`

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 

rulemaking. 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 overlap 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 6207-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/ghgreporting/. 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 Alternative 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 Formation Rates........... 26

11.0 Removal of Provisions for Using Recipe-Specific Emission 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 System Destruction and Revision of Default DRE Values........ 46

18.0 Revisions to Requirements for Establishing Site-Specific DRE and EPA DRE 

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

viii

23.0 Changes to Recordkeeping and 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... 112
Comment 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 Best available monitoring methods

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI Confidential business information

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 Methane

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent

CVD Chemical vapor deposition

DE Destruction efficiency

DRE Destruction or removal efficiency

e-GGRT Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool

EIA Economic Impact Analysis

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESH Environmental, safety, and health

FDL Field detection limit

F-GHG Fluorinated greenhouse gas

FR Federal Register

FTIR Fourier transform infrared

GHG Greenhouse gas

GWP Global warming potential

HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons

HQ Headquarters

HTF Heat 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 Kilograms

LCD Liquid crystal display

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MEMS Micro-electro-mechanical systems

mtCO2e Metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent

N2O Nitrous oxide

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

x

NF3

Acronyms

Nitrogen trifluoride

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OMB Office of Management & Budget

PFC Perfluorocarbon

POU Point of use

ppbv Parts per billion by volume

ppm Parts per million

QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control

QMS Quadrupole mass spectroscopy

R&D Research and development

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

RSASTP Random sampling abatement system testing program

RSD Relative standard deviation

SEMATECH SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride

SIA Semiconductor Industry Association

TI Texas Instruments Incorporated

TSD Technical support document

U.S. United States

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

VCS Voluntary consensus standard

VOC Volatile organic compound

WWW Worldwide Web
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

1

1.0 Comments on Administrative Procedures

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: 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 the 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 shared 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 needs 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 concerns with the 

proposed rule, and to avoid misunderstandings similar to those that have arisen in the past with 

regard to this regulation. Indeed, promulgation of a final rule to replace the current subpart I as 

soon as possible is vital, so that the SIA members 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 submitted 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 summarizing their major comments. (See "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,” docket 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 presentation, 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 flexible, 

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 throughout 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 stack 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 representative 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: 3
Comment 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 methodology 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 result, 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-2011-0028-0095, excerpt 9.

3.0 Requirements for Selection of 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 Tier 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 emissions; 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: David 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 factors 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 should 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 has used the arithmetic averages of the different process 

specific factors when deriving the factors in Tables I-11 and I-12. SIA believes that gasuse 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 factor 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 Affiliation: 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 flow to a low emitting stack system. Fabs don’t 

generally reconfigure stack systems per se as this would involve the modification of exhaust duct 
Comment 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 reconfigured 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 lowemitting 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 the 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 Excerpt 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 appreciates 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 factors, 

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 fabspecific 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 Number: 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 instances, 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 inserted 
Comment 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 Control 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 not 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 Facilities 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 exemptions 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 Byproducts)

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: 13
Comment 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 hygrometer 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 requirement 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 "Field 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."

Response: 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 calculate 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 NIST 

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 necessary 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” certification 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 must 

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 vented 

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 difficult 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 

additional details regarding certification of stack flow configuration changes during stack testing.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs

Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association
Comment 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 example 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 asks 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 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 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 excessive, 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 follows:

“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 readings 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 portion 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 for 
Comment 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 

minutes. 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 collect 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 interval, 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-2011-0028-0095

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 facilities 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 measurement 

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 

clarifying that Section 13 of EPA Method 320 is not waived for all tests. We are also clarifying 
Comment 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 validation 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 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: 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 qualified 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 includes 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 is 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 

used, testing for the gas is not required unless it is one of the expected by-products." 
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 EPA’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 determining 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 gas 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 period 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 present 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 situations 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 onehalf 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 stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (see 77 FR 63547) the EPA expects that using one-half the FDL in place of nondetect values in situations where a gas is used as an input gas or is detected intermittently as a 

by-product gas will provide a reasonable 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 consumption 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 amendments 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 treatment of expected by-products that are not 

detected. 

The preamble to the Proposed Rule at page 63546 asks for comments on whether certain byproducts 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 page 63546 in the preamble suggests a list of six chemicals that would be 

treated as expected by-products: CF4, C2F6, CHF3, C3F8, C4F6, and C4F8. The latest round of data 

gathering also found CH2F2, CH3F, and C5F8 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 list 
Comment 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 (CF4, C2F6, CHF3 , CH2F2 , and 

CH3F) because the four C3, C4 and C5 by-products (C3F8, C4F6, c-C4F8 and C5F8) were 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 interval 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 that 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 there 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 whose 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-products and therefore be present 

as emissions even if not used in the factory. Intel 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 CF4, C2F6, CHF3, C3F8, C4F6, C4F8, CH2F2, CH3F, and C5F8 should be 

considered possible by-products. Of those, the five C1 and C2 compounds (CF4, C2F6, CHF3 and 

CH2F2) 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 of 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 the 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 the 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 acceptable 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 Number: 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 CF4 and C2F6, even in situations where they are not 

used as input gases. At minimum, this approach is necessary given the evidence 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 (CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C4F6, C4F8, and CHF3), 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 industry (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 EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding testing for common byproduct 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, Vice 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 

understands 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 with 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

16

customized enhanced measurement systems. These 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 results 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 field detection limit of 25 

ppbv, SF6 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 Intel, 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-products 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 ByProduct 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 that 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 devices. 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 necessary to 
Comment 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 Semiconductor 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 Section 

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 methodology.

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 minor 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 SF6, 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 have 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 CO2e emissions, and could be raised 

without material impact on a fab’s emissions statement.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding FDLs. Please see Section 

II.B.1 of the preamble for the final rule amendments for additional details regarding the EPA’s 

promulgated maximum FDLs. 

Commenter Name: Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0098

Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment 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 companies 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-forward 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 analyte 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 

during 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 development. In addition, several existing EPA regulations list both EPA Method 

320 and ASTM D6348-03 as acceptable methods. The RICE MACT (40 CFR part 63 subpart 

ZZZZ) and the Turbine MACT (40 CFR part 63 subpart YYYY) list both methods. Therefore, 

SIA asks that the 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, Government 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 Stack 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 for equation.] 

The EPA refers to UTf as the total uptime for all abatement systems for fab f. It would be more 

appropriate to refer to UFf 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 UTf as the 

average uptime factor for all abatement systems in fab f, which is a more accurate reflection of 

the calculated value than total uptime, and as such, the EPA has revised the definition of the term 

UTf in the promulgated amendments accordingly. 

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: 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 

least 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 this 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 ask 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 commenter 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 the 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 

rule 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 more 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 the 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: SIA 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 

m3

/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 "Eis" where it says "Eij.” 

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 “Eis,” which is the mass 

emissions of fluorinated GHG i from stack system s, instead of “Eij.”

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: 18

Comment: In Equation I-20, the definition of EFkf should be similar to the definition of EFif 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 (EFkf) should be parallel to the 

definition of the same term for the input gas i in fab f (EFif). In the final amendments to subpart 

I, the EPA has revised the definition of “EFkf” in Equation I-20 to read as follows “Emission 

factor for fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, from fab f, representing 100 percent abatement 

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 NF3 and SF6 can produce carbon-containing F-GHG by-products 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 emissions 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 of 
Comment 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-products 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 SF6 and NF3.

9.0 Stack Testing Frequency

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 “within 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 rule, 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 substantive 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 use 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 comment.

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 page 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 the 
Comment 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 the 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 all 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 when the final 

rule is published.

Response: The 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 that 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 process 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 technology nodes and earlier submitted to the EPA (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0028-0060) indicated that technology node had no significant influence on emissions.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding changes in a fab’s operation 

that could trigger 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 CF4 (R2 = 0.9389) and SF6

(R2 = 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 result, 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 justifies 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 testing 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 

happens 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: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding the option to allow reduced 

testing frequency based on variability in measured emission factors. The 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. The 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 Industry Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095

Comment Excerpt Number: 29
Comment 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 clearly 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. The 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 Excerpt 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 drivers 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 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: 6
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

26

Comment: The 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 trigger 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 Report

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 response to 

this comment. 

10.0 Revision of Default Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product Formation 

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 from 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 emissions 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 subtypes 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 2011 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 gaps in the etch emissions factor database at 

the end of 2011. Prior to the publication of the Proposed Rule, however, ISMI provided a data 
Comment 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 information. 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 associated 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 previously calculated default emissions factors.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for the submittal of new data. These additional data 

were used for the development of revised gas utilization and by-product formation rates 

presented in the final rule. The 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: The 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 (in 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: "Revised 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 

appreciably 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 200mm and 300mm etch based 

on additional testing completed in 2012. It should be noted that several by-products, namely 

C5F8, CH3F, and CH2F2, not detected previously, were observed during this round of testing. This 

may be the result of data being provided for tool/gas combinations that were not previously 

tested. These by-products have no discernible effect on reported emissions because the byproduct emission factors are small and the GWPs of these gases are less than 200.

[See pg. 9 Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095 for Table I.3: "Revised Default Byproduct 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.

Response: See Section II.B.2 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 Affiliation: IBM

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0099

Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment 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 conclusive 

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 significantly simplifying the data 

collection and management processes required to comply with the regulation. 

Response: The 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 supports 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 document, 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

Comment 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 comments 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: David 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 requested 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. Five 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, Vice 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 the 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 

emissions 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 for 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 Rule 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 data 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 revised 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 measurements 

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 Association

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 definition of ProcesstypeEi, the term "processes" should be "process" 

2. Equation I-8 and I-9: It is recommended that the term aij*dij*UTij 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, UTjk needs to be replaced with UTijk as the 

abatement systems that treat a gas/process or process subtype combination (Cij) are also treating 

the gas/process or process subtype/by-product combination (Cijk). This is significant as it allows 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

32

for setting UTijk = UTij 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 systems for both the input and by-product gases. 

The only time that UTijk will not equal UTij is where the performance of the abatement system 

for one gas of the possible by-products is not meeting manufacturers’ specifications and site 

maintenance plan requirements 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. Equation I-10: It is recommended that the term aN2O,j*dN2O,j*UTN2O 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 not 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 emissions 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 EPA 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. The EPA has 

dropped that option in the re-proposed rule and solicited comment on whether anyone 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 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: 6

Comment: The 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 provisions 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: The 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. Since reporters must use default N2O emission factors under the 
Comment 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 N2O 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 #6012482DAENC when measuring and calculating process sub-type and process type fluorinated GHG and 

N2O 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 have 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 

where 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 EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0028-0093, excerpt 14.

Commenter Name: Jay M. Dietrich, CEA Program Manager, Energy and Climate Stewardship

Commenter Affiliation: IBM
Comment 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 combined 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 Proposed 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 EPAHQ-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 accuracy 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 Affiliation: 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.

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

conform with Subpart A requirements.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See the response to comment EPAHQ-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 recalculation and change 

trigger: Modifications were made in the Proposed Rule to more closely align with the industry 

practice for managing cylinders.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. The EPA is finalizing the proposed 

revisions to 40 CFR 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: IBM

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 validation error for the highest use gas requiring apportioning 

between process and sub-process types between the gas use measured at the distribution system 
Comment 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 was 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 report 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 and 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 contained 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 general, 

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 uncertainty 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 usage 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 from 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 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: 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 Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095

Comment Excerpt Number: 37

Comment: In the preamble to the Proposed Rule at page 63558, the EPA discusses the change 

in the apportionment model verification criteria from 5 percent to 20 percent closure. 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, relative 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 included 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 30, 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 

submitted 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 

validation 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 implementing 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 facilities. 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 verification 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 use 
Comment 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 criteria. 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 those 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 apportioning were able to meet the 20 percent criteria, and TI 

supports SIA’s comments in Section 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, excerpt 37.

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: 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 subpart 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 emission 

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 exercise 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 precision 
Comment 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 the 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 CO2 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 Reporting 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 the 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 factors when a single gas is used 

in both etch and chamber clean processes. For example, the emission factors for C2F6 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 NF3 used for 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 emission 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. 

Similarly, when the same gas is used for both for etch and chamber clean, such as NF3, 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

Comment 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 translated 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 apportioning 

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 test 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. Temperature 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 the 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 results 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 this 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 for 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 Greenhouse 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., NF3 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 C2F6 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 emissions. 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 actual 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 day 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 more 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 systems 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 day 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 Section 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. However, 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 actual gas consumed to the modeled gas consumed for 
Comment 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 suggested 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: Proposed 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 

inventory 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: 42
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

44

Comment: Equation 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 apportionment 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 agrees 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 result, 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 verify 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 facility 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.

Response: 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 40 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. The 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-Level 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 N2O 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 N2O 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." N2O is sometimes used in 

the deposition processes associated with the in-situ, remote and thermal chamber cleaning tools 

and recipes. The application of N2O 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

Commenter 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 

tested 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 validate 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 generate 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 contributing 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 

calculations 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 of 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 predominantly 
Comment 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 sense, 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 

these 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. The 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 assess 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 method 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 individual 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 observed 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

48

average DRE. However, the standard deviation is one that describes the variation of fabaverages, 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 expected 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 obtain 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 (σ2

Fabs) versus the 

variation in DRE among individual devices in a fab (σ2Devices). 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 

variance. 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 references 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.][Footnote: 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 = DRE0 + ΔDREFab I + ΔDREFab I, Device J (Eq. 1) 

where DRE0 is the overall average DRE in the data for the gas, ΔDREFab I is how much the 

average DRE in Fab I differs from the overall average, and ΔDREFab 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 (σ2

Fabs) versus the differences among the devices in a fab (σ2Devices). If 

we pick a fab at random, and it contains N devices abating a particular gas, we would expect its 

average DRE to vary from the overall average for the gas by an amount governed by the standard 

deviation for fab averages: σ = sqrt( σ2

Fabs+ σ2Devices / N ). The lowest average DRE that is likely 

to be found in a fab can be estimated as:

Default DRE = DRE0 - 2 · sqrt( σ2

Fabs + σ2Devices / N ) (Eq. 1)

where DRE0 is the average DRE observed in the test data, the variance components σ2

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 the 
Comment 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 the 

observed 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, SIA asked its members 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 of 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 of 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 the 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 tests in total. We believe this large data base consisting of all available data is most 
Comment 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 developed 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 DRE 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 implies.

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 method 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 to 

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: CF4 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 

CF4 based on Eq. 1, accounting for the effect of individual device variation on the fab average 

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 NF3 in etch, the SIA analysis 

estimates an alternative default of 96 percent based on a value of N=15 devices, and for SF6 an 

alternative default of 98 percent based on N=10 devices.

As Figure IV.1 shows, the average DREs for abating CF4 in our data range from 72 percent to 97

percent across six fabs at three SIA member companies. The SIA alternative 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 is 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 

CF4 DRE below the EPA method’s 47 percent value. It would be a practical impossibility to find 

a fab with 20 abatement 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 CF4 DREs to DRE Defaults Based on the SIA and EPA Methods."]

[SIA presents the derivation and calculation of the default DRE values for CF4 in pages C-6 and 

C-7 of Attachment C.]

For the other carbon-based gases in etch (excluding CF4), 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 C2F6 and CH3F in etch for the first time, and it increases the total sample size for the other 

gases. As discussed further below, all of the carbon-based gases are similar in abatement 

difficulty, except for CF4. In the Proposed Rule, the EPA grouped together the non-CF4 etch 

gases that had data to set a group-average default of 98 percent. SIA recommends that the EPA

continue 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 carbonbased gasesin pages C-9 through C-11 of Attachment C.]

Response: 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 NF3 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 NF3 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 number 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 NF3 DRE varies among fabs

to a much 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 NF3 in chamber 

cleaning above 90 percent and the lowest fabs have averages of 92 to 93 percent. The SIA

alternative default 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 method 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 NF3 falls below this value. It would be a practical 

impossibility to find a fab with an average NF3 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, C11, 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 NF3 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 for 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 Industry 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 procedure documented in the 
Comment 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 

reporting. 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-specific 

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 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: 50

Comment: SIA recommends a modification to the Default DRE for C2F6, CH3F, C3F8, and C5F8

in etch. The Proposed Rule assigns CH3F, C2F6, C3F8, and C5F8 a default DRE of 60 percent. In 

the “Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics 

Manufacturing Facilities 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 CH3F, five data points for C2F6 and one data point for C5F8; the 

DRE results indicate that these gases are amenable to abatement. SIA requests that CH3F, C2F6, 

and C5F8 be included in the list of other etch gases C4F6, CHF3, C4F8, and CH2F2 that the EPA

has grouped together for the purpose of determining defaults (see page 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 Isaacs, 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 C3F8

necessitates the setting of the default DRE at 60 percent. C3F8 chemistry is very similar to C2F6, 

both are fully fluorinated molecules; however, C3F8 will be more amenable to abatement because 

of weaker molecular bonds associated with its additional carbon atom when compared to C2F6. 

Because of the similarity, the C2F6 DRE data should be recognized as applicable to C3F8, 

enabling the C3F8 default DRE to be assigned along with the list of other carbon-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 Default 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 submitted 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 addition 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 CF4 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: The EPA thanks the commenter for the additional DRE data and for identification of 

the revised or deleted data 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 Control 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: See 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 conducted 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 CF4 Default DRE of 60 percent as 

prescribed by the Rule. 

Samsung achieved positive emissions reduction for NF3, CHF3, C4F8, CH2F2, and C2F6 – which 

were similar to test results achieved by other SIA test participants. Samsung experienced less 

than desirable DRE results for CF4 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 CF4. Also noted during the call, Samsung did not 

claim a 60 percent default DRE during the 2011 reporting year (i.e., DRE of 0 percent was used 

for all reportable GHG). 

Samsung has established a step plan for the CSK vendor to begin incremental CF4 abatement 

improvements over the next year and a half. Results of the CF4 testing will be provided to the 

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

56

As a historical reference, 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 

South Korean facilities use the CSK POU units but maintain a separate centralized F-GHG

abatement system.

Response: The EPA concurs with the commenter that the POU test data not be incorporated into 

the abatement system inventory because the CSK POU units were 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 industrywide 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 are 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 reflect 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 for other gas and process combinations. See the response to comment EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095, excerpt 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 process 

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 Numbers: 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 method 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 level 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 considering 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 methodology 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 level 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 for 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 unreasonably 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: The EPA thanks 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 

and the Agency’s decision to leave the default DRE at 60 percent for those situations in which 
Comment 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: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support 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 CH3F, C2F6, and C5F8 where data were 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) when 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

justification for the use of this method for abatement system testing. See document # EPA-HQOAR-2011-0028-0051 [Footnote: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR-2011-0028-0051] and document EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0052. [Footnote: 

http://www.regulations.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 which 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 (<5
Comment 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 followed 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 absence 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 by 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 

consistency 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 in 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-HQOAR-2011-0028-0052), and further demonstrate that the adaption to EPA Method 7E in 

proposed Appendix A to subpart I is appropriate for determining 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

Document 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 default 
Comment 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 combination 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-2011-0028-0095

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 detection 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. FTIR 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 Table 

I-10 to subpart I are not appropriate for the DRE testing with QMS, and the final rule references 

the FDLs in the EPA DRE 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 CH3F, CH2F2, C4F6, and C5F8.

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: 66
Comment 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 processes 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: The 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 Technology 

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 version), 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 

2009 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 keeping 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 procedure 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 gas 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 requirements 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 simply 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

62

sampling ambient air, then inspecting the appropriate H2O (and/or CH4 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 used 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 transfer 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 

transfer 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 included 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 controls 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 spiked 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. In 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 

pathlength 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 Industry 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 knowledge (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 spectra 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 concentration 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 between the sample and 

reference spectra conditions must not exceed 50 percent for pressure and 7040 [deg]C for 

temperature. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the added language suggested by the commenter because it 

appears to allow reporters to determine whether there is a linear response without calibration 

spectra. The calibration spectra are needed to determine whether the analyte will scale linearly 

across the expected concentration range, and the determination cannot be made without them. A 

minimum of four 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 with 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 four 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 flexibility 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 sample 

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 making 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 dynamic 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. Therefore, 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. 

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: 70

Comment: Appendix A(b)(4)(ii) states if a non-linear detector 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 during 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 the 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 laboratory 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. See the response to comment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095, excerpt 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: 71

Comment: Appendix A(b)(5) provides requirements for the sampling system. The ISMI

guideline applies to process emissions characterization 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 excessive, 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. 

However, in place of deleting the text as suggested by the commenter, the 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 necessary response time. In practice, the amount of gas needed 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

66

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 Affiliation: 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 variable 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 method 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. These 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 during 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 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 the process cannot be operated under the same conditions long enough to complete the 

required 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. For 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 calibration 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 uncertainty calculations. Diagnostic checks of the interferometer 

and sample cell must be performed, as referenced in paragraph (b)(1)." 

"(11) Deriving the calibration transfer standard target analyte spiking gas(es) from tool 

chamber gases. The calibration transfer 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 on-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 to 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 sample 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 proposed system conditions." 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the change to remove the calibration transfer standard 

(CTS) language. Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095, excerpt 67.
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

68

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: 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: The EPA disagrees with the change to remove the calibration transfer standard 

(CTS) language. Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095, excerpt 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: 75

Comment: Appendix A(c)(1): this section indicates that one can only introduce the nonreactive, non-native gas in between the POU thermal oxidizer and wet scrubber. This location 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 and 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 CF4, which has 

relatively 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, reducing 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 actual 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 potentially 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

69

suitable for devices 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, CF4 has been spiked through an abatement unit and post abatement unit 

using a 1 percent CF4 in nitrogen blend. The CF4 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 mode 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. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095 for Table IV.4: “Data analysis of 

emission profile observed in Figure X below” and Figure IV.4: “CF4emission profile observed 

during spiking through and post- Abatement unit.”]

Response: The EPA agrees with the comment and has 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 situations 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.” 

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input and has corrected Appendix A(c)(2) as 

suggested. When the non-reactive, non-native gas concentration deviates by more than +/- 10.0 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

70

percent, but less than 20.0 percent, samples must be taken from three points 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 Name: 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 percent 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 propose 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: The 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 remove 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. First, 

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-type combination. As explained in the 

technical memorandum titled "Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal 

Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I," (Docket ID EPA-HQOAR-2011-0028) the EPA proposed to remove the 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 methods for subpart I default emission factor based methods, and 
Comment 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 Facilities under Subpart I," (Docket 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 abatement 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 years 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 with 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 combinations 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 Affiliation: 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 clarify that the determination of the percentage tested 
Comment 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." 

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: 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 requests 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 added 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 defined 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 would not include a minimum 
Comment 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 plan 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 abatement 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: The 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 maintenance 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 Association

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 following 

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 within 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 reporting 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 retested. 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 DRE 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 

measurements from 30 percent of the units, or if it wants to manage its uptime number for 
Comment 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.

Response: 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 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 abatement 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 devices. 

These requirements present several practical 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 the 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 changes 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 manufacturer’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 CF4 abatement were 

discussed in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0046 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 serviced 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 Engineer

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 

the 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 requirements (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 something 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 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: 53

Comment: For existing older 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 operated 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 President, 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 

fuel 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 § 98.97(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 commenter’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 systems 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 specific basis. That is, one 
Comment 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 investigations 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 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 maintenance plan for abatement 

systems that is developed and maintained ..." Also 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: The 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 abatement 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 which 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 Section 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, excerpt 57.

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: 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 accordance 
Comment 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 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)."

Section 98.97(d)(5)(i)(77 FR 63591): Revise 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 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 CF4 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 the 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: The 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 operating 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 Control 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 fab. 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 N2O 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 language 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 N2O 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 documentation 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, and 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 

(eGGRT) 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 their 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 also 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 N2O 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 N2O 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, Government 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 98.934(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: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input regarding the definition of operational 

mode. By following the site-specific 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 the 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 calculations. 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 Excerpt 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 not 
Comment 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 abatement 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 devices. 

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, and 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 number 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

82

or type for units 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 

improvements 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 Sections 98.94(f) and 98.96(q) it states that in order to use 

the default DREs 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 specifications 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 these 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 effectively 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’ 

specifications 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 Control 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 N2O flow at 

your 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 maintenance 

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 N2O 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 DRE 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 treatment 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 CF4, 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: 14
Comment 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 assure 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 CF4

in initial testing of EFK abatement devices for etch processes in 2011 (docket document EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0028-0048) and, to a minor extent, in the measured DRE values for NF3 used in 

chamber clean processes (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0047) for the same time period. The DREs 

for the other F-gases and NF3 used in the etch process were consistently high with limited 

variation in DRE values as compared to the NF3 and CF4 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 provides 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 CF4 by 31

percent with reduced variability from 2011 to 2012 through improvements in the site 

maintenance plan procedures. Similarly, the average DRE for abatement of NF3 from the 

chamber clean process improved by 6.8 percent.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input. We agree that 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, the EPA noted that some low CF4 and NF3 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 manufacturer’s 

recommended maintenance program. The EPA has retained this requirement in the final rule. 

The 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 require 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 

comments 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 defaults rather than setting 

unnecessarily conservative, low default DREs. IBM does not think that validation testing is 
Comment 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 difficulties 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 (Table 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 

limited 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 as 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 CF4 DRE of a random 

sample of at least 10 percent or 3 (whichever is more) of the abatement devices 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 units 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 at 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 the 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 equipment 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 presented 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 or 
Comment 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 annually 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 during the reporting period and 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 achieving 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 default 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 revise the approach to determine the default DREs for the etch and clean FGHGs, based on the statistical approach recommended by several commenters. This approach 

conservatively estimates the default DREs so that they represent the minimum average level of 

control that can be expected from the aggregate of abatement systems at a fab that are designed 

to abate F-GHGs and N2O without, additional testing demonstrations.

Additionally, we have clarified the final rule monitoring requirements to specify that reporters 

must only report abatement of emissions from abatement systems that are designed to destroy or 

remove fluorinated GHGs and N2O, 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 facilities 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 manufacturer’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 following 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 these 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 N2O, 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 byproduct 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 applied to applicable byproduct gas(es).

98.93(g): Modify the text as follows: "...by using Equation I-15a and Equation 15b of this 

subpart. Use Equation I15a for the calculation of uptime for tools using each input gas, and I15b 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 need 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 the 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 byproduct 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 gases. 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, Cij. 

Therefore, uptime only needs to be calculated for the abatement systems receiving the input gas, 

Cij, 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 gas 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 commenter.

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 Tdijp 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: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input and has corrected the reference for 

“Operational 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 management reasons, you may calculate 

total process tool uptime 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 uptime 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: The 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 not 

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 stopped 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 suggested 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 factor 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 providing 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. UTjk 

needs to be changed to UTijk, Tdjkp needs to be changed to Tdijkp, and UTjkp (incorrectly listed as 

UTkp in the definitions section) needs to be change to UTijkp. The definition of the variable i = 

input gas needs to be added after the definition for UTkp 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-products by input gas type and to simplify the management 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 abatement 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 Affiliation: 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 use existing 

recordkeeping approaches while calculating a conservative estimate of abatement system uptime 

at significantly lower cost than required under the prior rule. 

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s input regarding abatement system uptime. 

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 significant 

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 promulgating 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 Number: 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 abatement 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

uptime).

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 estimating 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 emissions.

Response: The 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 

destruction 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 of 3-Year Reports of 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 Association
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

92

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095

Comment Excerpt Number: 86

Comment: The 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 of 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 rates and byproduct 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 burden 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 the 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 

established 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 created 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 site 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 

are 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 average, 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 national 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 testing 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 report 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 assess 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 Section 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 factors 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 Excerpt 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 detailed 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 protected through the "CBI" designation. In additional to the potential 
Comment 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 Security 

Agency. 

Response: See Section II.B.7 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: 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 amount 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 development 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 participation 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). Facilities are not required to

implement recipe-specific testing in the 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 regarding the requirements for the triennial technology report.

The final rule retains the same facility emission criteria (40,000 metric tons CO2e from 

semiconductor manufacturing processes) for completing a report and also retains the provision 

allowing for 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 the 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 amendments 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 the 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 aspects 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, disproportionate 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 SF6 from semiconductor 

manufacturing), and yet the industry has proactively invested in emissions reductions through 

global collaboration. These proactive efforts 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 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: 85

Comment: In the 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. 

The EPA asks 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 technologies 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. 

Response: 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 changes 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).

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: 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 level 

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 very 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 about 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

97

which the EPA, in its preamble, appears 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 reintroducing 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 information.

Response: See Section II.B.7 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 Affiliation: IBM

Document Control Number: EPA-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 companies 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.” The 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 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.

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 the 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 information 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 property. 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 new 
Comment 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 warranted.

Response: See Section II.B.7 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: 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 industry 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 CO2e triggering the requirement to complete the triennial technology review report 

and the 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 emissions 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 commenter'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 Number: 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 determine 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 should 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 previous 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 the 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

100

“proposed default gas utilization rates and by-product 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 years, 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 

updated 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 CO2e 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 and 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 modifications, 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 Excerpt 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 an 
Comment 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 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: 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 Table 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. By 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 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: 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 be 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 that 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 reporting 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 

facilities 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 burden, 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: Semiconductor 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 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: 96
Comment 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 probably 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 important 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 N2O 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 Association
Comment 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 Equations 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 emissions 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 units 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 Equation I-24. 

Equation I-24 acknowledges the complexity 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, the 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. It 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 facility-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 N2O 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 (respectively) 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, SIA 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 Equations 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 the 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-wide DRE. If the EPA desires an estimate of a fab DRE for a facility performing stack 

testing, SIA recommends that the EPA modify Equation 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 further 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 CO2e

emission from the fab divided by the CO2e emissions of the facility. Again, this will provide an 

estimation of the facility wide DRE which has as much validity as that calculated under 

Equations 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 proposed 
Comment Summary and Response Document for Subpart I Amendments August 2013

106

rule-making, there is no valid reason for the 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 agrees 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 Two 

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: Please see Section III.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 occur 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 demonstration 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” under § 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 inventory of abatement systems is CBI, while the description of abatement systems is not 

CBI.

Response: Please see Section III.B 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: 14

Comment: EDF is concerned about the EPA’s proposed determinations to treat the following 

item as CBI:

Triennial Technology Assessment Data Elements

Response: Please see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule amendments for the 

response 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 provided 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 Association
Comment 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 document EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0031 "MEMORANDUMFINAL 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 these 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 

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 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 comparable 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 determination 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 

confidentiality 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 is 

confidential business information, the 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 

Determinations for the 2012 Final CBI Rule, as well as the Proposed Data Category Assignments 
Comment 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 all 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 triennial 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, excerpt 93.

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: 21

Comment: In the docket document EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0031 “MEMORANDUMFINAL 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. IBM wishes to emphasize that these publicly available fab capacity are 

best estimates by analysts or other individuals; 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 Fgas use or other publicly available information, a competitor may be able to glean important 

information IBM’s manufacturing 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 comparable 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: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095, excerpt 93.

Commenter Name: David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs

Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association
Comment 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 Data 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 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. 

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.

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 protection 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 Support 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: 1
Comment 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; Additional 

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 working 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 Number: 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 in 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 these 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 appreciates 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: 1
Comment 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 

accurate 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.

Commenter 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.