesting a set number of measurements (e.g., 5) for new processes that were significantly different from existing processes and/or that accounted for the largest fractions of the facility’s GWP

- weighted fluorinated GHG consumption. Specifying th e data to submit in the final rule would ensure that consistent, comparable, and objective data sets were submitted by all affected facilities, and would permit the EPA to examine the data directly to ascertain whether a change in default emission factors or default DRE values was warranted.”

The EPA further suggests that:

...“significantly different” could be defined as using a markedly different gas mixture than the mixture used by previous processes applied to achieve the same end (i.e., etch the same film or feature), similar to the criteria to determine when the new stack testing is warranted. Other possible criteria include RF power and flow rate. “

As noted above, these suggested requirements appear to resurrect the recipe testing requirements
est ablished in the original subpart I regulation published in December of 2010 and which were specifically called out as unworkable in SIA’s petition for reconsideration. As SIA described in the petition for reconsideration, the recipe testing requirements cr eated unacceptable intellectual property exposures, potential national security concerns, significant disruption of fab operations, and unreasonably and excessive economic impact. There are similar impacts for testing of abatement devices outside of the si te specific DRE testing requirements. The impacts (cost and business disruption) of process emissions factor testing have been experienced even during the additional emissions factor testing work that was completed in support of the default factors that

ar e in subpart I . In one fab , testing required two weeks of time and cost over $25,000 (not including lost production and fab staff support time) just to measure 12 emissions factors for 5 tools. The ISMI technology transfer report 2010 ISMI Analysis of the Impact of Final Mandatory Reporting Rule Subpart I on U.S. Semiconductor Facilities issued January 31, 2011 provides additional description of the impact of recipe level testing.

The cost to test all new and revised process recipes is very large. On averag e, each large facility introduces 40 new etch processes per year and changes 56 etch recipes per year; for 29 large facilities the testing cost per year = $ 17M or $ 51M for three years. (This assumes $35,000 for testing/week and 6 recipes tested/week.)Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

93 **•** The cost for tool downtime for the testing over the three years would be an additional $6.9M. (This assumes 11 hrs of downtime for 8 hr test and 3 hrs for tool requalification ; $1.5M/ yr for etch tool downtime.)

**•** Total cost for testing of tools is on the order of $ 58M

.

**•** The cost of any testing of POU abatement devices for DRE changes would be additional.

**•** Costs for large leading edge technology fabs would be significantly higher than the industry average numbers by a factor of 10 or more.

In the Economic Impact Assessment EIA

- OAR

- 0028

- 0081

, the EPA does not include the cost for preparing the triennial report, “...given that the EPA does not expect this requirement to significantly affect the compliance costs either on a per facility or a nati onal basis...” Preparing a triennial report, as proposed in the preamble to the revised subpart I, will require the effort of several FTEs

. SIA’s intent with regards to preparing the Triennial report and developing a company or industry plan to perform testi ng to assess the impact of new (meaning significantly different from existing) processes, equipment, and technologies on default emissions factors and default DRES , is to enable the industry to pool its resources to most efficiently measure, collect, and r eport the data needed to assess these changes. As noted earlier, the adoption and propagation of distinctly new processes, equipment, and technologies into high

- volume manufacturing occurs slowly allowing a reasoned, considered plan to be developed to asse ss the impact. Also, SIA’s statistical assessment of the emissions factor data for current manufacturing processes and equipment indicate that the magnitude of the emissions factor is primarily dependent on the wafer size and the gas type

– suggesting that material changes are unlikely to occur frequently.

The level of information requested and the cost associated with measuring and collection in the expansion of triennial reporting requirements as described in the preamble are excessive.

Response: See Sec tion II.B.7 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

The EPA has also revised the final requirements for the triennial report at 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iv) and 98.96(y)(3)(i) to remove references to “default” emission fac tors where the EPA intended to refer to actual emission factor data.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment E xcerpt Number: 92

Comment: In addition to the cost and resource burdens discussed above, any requirement to provide detailed process level information in the Triennial Report would pose the same serious CBI concerns as the current subpart I . Indeed, as d etailed in SIA’s prior comments and petition for reconsideration (which SIA incorporates by reference), this type of information will constitute a semiconductor company’s most sensitive and valuable trade secrets, and simply could not be adequately protect ed through the "CBI" designation. In additional to the potentialComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

94 takings of intellectual property, disclosure of recipe level testing data may also present national security concerns at those fabs designated as Trusted Foundries by the U.S. National Securi ty Agency.

Response: See Section II.B.7 of the preamble to the final rule amendment s for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The triennial report focus should be limited to significant technology changes that are likely to drive changes in emission factors or DRE values.

Intel supports the use of the triennial report to identify major technology development changes that have the potential to impact emission factors and/or default DREs. However, the report as discussed in the preamble potentially requires a significant amou nt of information that would be unnecessary and add significantly to the cost of the rule. Therefore, this report should not be expanded in the manner discussed in the preamble.

Intel also supports the ability to prepare a consolidated industry report, as most major technology changes that would impact emission factors or default DREs are being pursued by a number of companies and, therefore, a consolidated report will be an effective and efficient way to determine the overall impact of technology developm ent on emissions and their control. A consolidated report would also reduce the potential CBI concerns associated with some of the information needed for the report. Intel also supports using the emission level proposed in the rule as the threshold for par ticipation in this reporting.

Response: Except for a minor technical correction

, we are finalizing the requirements for the triennial technology report as proposed at 40 CFR 98.96(y). F acilities are not required to implement recipe

- specific testing in t he first phase of the triennial technology review, as some commenters inferred from the request for comment in the preamble to the proposed amendments. Please refer to Section II.B.7 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for additional information r egarding the requirements for the triennial technology report.

The final rule retains the same facility emission criteria (40,000 metric tons CO 2 e from semiconductor manufacturing processes) for completing a report and also retains the provision allowing f or companies to submit consolidated reports.

Commenter Name: Patrice Tompkins

- Everidge, WW ESH Director Commenter Affiliation: Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI)Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

95 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0094 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: TI supports all SIA comments on the triennial review and feels that any additional information required should not include a reversion back to recipe testing in the context SIA lays out. However, TI requests that the EPA clarify any facilities undergoing t he Stack Testing Alternative should not be required to submit a triennial review. Currently this is not evident in the current rule and direct measurements at the stack would include changes affecting emissions. Also, the current testing/retesting criteria in both the rule and any changes proposed by SIA would serve to capture any changes to a fab specific emission factor that is experienced, especially since these changes are most likely gradual as a new technology or process is implemented. Therefore, TI proposes that the triennial review be optional for facilities that have continuously performed stack testing in the three years prior to the due date of the current triennial review period.

Response: Please see Section II.B.7 of the preamble to the final rule amendment s on the scope and content of the triennial report.

The EPA did not intend that facilities using the stack testing alternative should be exempt from the triennial technology assessment report requirement in 40 CFR 98.96(y), so th e final rule does not change that requirement as suggested by the commenter. The subject matter addressed in the triennial report is as equally relevant to the facilities using the stack testing alternative as it is to facilities using the default emission factor method to calculate GHG emissions.

Commenter Name: Reed M. Content, Director, Global EHS & CSR Commenter Affiliation: GlobalFoundaries U.S. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0097 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: We agree with the approach taken to triennial reporting in the Subpart I Revisions Proposal (specifically the text in the revisions to regulatory language). However, the preamble language asking for comment on a variety of potential expansions, seems to recreate as pects of the etch recipe testing method that the Agency has agreed to remove from subpart I . The expansions to triennial reporting described in the preamble tread perilously close to the difficult situation that SIA and the Agency have worked to resolve over the past 2+ years in the course of settlement discussions. It is important to heed the industry’s concerns, originally raised in SIA’s petitions for review and reconsideration, about technical infeasibility, disp roportionate cost, and risk of exposing confidential business information. While on a technical level we appreciate the Agency’s interest in understanding future trends in emissions of F

- GHGs , the semiconductor industry remains a very small contributor to the nation’s GHG emissions inventory (approximately 0 .08 percent is attributable to PFCs

, HFCs and SF 6 from semiconductor manufacturing), and yet the industry has proactively invested in emissions reductions through global collaboration. These proactive ef forts by companies like GLOBALFOUNDRIES and its U.S. peers should not be constrained by an overly complex triennial reporting regime as is contemplated in the preamble.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

96 Response: See Section II.B.7 of the preamble to the final rule amendment s for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 85

Comment: In t he preamble to the Proposed Rule, the EPA requests specific comments on expansion of the triennial reporting requirements. The SIA has significant concerns with the expansion of the triennial reporting requirements as described in the preamble.

T he EPA a sks if any other topic should be included in the proposed triennial report and provides as an example, "... some new manufacturing technologies, substrates, or films, such as the use of elemental fluorine gas for chamber cleaning or the use of organosilicate films, may affect F

– GHG emissions without changes in the actual consumption of F

– GHG as input gases."

The modified subpart I requirements, 98.96(y)(2)(i),(ii), & (iv) require companies to analyze and assess the impact of new process equipment and technol ogies on default F

- gas emissions factors and default DREs . The examples of additional topics which might be considered listed in the preamble are already covered by the requirements specified in 98.96(y)(2). Further expansion of topics is unnecessary.

Re sponse: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the scope of the triennial technology review, and no changes were made to the scope in the final rule. The examples provided in the preamble were intended to help guide commenters in the types of change s that should be addressed in the triennial review and whether the proposed rule language in 40 CFR 98.96(y) reflected that scope. It appears the current language is sufficient so no changes are being made in the scope described in 40 CFR 98.96(y).

Comme nter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: IBM strongly supports provisions for a triennial fab, company or industry level report. The triennial report is proposed to inform the EPA on industry developments in manufacturing process and abatement technologies which may require changes to the wafer l evel emissions factors or abatement system default DREs and an attendant process by which new default emissions factor or DRE values could be developed. However, a key benefit to the triennial fab, company or industry level report is that it avoids the ver y recipe based disclosures and threats to intellectual property to which industry previously objected in SIA's Petition for Reconsideration and Judicial Challenge

-- that very same process level testing information aboutComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

97 which the EPA , in its preamble, app ears to still be seeking comments. As currently presented in the Proposed Rule and with the SIA comments and suggestions, the triennial report would provide a process by which new default emissions factor or DRE values could be developed without reintroduc ing the IP concerns associated with the process level testing information. IBM strongly objects to any disclosure of process level testing information that would disclose etch recipe information or enable reverse engineering to get to that recipe informati on.
Response: See Section II.B.7 of the preamble to the final rule amendment s for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: IBM strongly objects to the EPA ’s proposal regarding specific content for the triennial report, as discussed on FR 63566, in which the EPA requests comments on a proposed requirement for compan ies to report “gas utilization rates and by

- product formation rates measured for all new tools acquired by the facility over the previous three years as well as gas utilization rates and by

- product formation rates measured for new processes run on existing tools.” T he EPA further notes that only processes that are “significantly different” would be considered in order to reduce the burden of the requirement. “Significantly different” was proposed to “...be defined as using a markedly different gas mixture tha n the mixture used by previous processes applied to achieve the same end (i.e., etch the same film or feature), similar to the criteria to determine when the new stack testing is warranted. Other possible criteria include RF power and flow rate.

IBM views this proposal and request for comment as an attempt by the EPA to re

- introduce recipe level testing for all new acquired equipment and processes

– an objective which IBM and SIA have consistently emphasized to the EPA significantly increases the cost of th e rule for those portions of the recipe approach that are even technically feasible, and introduces significant intellectual property exposures while adding little or no benefit to the accurate characterization of fab level emissions. As previous noted in SIA’s Petition for Reconsideration and Judicial Challenge, etch recipes are considered trade secrets and, as such, are tightly controlled. If the rule requires disclosure of material recipe information to the EPA through reporting and/or making such inform ation accessible to public through Freedom of Information of Action or Citizen Suit provisions, IBM is concerned that this would destroy the trade secret protection of our semiconductor etch recipes and could amount to regulatory taking of intellectual pro perty. In additional to the potential takings issues, disclosure of recipe information may also present national security concerns at those IBM fabs designated as Trusted Foundries by the U.S. National Security Agency.

The emission factor data collected by SIA, and the accompanying statistical analysis documented in the docket, demonstrates that utilization rates are largely set by wafer size and gas type. The Proposed Rule language in 98.96(y) clearly requires companies to assess the impacts of newComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

98 process or equipment and propose a reasonable, cost effective testing plan to characterize properly emission where such characterization is warranted. There is no rational reason to collect the data before understanding whether a data collection effort is warrant ed.

Response: See Section II.B.7 of the preamble to the final rule amendment s for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 87

Comment: SIA has evaluated the proposed threshold in the rule and believes that the MT CO2e emissions threshold that the EPA has selected to identify facilities which must submit a triennial report will bring into the reporting requirement a large number of facilities. SIA feels that this is an acceptable threshold but it will be important to retain the option of combining reports for multiple facilities either at the company level or the indu stry level, as is provided in the proposed language at 98.96(y)(4).

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenters input. The proposed threshold of 40,000 metric tons CO 2 e triggering the requirement to complete the triennial technology review report and t he provision allowing for combined reporters have both been retained in the final 40 CFR 98.96(y).

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 88

Comment: It is appropriate to require report submittal on a regular, three

- year interval. The development of new processes and their introduction into manufacturing fabs will initially occur at a slow pace such that reporting and evaluation on a three

- year period will provide ample opportunity to assess new processes and incorporate their emission factor data into the default factors. Aligning the reporting period for all fabs will enable companies and/ or industry groups to submit consolidated reports, simplifying the reporting and evaluation process for both semiconductor fabs and the EPA . Therefore, we ask for the following edit to 98.96(y)(1): " The first report must be submitted with the annual GHG em issions report that is due no later than March 31, 2017, and subsequent reports must be delivered every 3 years no later than March 31 of the year which it is due that is subsequent to the 3

- year period

. "

Response: The EPA appreciates the commen ter's input and has retained the 3

- year reporting cycle in the final rule because it represents a reasonable time period to reflect technology changes that may affect emissions and allows fabs and companies to submit consolidated reports.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

99 The EPA has also adopted the commenter's recommendation to clarify the date on which the report is due in 40 CFR 98.96(y)(1).

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Num ber: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 89

Comment: As described in section 98.96(y)(3) & 5, individual fabs , companies, or groups of companies are responsible to assess the available process and equipment information and emissions or DRE measurement data. Where it is determined that material changes may have occurred in the default emissions factor or process type or sub

- type/gas DRE , the triennial report must propose a testing and measurement plan to assess the impact of the change and d etermine if it is material. As currently written, this section is not clear on whether available data should be submitted or additional data should be developed and submitted. The following revisions are intended to clarify that available relevant data sho uld be provided, but it is not necessary to develop additional data or submit data on conventional technologies that will not inform the EPA ’s decision. The data will be generated in the implementation of a testing plan when it is determined that data are needed.

98.96(y)(2)(iv): Revise the section to read "...that have been collected in the previous three years as part of the process or technology development or introduction and which can inform the assessment of the potential impact of the new process or technology development on the default emissions factors

. "

Response: The EPA disagrees that the commenter's suggested changes to 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iv) would provide further clarification. We believe that the phrase “that have been collected in the pre vious 3 years,” provides sufficient instruction that no new data need to be collected for the report. We also believe that the phrase “...that support the changes in semiconductor manufacturing processes described in the report,” clearly instructs reporters to only include relevant data related to the changes described in the report, and not to include data on conventional technologies that do not inform the EPA ’s decisions.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: We share the EPA ’s concern that the pace of innovation could cause significant changes in F

- GHG emissions and emission factors. For this reason, we strongly support the EPA ’s proposal to include a triennial technology review process in subpart I . We agree with the EPA that the focus of this review should be on technology changes that could impact theComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

100 “proposed default gas utilization rates and by

- pro duct formation rates and DRE values” which fundamental to the accurate estimation of the industry’s emissions.

Specifically, EDF supports the EPA ’s proposal that the fabs over 40,000 mtCO2e be required to submit a Technology Assessment Report every three y ears, beginning in 2017. We strongly support the EPA ’s proposal to require the semiconductor industry to provide additional data to the EPA if, upon review of the submitted reports, the EPA determines that the current default factors need to be updated and /or revised. While EDF considers stack testing based on direct measurement to be the more accurate, rigorous approach, if the agency continues to rely on default emissions factors, as it has proposed, it is essential that these factors be frequently update d to reflect changing technology.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed triennial technology review reporting requirement. The essential elements of the report that are supported by the
commenter (i.e., the 40,000 metric ton CO 2 e threshold, the three year reporting period, and the collection of information and data that can be used to update default emission factors) are being retained in the final rule amendments.



### 23.0 Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 90

SIA appreciates the actions the EPA has taken to move data a nd information from 98.96, "Data Reporting Requirements,” to 98.97, "Records that Must be Maintained" and the removal of the tool and recipe level reporting requirements for both emissions factors and abatement systems. In making these proposed modificatio ns, the EPA has by and large removed the significant Intellectual Property concerns that SIA and its members have with the current subpart I

. Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed shift of data elements from reporting in 40 CFR 98.96 to recordkeeping in 40 CFR 98.97. The final rule retains that same approach.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Exc erpt Number: 1

Comment: In general, Intel believes that the proposed amendments make significant progress toward making the reporting rule more workable for the industry, while still providing anComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

101 accurate assessment of emissions. We support the addition of a stack test method as an alternative means of determining emissions, and support the transfer of data reporting requirements in the current rule to recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rule as detailed in table 4 of the preamble (77 FR 63566 to 63569). This substantially reduces the reporting burden of the rule, especially as it pertains to detailed data on abatement systems and manufacturing processes that may involve confidential business information.

Response: The EPA appreciates the comment er's input on the proposed shift of data elements from reporting in 40 CFR 98.96 to recordkeeping in 40 CFR 98.97. The final rule retains that same approach.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: IBM strongly supports the transfer of reporting requirements to recordkeeping requirements. The changes detailed in T able 4 of the Proposed Rule preamble ( 77 FR 63566 to 63569) substantially reduce the reporting burden of the rule and eliminate the need to report hundreds of pages of detailed data on abatement systems and manufacturing processes which would likely never be referenced or utilized. B y moving the data to recordkeeping, fabs will need to maintain operational records similar to those required for Clean Water, Clean Air, and Hazardous Waste programs without the ongoing burden of annual reporting.

Response: The EPA appreciates the comment er's input on the proposed shift of data elements from reporting in 40 CFR 98.96 to recordkeeping in 40 CFR 98.97. The final rule retains that same approach.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: IBM appreciates the actions the EPA has taken to move data and information from 98.96, “Data Reporting Requirements,” to 98.97, “Records that Must b e Maintained,” and the removal of the tool and recipe level reporting requirements for both emissions factors and abatement systems. In making these proposed modifications, the EPA has by and large removed the significant Intellectual Property concerns tha t IBM had with the subpart I rule.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed shift of data elements from reporting in 40 CFR 98.96 to recordkeeping in 40 CFR 98.97. The final rule retains that same approach.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

102 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 100

Comment: In Section 98.96(c)(1)&(2), SIA recommends that (c)(1) be removed and only (c)(2) retained. The chamber clean process type is the sum of the three sub processes. It would seem easier to report just the results from equation I

- 8 and I

- 9. This would result in reporting 4 values, instead of 6 values and eliminate r eporting the same number for the plasma etch/wafer clean process type twice.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input. The EPA is keeping the reporting requirements in both 40 CFR 98.96(c)(1) and (c)(2) as proposed. Although it appears that f

acilities will need to report the results of the equations for the plasma etch/wafer clean process type twice (because there are no subtypes), facilities only need to report these values a single time when using the electronic reporting forms in the EPA 's electronic greenhouse gas reporting tool ( e

- GGRT ). In addition, it is important to maintain emission reporting at the process subtype level because of differences in emission factors and gas consumption among process subtypes. To reduce the reporting burde n, e

- GGRT only requires reporting from the chamber clean process subtypes and does not request data for total emissions by gas for the chamber clean process type.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: S emiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 99

Comment: A facility may have multiple fabs , each which process different wafer sizes. SIA recommends that the language in Sections 98.96(a) & (b) should apply to fabs rather than facilities. In this way the wafer size and capacity is reported for each fab rather than trying to report for the entire facility.

Response: See Section II.B.8 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the re sponse to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 96Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

103 Comment: SIA recommends further revisions to Section 98.92 to address the following concerns:
1. Section 98.92(a)(1) needs to indicate exactly what is desired and will be filed electronically. Is it the sum of items (a)(2) and (a)(3) or (a)(2), (a)(3), and a(5)?

2. It would pr obably also make sense to swap items (a)(4) and (a)(5) to group more logically the requested information.

3. Section 98.92 (a)(2) and (a)(3) need to be clarified that they are for the process type (that is the definition used throughout subpart I and is i mportant in the context that equation I

- 6 and I

- 7 sum the chamber cleaning sub

- process types) and (a)(3) should be referred to as "plasma etch/wafer clean" to properly recognize the changes made in the process and sub

- process types in the revised subpart I

. § 98.92(a)(1): Needs to be revised to read " Total Fluorinated GHGs emitted from Electronics Manufacturing Process( es )"

§ 98.92(a)(2): Needs to be revised to read, " Fluorinated GHGs emitted from chamber cleaning process type ."

§ 98.92 (a)(3): Needs to be revised to " Fluorinated GHGs emitted from plasma etching/ wafer cleaning process type. "

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input. The EPA proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.92(a) to simplify the list of GHGs to be reported. These changes included removing and reserving 40 CFR 98.92(a)(2) and (3) and revising 40 CFR 98.92(a)(1) to read simply, "Fluorinated GHGs emitted." These changes will simplify the list of GHGs to be reported by removing the references to the process types and subtypes for the fluorinated GHGs. The EPA did not propose any changes to the references to N 2 O emitting processes in 40 CFR 98.92(a)(4) and to fluorinated heat transfer fluids in 40 CFR 98.92(a)(5). The EPA also proposed simplifying changes to the language in 40 CFR 98.92 (a)(6).

The information that actually needs to be reported for each of the items listed in 40 CFR 98.92(a) is specified in more detail in 40 CFR 98.96.

Because the changes that were proposed in 40 CFR 98.92(a) will achieve the same goal of simplifying and clarifying the meaning of this paragraph that was intended by the commenters suggestions, the EPA is finalizing the changes to 40 CFR 98.92(a) as they were proposed.



### 24.0 Proposal to Require Facilities to Calculate Effective Facility

- Wide DRE Factor.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry AssociationComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

104 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 82

Comment: Equations I

- 26, I

- 27, and I

- 28, paragraph 98.96(r) , should not apply to the stack test option. SIA feels that the derivation of a facility

- wide DRE is unnecessarily complicated, subject to error, and provides no material benefit to the reporting of emissions under the stack test option. The EPA’s proposed requirement to use these equations entails an artificial determination of how much of a facility’s emissions are coming from the process tools versus the abatement systems, and as such is complicated, somewhat arbitrary, and potentially subject to errors.

The requirement to determine an effective, facility

- wide or fab

- wide DRE for facilities which choose the stack testing method ( § 98.93(i)) using E quations I

- 26 and I

- 28 is not logical and should be removed from the rule.

One of the benefits of the stack testing method is it eliminates the need to test individual abatement units, which is costly. Whether a fab chooses to generate and use site

- specific DREs or use the default DRES, the DREs will only be used to adjust fab em issions for abatement system downtime; changes which are expected to have a small influence on the total site emissions. The proposal to calculate an effective DRE for the facility using complicated calculations and apportionment of gas use to abatement un its does not make sense. The proposed regulations recognize this in the approach to calculating "the average weighted fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems" in E quation I

- 24. Equation I

- 24 acknowledges the comple xity of separating the emissions reductions from gas utilization in the manufacturing equipment and the DRE of the abatement equipment. If EPA believes a fab that estimates its emissions using the stack testing method should report an effective fab DRE, th e requirement should reference Equation I

- 24.

In addition, attempting to compute a combined DRE for a multi

- fab facility that uses the emissions factor method at one or more fabs and the stack testing method at the other(s) also seems to be unnecessary. I t is better to simplify the process and require one to report the individual fab

- wide DREs for fabs that are not using the stack test method. This would be computed as follows:

Equation I

- 26: After removal of the terms for the stack testing method facilit y

- wide DRE, equation I

- 26 should be modified as follows to report a fab

- or facility

- wide DRE for Emissions factor method: 1 minus the quantity of the numerator of Equation I

- 26 divided by the quantity [Equation I

- 27 plus the N 2 O term in the denominator of Equation I

- 26].

If EPA still desires for multi

- fab facilities to report a facility

- wide DRE, then the numerator and denominator from the proposed fab

- wide DRE for stack testing method should be added as terms into the numerator and denominator (respectiv ely) of Equation I

- 26 and SFGHG (Equation I

- 28) should be removed.

Response: See Section II.B.8 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

105 Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 84

Comment: Recognizing that the EPA may not accept SIA’s proposals to consolidate or eliminate some of the proposed equations, S IA is providing specific comments on corrections required in those equations if they are retained in the document.

Equations I

- 26 and I

- 28: SIA has proposed eliminating the use of E quations I

- 26 and I

- 28 for the stack testing method, as the concept of a facility wide DRE really has no meaning in the context of estimating emissions based on stack testing data. The stack test data combines the impact of the gas utilization factors in t he equipment and the abatement system DREs into a single emissions factor for the facility. Attempting to disaggregate the effective DRE using the complex equations proposed in I

- 26 and I

- 28 does not provide a meaningful, quantified estimate of the site

- wi de DRE . If the EPA desires an estimate of a fab DRE for a facility performing stack testing, SIA recommends that the EPA modify E quation I

- 24, adding the multiplication of both the numerator and denominator terms by the GWP for each gas. This will provide an estimate of the site

- wide DRE based on the removal of CO2e emissions that will have as much meaning as a fab

- wide DRE calculated using equations I

- 26 and I

- 28, while requiring much less work on the part of the fab

.
If the EPA wants to go one step furth er and calculate the facility level DRE , then SIA recommends that the EPA require the facility to generate a weighted DRE by adding the fab specific DRE calculated by the modified I

- 24 equation weighted by the fraction of the CO 2 e emission from the fab div ided by the CO 2 e emissions of the facility. Again, this will provide an estimation of the facility wide DRE which has as much validity as that calculated under E quations I

- 26 and I

- 28 with much less work and effort.

Response: Please see Section II.B.8 of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.



### 25.0 Changes to Remove BAMM Provisions and Language Specific to Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: EDF supports the EPA ’s proposal to eliminate the use of “Best Available Monitoring Methods” ( BAMM ) in the final version of this rule. As the EPA explains, the electronics industry began monitoring emissions in 2011, and at this point has significant experience with the methodologies. Given the additional methodological options in this proposedComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

106 rule

- making, there is no valid reason for t he industry to need to use BAMM going after the 2013 reporting year.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input. The EPA proposed to remove the BAMM provisions that were in 40 CFR 98.94(a) because they would be no longer relevant when the other proposed amendments to subpart I are finalized and become effective on January 1, 2014. As the commenter notes, at that time most reporters would likely have three years experience complying with subpart I and should no longer need to use BAMM. In addition , the EPA has already proposed and promulgated amendments to subpart I to facilitate compliance and to provide flexibility and reduce the need to use BAMM to comply, in addition to the amendments that were proposed on October 16, 2012. Therefore, the EPA a grees with the commenter that the BAMM provisions included in 40 CFR 98.94(a) are no longer needed and should not be extended, and so they have been removed through the final rule amendments.



### 26.0 Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in Tw o Direct Emitter Data Categories

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: EDF is concerned about the EPA ’s proposed determinations to treat the following item as CBI:

Identification of the quantifiable metric used in the fab

- specific engineering model to apportion gas consumption for each fab

.

Response: Pleas e see Section II I .B of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment. The EPA has proposed that the confidentiality of this data element should be determined on a case

- by

- case basis. The EPA has not provided any justification for how release of this data would cause competitive harm, however. It should not be CBI.

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: EDF is concerned about the EPA ’s proposed determinations to treat the following item as CBI:Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

107 Inventory of abatement systems

EDF believes that both the inventory and the description of abatement systems should not be treated as CBI. If the EPA has better evidence that actual harm could occu r from the release of the inventory information in certain circumstances than the current justification provided at 77 FR 10440, row 3, no categorical determination should be made. Instead, the confidentiality of the inventory should require specific demon stration by the company/facility involved that there is an actual threat of competitive harm and reverse

- engineering. . EDF urges the agency to reconsider its proposal that the “inventory of abatement systems” und er § 98.96(p) should be CBI. The EPA has identified two data elements under 98.96(p): an inventory of all abatement systems for which DREs are claimed and a description of all abatement systems for which DREs are claimed. The EPA has proposed that the inve ntory of abatement systems is CBI, while the description of abatement systems is not CBI.

Response: Please see Section II I .B of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Pet er Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: EDF is concerned about the EPA ’s proposed determinations to treat the following ite m as CBI:

Triennial Technology Assessment Data Elements

Response: Please see Section II I .B of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the
respons e to this comment. . The EPA proposes that five of the six data elements required under 98.96(y) should be treated as CBI. These data elements include all of the items to be included in the Triennial Technology Assessment Report, with the exemption of emissions data that might be pro vided under § 98.96(y)(2)(iv). EDF urges the EPA to reconsider this blanket CBI treatment for everything in the Triennial Report. The public has a compelling need for access to that portion of the triennial reports that are not CBI. If such information is not made public, stakeholders outside the semiconductor industry will be unable to evaluate both industry claims regarding technology evolution and the EPA ’s judgment regarding whether and when it is appropriate to update the subpart I default values. EDF respectfully requests that the EPA not make a categorical determination on these five data elements, but instead, evaluate CBI claims on a case

- by

- case basis.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry AssociationComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

108 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 93

Comment: In the docket docume nt EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0031 "MEMORANDUM

FINAL DATA CATEGORY ASSIGNMENTS AND CONFIDENTIALITY DETERMINATIONS FOR THE 2012 FINAL CBI RULE" Table 1, the EPA determines that the output of Equation I

- 5 (98.96(a)), the Annual Manufacturing Capacity of a fab will be subject to CBI determinations on a case by case basis. In previous documentation, the EPA had noted that the Annual Manufacturing Capacity of a given fab was typically publicly available from analyst and other sources. SIA wishes to emphasize that thes e publicly available fab capacity are best estimates by analysts or other individuals; they are not sanctioned or validated by the device manufacturer. The actual manufacturing capacity will change over time as new process technologies or process lines are introduced to a fab and they can provide critical information regarding process capabilities and details. For example, if the manufacturing capacity is reduced by 100 WSD year to year, it may indicate that the device manufacture has installed a new
proces s technology with more levels in the device, reducing the device output of the facility but introducing new, more complex products to the facility mix. When combined with the gas use information reported F

- gas use or other publicly available information, a competitor may be able to glean important information about a device manufacturer’s capability. In addition, the above referenced document also designates the "Annual Production in Terms of Substrate Area" ( § 98.96(e)) as CBI. This information provides co mparable information to the Annual Manufacturing Capacity of a fab and its classification as CBI serves as an additional justification for designating the Annual Manufacturing Capacity as CBI.

Response: The EPA addressed the confidentiality status of annual manufacturing capacity reported under 40 CFR 98.96(a) in an earlier Federal Register notice (77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012), after a notice and period for public comment (77 FR 10434, February 22, 2012). In that notice, the EPA declined to make a de termination for that data element. The confidentiality status of that data element was not the subject of the proposed amendments and confidentiality determinations proposed on October 16, 2012. The EPA is not revisiting or revising the final confidentiali ty status for annual manufacturing capacity reported under 40 CFR 98.96(a) at this time. However, because a number of facilities have specifically claimed that annual manufacturing capacity data included in the 2011 annual reports and 2012 annual reports i s confidential business information

, t he EPA has no plans to include this data element in any publicly available information and will not release it unless a formal determination is made that it is not CBI (on a case by case basis)

.

Commenter Name: Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0093 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: Intel has reviewed the EPA ’s Final Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Det erminations for the 2012 Final CBI Rule, as well as the Proposed Data Category AssignmentsComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

109 for Subpart I 2012 Amendments. We agree that these assignments largely meet the objective to protect sensitive information as CBI. However, the annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined in Equation I

- 5 has been identified as an item that would require a case by case determination in order to be considered CBI. Intel believes this to be an unnecessary step and that this item should be changed so that al l manufacturing capacity information is treated as CBI by default. We understand that chemical consumption data elements are currently identified as CBI, and would like to clarify that any additional chemical use data that may be required (such as in the t riennial report) should also be treated as CBI for the reasons SIA and member companies have provided in previous filings.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, e xcerpt 93.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manag er, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: In the docket document EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0031 “MEMORANDUM

FINAL DATA CATEGORY ASSIGNMENTS AND CONFID ENTIALITY DETERMINATIONS FOR THE 2012 FINAL CBI RULE” Table 1, the EPA determines that the output of Equation I

- 5 ( § 98.96(a)), the Annual Manufacturing Capacity of a fab, will be subject to CBI determinations on a case by case basis. In previous documenta tion, the EPA had noted that the Annual Manufacturing Capacity of a given fab was typically publicly available from analyst and other sources. IBM wishes to emphasize that these publicly available fab capacity are best estimates by analysts or other indivi duals; IBM does not sanction or validate these estimates. The actual manufacturing capacity will change over time as new process technologies or process lines are introduced to a fab and they can provide critical information regarding process capabilities and details. For example, if the manufacturing capacity is reduced by 100 WSD year to year, it may indicate that we have installed a new process technology with more levels in the device, reducing the device output of the facility but introducing new, more complex products to the facility mix. When combined with the gas use information reported F

gas use or other publicly available information, a competitor may be able to glean important information IBM’s manufacturing capability. In addition, the above ref erenced document also designates the “Annual Production in Terms of Substrate Area” ( § 98.96(e)) as CBI. This information provides comparable information to the Annual Manufacturing Capacity of a fab and its classification as CBI serves as an additional ju stification for designating the Annual Manufacturing Capacity as CBI.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095, e xcerpt 93.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry AssociationComment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

110 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0095 Comment Excerpt Number: 91

Comment: In the preamble pages 77 FR 63571 and 77 FR 63572, the EPA discusses the 12 new data elements created in the proposed rule, their assignment to D ata Element Categories, and the proposed CBI determination for each of the data elements or group of data elements. SIA concurs with the EPA ’s proposal to designate the five new data elements created in § 98.96(y)(1) and (2) as CBI for the reasons enumerat ed by the EPA . In § 98.96(y)(1) and (2), the EPA is requesting detailed information on process characteristics, equipment types and equipment performance parameters which are likely to represent sensitive intellectual property for both device and equipment manufacturers. The other seven referenced data elements are correctly identified as non

- CBI.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed confidentiality determinations. The EPA is finalizing the proposed confidentiality determin ations as they were discussed in the proposal preamble.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: In the preamble pages 77 FR 63571 and FR 63572, the EPA discusses the 12 new data elements created in the Proposed Rule, their assignment to Data Element Categories and the proposed CBI determination for each of the data elements or group of data elements. IBM concurs with the EPA ’s proposal to assign the five new data elements created in 98.96(y)(1) and (2) to CBI for the reasons enumerated by the EPA . In § 98.96(y)(1) and (2), the EPA is requesting detailed information on process characteristics , equipment types and equipment performance parameters which are likely to represent sensitive intellectual property for both device and equipment manufacturers. The other seven referenced data elements are correctly identified as non

- CBI and require no pr otection under the rule.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input on the proposed confidentiality determinations. The EPA is finalizing the proposed confidentiality determinations as they were discussed in the proposal preamble.



### 27.0 General Suppor t for Amendments

Commenter Name: Patrice Tompkins

- Everidge, WW ESH Director Commenter Affiliation: Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0094 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

111 Comment: TI greatly appreciates U.S. EPA's responsiveness to our comments on the original proposed and re

- proposed rules (EPA's Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Proposed Rule, 74 F R 16448 (Apr. 10, 2009 and Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Addition al Sources of Fluorinated GHGs ; Proposed Rule, 75 F R 18652 (Apr. 12, 2010) (hereinafter " GHG Reporting Proposals"). TI also greatly appreciates all of the EPA ’s hard work that has gone into understanding GHG emissions from the semiconductor industry and w orking with SIA members to craft a more workable and cost

- effective GHG reporting rule following SIA’s lodging of challenges to the Final Rule.

While TI supports the overall concept and the majority of the many substantive changes to the Final Rule in the GHG Reporting Re

- Proposal, TI believes that the GHG Reporting Re

- Proposal requires certain additional clarifications and enhancements. To that end, TI fully supports the comments filed by SIA on the GHG Reporting Re

- proposal in their entirety.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed amendments.

Commenter Name: Reed M. Content, Director, Global EHS & CSR Commenter Affiliation: GlobalFoundaries U.S. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0097 Comment Excerpt Numb er: 1

Comment: As a member of the Semiconductor Industry Association ( SIA ), GLOBALFOUNDRIES supports the comments submitted by SIA on behalf of the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing industry regarding the Proposed Rule

– Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Assessments for Subpart I (“Subpart I Revisions Proposal”). We appreciate the diligence the Agency has shown in working through a number of complex technical issues in the course of settlement discussions.

As noted i n the Subpart I Revisions Proposal, following SIA’s January 2011 submittal of a Petition for Reconsideration, the Agency has engaged in a series of rulemaking activities, and has now proposed numerous changes to subpart I . We agree that to a large degree t hese changes resolve the industry’s most serious concerns with the original rulemaking, and fulfill the Agency’s intent to ensure robust GHG reporting while reducing the reporting burden on the U.S. semiconductor industry. GLOBALFOUNDRIES greatly appreciat es the Agency’s engagement in collaborative development of new GHG reporting methods to augment or replace those in the original subpart I rule

. Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed amendments.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship Commenter Affiliation: IBM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0099 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

112 Comment: The bulk of IBM's technical comments and recommendations on modifications to the Proposed Rule are covered in the SIA comments on the Proposed Rule.

IBM strongly supports both the emissions factor and stack testing emissions quantification methodologies presented in the Proposed Rule and believes both methods will provide an

accura te characterization of fab emissions while avoiding the technical feasibility and intellectual property concerns which make the current rule unworkable for the industry.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed amendments.

Co mmenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0098 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: We support the EPA ’s efforts to ensure the semiconductor industry rigorously quantifies and reports their emissions, and we urge the EPA to continue emphasize direct measurement techniques and to provide maximum public transparency as it is implementing this rule.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input on the proposed amendments.



### 28.0 Out of Scope Comments: General Comments on Other Proposed Rulemakings

Commenter Name: S. Ledger Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0028

- 0089 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: I would like to suggest Books by experts of Greenhouse for schools, home, and work. Caring for your greenhouse with the help of Books. Greenhouse books and gardening books give you valuable information about maintain your greenhouse, how to propagate plants, and how to build a greenhouse

, building a greenhouse.

Response: The EPA is not responding to the submitted comments because they are on a subject that is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.