Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs

Federal RegisterDec 1, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9226-8]

RIN 2060-AQ00

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is issuing a regulation to require monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from additional sources of fluorinated greenhouse gases, including electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas production, electrical equipment use, electrical equipment manufacture or refurbishment, as well as importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. This rule requires monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gases for these source categories only for sources with carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, imports, or exports above certain threshold levels. This rule does not require control of greenhouse gases.

DATES:

The final rule is effective on December 31, 2010. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES:

EPA established a single docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927 for this rule. All documents in the docket are listed on the

http://www.regulations.gov

Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through

http://www.regulations.gov

or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; e-mail address:

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.

For technical information and implementation materials, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

To submit a question, select Rule Help Center, followed by Contact Us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities.

The Administrator determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d).

See

CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.”). This final rule affects owners and operators of electronics manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities, electric power systems, and electrical equipment manufacturing facilities, as well as importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. Regulated categories and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1—Examples of Affected Entities by Category

Category

NAICS

Examples of affected facilities

Electronics Manufacturing

334111

Microcomputers manufacturing facilities.

334413

Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities.

334419

Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) unit screens manufacturing facilities.

334419

Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) manufacturing facilities.

Fluorinated Gas Production

325120

Industrial gases manufacturing facilities.

Electrical Equipment Use

221121

Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities.

Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment

33531

Power transmission and distribution switchgear and specialty transformers manufacturing facilities.

Importers and Exporters of Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams

423730

Air-conditioning equipment (except room units) merchant wholesalers.

333415

Air-conditioning equipment (except motor vehicle) manufacturing.

336391

Motor vehicle air-conditioning manufacturing.

423620

Air-conditioners, room, merchant wholesalers.

443111

Household appliance stores.

423730

Automotive air-conditioners merchant wholesalers.

326150

Polyurethane foam products manufacturing.

335313

Circuit breakers, power, manufacturing.

423610

Circuit breakers merchant wholesalers.

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of facilities that EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by the reporting requirements. Other types of facilities and companies not listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and the relevant criteria in the subparts related to electronics manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities, electric power transmission or distribution facilities, electrical equipment manufacturing or refurbishment facilities, and importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

Many facilities that are affected by the final rule have greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from multiple source categories listed in 40 CFR part 98. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed as a guide to help potential reporters in the source categories subject to this reporting rule identify the source categories (by subpart) that they may need to (1) consider in their facility applicability determination, and/or (2) include in their reporting. The table should only be seen as a guide. Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be relevant for a given reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts are relevant for all reporters.

Table 2—Source Categories and Relevant Subparts

Source category (and main applicable subpart)

Subparts recommended for review to determine applicability

Electricity Generation

Electrical Equipment Use.

Electronics Manufacturing

General Stationary Fuel Combustion.

Fluorinated Gas Production

General Stationary Fuel Combustion Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases.

Electrical Equipment Use

General Stationary Fuel Combustion.

Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases.

Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from Electrical Equipment Manufacture and Refurbishment.

Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment

General Stationary Fuel Combustion Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams.

What is the effective date?

The final rule is effective on December 31, 2010. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the

Federal Register.

EPA is issuing this final rule under section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which states: “The provisions of section 553 through 557 * * * of Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply to actions to which this subsection applies.” Thus, section 553(d) of the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting consistently with the purposes underlying APA section 553(d) in making this rule effective on December 31, 2010. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” As explained below, EPA finds that there is good cause for this rule to become effective on or before December 31, 2010, even if this results in an effective date fewer than 30 days from date of publication in the

Federal Register

While this action is being signed prior to December 1, 2010, there is likely to be a significant delay in the publication of this rule as it contains complex diagrams, equations, and charts, and is relatively long in length. As an example, EPA signed a shorter technical amendments package related to the same underlying reporting rule on October 7, 2010, and it was not published until October 28, 2010, 75 FR 66434, three weeks later.

The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final rule will be signed and made available on the EPA Web site more than 30 days before the effective date, but where the publication is likely to be delayed due to the complexity and length of the rule, that purpose is still met. Moreover, through June 30, 2011, facilities covered by this rule may use Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) for any parameter for which it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring equipment in a facility, or to procure measurement services from necessary providers. This will provide facilities a substantial additional period to adjust their behavior to the requirements of the final rule. Accordingly, we find good cause exists to make this rule effective on or before December 31, 2010, consistent with the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

We recognize that this rule could be published at least 30 days before December 31, 2010, which would negate the need for this good cause finding, and we plan to request expedited publication of this rule in order to decrease the likelihood of a printing delay. However, as we cannot know the date of publication in advance of signing this rule, we are proceeding with this good cause finding for an effective date on or before December 31, 2010.

Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 31, 2011. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Acronyms and Abbreviations.

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CAA Clean Air Act

CARB California Air Resources Board

CBI confidential business information

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

carbon dioxide

e CO

-equivalent

DE destruction efficiency

DRE destruction or removal efficiency

ECD electron capture detector

emission factor for the valve-hose combination

EIA Economic Impact Analysis

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas

FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy)

FID flame ionization detector

GC gas chromatography

GHG greenhouse gas

GWP global warming potential

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon

HFC hydrofluorocarbon

HFE hydrofluoroether

HTF heat transfer fluid

IBR incorporation by reference

ICR information collection request

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

kg kilograms

LCD liquid crystal displays

LED light-emitting diode

MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems

MMTCO

e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent

MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule

MS mass spectrometry

MVAC motor vehicle air conditioner

O nitrous oxide

NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NERC North American Energy Reliability Corporation

NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants

nitrogen trifluoride

NMR nuclear magnetic resonance

NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PFC perfluorocarbon

POHC principal organic hazardous constituent

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSEF process-vent-specific emission factor

PV photovoltaic cells

QA quality assurance

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

QMS Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy

R&D research and development

RF radio frequency

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

RPS remote plasma source

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction

sulfur hexafluoride

TCR The Climate Registry

TSD technical support document

U.S. United States

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

VOC volatile organic compound(s)

WCI Western Climate Initiative

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Organization of this Preamble

B. Background on the Final Rule

C. Legal Authority

II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories

A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules

C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition of Subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS

D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)

E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)

F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use (Subpart DD)

G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams (Subpart QQ)

H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment (Subpart SS)

III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

B. What are the costs of the rule?

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?

E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed in the Table of Contents. The paragraphs below describe the layout of the preamble and provide a brief summary of each section.

The first section of this preamble contains the basic background information about the origin of this rule, including a brief discussion of the rationale for revising the initially proposed requirements for subparts L, DD, and SS. This section also discusses EPA's use of our legal authority under the CAA to collect the required data, and the benefits of collecting the data.

The second section of this preamble provides a brief summary of the key design elements for each subpart. For each subpart, this section includes (1) The definition of the source category, (2) GHGs to report, (3) GHG emission calculating and monitoring methods, (4) data reporting requirements, and (5) records that must be retained. Each subpart also includes a summary of major changes since proposal and a summary of comments and responses. Please refer to the specific source category of interest for more details.

The third section provides the summary of the cost impacts, economic impacts, and benefits of this rule from the Economic Analysis. Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this rule.

B. Background on the Final Rule

This action finalizes monitoring and reporting requirements for the following five source categories: Electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas production, electrical equipment use, electrical equipment manufacture and refurbishment, and importers and exporters and pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.

EPA initially proposed reporting requirements for electronics, fluorinated GHG production, and electrical equipment use on April 12, 2009 (74 FR 16448) as part of a larger rulemaking effort to establish a GHG reporting program for all sectors of the economy. In that proposal, EPA also requested comment on requiring reporting of the quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged equipment and foams. However, EPA did not include requirements for these source categories in the Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Part 98) (40 CFR part 98), which was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on September 22, 2009 and published in the

Federal Register

on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260).

EPA deferred action on these source categories because EPA received a number of lengthy, detailed comments regarding the proposed requirements for these source categories. These comments, which are described in more detail in the discussions of the individual source categories in the April 12, 2010 proposed rule, raised concerns about the costs and technical feasibility of implementing subparts I and L as initially proposed, requested clarification of how “facility” should be interpreted under subpart DD, and both favored and opposed a requirement to report fluorinated GHGs contained in

imported and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.

EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, and decided to re-propose significant pieces of these subparts. The revised proposed rule was published in the

Federal Register

on April 12, 2010. A public hearing on the proposed rule was held on April 20, 2010 in Washington, DC, and the 60-day public comment period ended on June 11, 2010.

For subparts I and L this rule incorporates a number of technical changes including, but not limited to, the addition of different methodologies that provide improved emissions coverage at a lower cost burden to facilities as compared to the initial April 2009 proposal. Where aspects of the initial proposals for subparts I and L are retained in this rule, such as in the basic mass-balance methodology for subpart L (as an option for some facilities) and in many of the equations for subpart I, this rule adds more flexibility in how and how frequently the underlying data are gathered. In addition, EPA is requiring facilities to report emissions from manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment and to report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged equipment and foams.

We have concluded that the monitoring approaches required in this rule, which combine direct measurement and facility-specific calculations, effectively balance accuracy and costs, and that they are warranted because the resulting data will enable EPA to analyze and develop a range of potential CAA GHG policies and programs. A consistent and accurate data set is crucial to serve this intended purpose.

Under this rule, facilities and suppliers will begin data collection in 2011 following the methods outlined in this rule and will submit data to EPA by March 31, 2012. EPA is allowing facilities and suppliers to use the Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) through June 30, 2011 without submitting a petition to EPA. EPA is also allowing facilities to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond the initial 6-month period. For details on BAMM extension requests, including their due dates and required contents, refer to the Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements section of each subpart and to the preamble discussions for subparts I and L.

C. Legal Authority

EPA is finalizing requirements for five source categories (electronics manufacturing, production of fluorinated gases, use of electrical transmission and distribution equipment, manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment, and imports and exports of pre-charges equipment and closed cell-foams) under its existing CAA authority; specifically, authorities provided in CAA section 114. As discussed in detail in Sections I.C and II.Q of the preamble to the 2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides EPA with broad authority to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA, manufacturers of process or control equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of the CAA. Further information is available in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Legal Issues” (available in EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508)

II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories

A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (GHG) (also referred to as 40 CFR part 98) from large GHG emissions sources in the United States. Implementation of 40 CFR Part 98 is referred to as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).

The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions and supply from certain sectors of the economy, and apply to certain downstream facilities that emit GHGs, as well as to certain upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs. The regulations require annual reporting of GHGs including carbon dioxide (CO

, methane (CH

), nitrous oxide (N

O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF

), and other fluorinated compounds (e.g., hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)).

Part 98 regulations require only that source categories subject to the rule monitor and report GHGs in accordance with the methods specified in the individual subparts. In this action, EPA is adding five source categories to part 98. For a list of the specific GHGs to be reported and the GHG calculation procedures, monitoring, missing data procedures, recordkeeping, and reporting required for facilities subject to subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS see the relevant subpart description below.

B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules

This action does not address whether data reported under subparts I, L, DD, QQ, or SS will be treated as confidential business information (CBI). EPA published a proposed confidentiality determination on July 7, 2010 (75 FR 39094) which addressed this issue. In that action, EPA proposed which specific data elements would be treated as CBI and which data elements must be available to the public under CAA section 114. EPA has received several comments on the proposal, and is in the process of considering these comments. A final determination will be issued before any data is released, and the final determination will include all of the data elements under these subparts.

C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition of Subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS

Changes to Applicability.

We are making changes to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5) to be consistent with previous revisions that were made on July 12, 2010. On July 12, 2010 (75 FR 39736), we made a number of conforming changes to the General Provisions (subpart A to part 98) to accommodate the addition of new source categories that were being added to Part 98. In the July 12, 2010 notice, we added Tables A-3 through A-5 to replace the list of source categories and supplier categories in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4), respectively. Under this revised approach, as new subparts are adopted, a new row is added to the appropriate table for the year in which reporting is required to commence for the new source category or supplier category. As a conforming change, the text of 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) was reworded to refer to “Table A-3 and Table A-4” instead of “subparts C-JJ.”

In this action, we are amending Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5 to subpart A to add entries for five subparts: DD, SS, I, L, and QQ. Because we are now adding a new supplier category to the reporting requirements, we are also making a conforming change to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(i) and (ii) to replace the reference to “subparts KK through PP” with a reference to “Table A-5.” This conforming change does not alter any reporting requirements.

The following source categories have been added to the list of source categories in Table A-3 to subpart A because they have a production capacity

or gas consumption threshold rather than a CO

e emission threshold.

• Electric power transmission or distribution facilities that include the total nameplate capacity located within the facility, when added to the total nameplate capacity of SF

and PFC containing equipment that is not located within the facility but is under common ownership or control, exceeds 17,820 pounds of sulfur hexafluoride (SF

)or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (subpart DD).

• Electric power equipment manufacturing or refurbishing facilities with total annual SF

and PFC purchases (combined) that exceed 23,000 pounds per year (subpart SS).

The following source categories are subject to the rule if facility emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons CO

e per year. Therefore, these source categories have been added to the list of emission threshold source categories referenced in Table A-4 to subpart A.

• Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions would exceed 25,000 mtCO

e in the absence of control technologies (subpart L).

• Electronics manufacturing facilities whose emissions would exceed 25,000 mtCO

e in the absence of control technologies (subpart I).

For all of these facilities, whether they are listed in Table A-3 or A-4 to subpart A, the annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel combustion sources, miscellaneous uses of carbonates, and all applicable source categories listed in Table A-3 and Table A-4 to subpart A.

Importers and exporters of certain types of pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foam products containing fluorinated GHGs, N

O, or CO

(subpart QQ) have been added to Table A-5 to subpart A because they are suppliers of GHGs.

As is true for the source categories covered by the final Part 98, a facility or supplier in any of these source categories may cease reporting if their emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO

e per year for five consecutive years or less than 15,000 mtCO

e per year for three consecutive years, subject to the procedures at 40 CFR 98.2(i).

Reporting CO

e emissions

. EPA is adding a paragraph to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) to clarify that facilities that emit fluorinated GHGs are required to calculate and report CO

e emissions only for those fluorinated GHGs that are listed in Table A-1 of this subpart, not for other fluorinated GHGs. However, it is important to note that fluorinated GHG emitters are still required to report all fluorinated GHGs emitted under 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii) (in metric tons of GHG). This change clarifies that emitters are not required to develop GWPs for fluorinated GHGs that are not listed in Table A-1 and ensures consistent reporting of such fluorinated GHGs among different reporters. The change is being made in parallel with a similar change to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5) through a separate rulemaking.

Definitions.

EPA is revising one definition in 40 CFR part 98 subpart A and is adding a number of definitions applicable to specific source categories to the corresponding subparts. The definition that is being revised in subpart A is the definition of “destruction efficiency,” which is being revised to be expressed in tons of specific greenhouse gases rather than tons of CO2e. This revision and the rationale for it are discussed in more detail in Section II.E of this preamble.

The definitions that are applicable to specific source categories are not being added to the definitions section in 40 CFR part 98 subpart A because they do not have broader applicability to part 98. EPA has sought to avoid any conflict between these subpart-specific definitions and the definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, for electric power systems, EPA is applying a category-specific definition of facility rather than the general definition of facility in the General Provisions. The reasons for this source-category-specific definition of facility are set forth in Section II.G of this preamble. The remaining definitions are intended as supplements to the definitions section in the General Provisions. EPA does not expect these definitions to create conflicts with the General Provisions. To the extent regulated entities are in doubt as to which definition applies, they should assume that the category-specific definitions are controlling.

Incorporation by Reference (IBR).

We are amending 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to include standard methods used in the subparts. In particular, for subpart I, we are adding the following three standards: the 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment (International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG), the 2001 International SEMATECH's Guidelines for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Equipment (International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR), and EPA's Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These standards are referenced in 40 CFR 98.94 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.96 (Data reporting requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.97 (Records that must be retained for subpart I), and 40 CFR 98.98 (Definitions for subpart I).

In addition, for subpart L, we are revising the paragraphs listing several ASME standards and one ASTM standard that are already contained in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these standards are also referenced by 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR part 98, subpart L, fluorinated gas production). We are also adding the following seven standards: ASTM D2879-97 (Reapproved 2007) Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope; ASTM D7359-08 Standard Test Method for Total Fluorine, Chlorine and Sulfur in Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Mixtures by Oxidative Pyrohydrolytic Combustion followed by Ion Chromatography Detection (Combustion Ion Chromatography-CIC); Tracer Gas Protocol for the Determination of Volumetric Flow Rate Through the Ring Pipe of the Xact Multi-Metals Monitoring System (also known as Other Test Method 24); Approved Alternative Method 012: An Alternate Procedure for Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate Determination (Tracer Gas); the Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities; Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates; and EPA's Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These are referenced in 40 CFR 98.123 (Calculating GHG emissions for subpart L), 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements for subpart L), and 40 CFR 98.128 (Definitions for subpart L).

D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)

1. Summary of the Final Rule

Source Category Definition.

The electronics manufacturing source category consists of any of the following five production processes. Facilities that use these processes include, but are not limited to, those facilities that manufacture micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and semiconductors (including light-emitting diodes).

• Electronics manufacturing production processes in which the etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments, which chemically react with exposed thin-films (e.g., dielectric, metals) or substrate (e.g., silicon) to selectively remove portions of material.

• Electronics manufacturing production processes in which chambers used for depositing thin films are cleaned periodically using plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments.

• Electronics manufacturing production process in which wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine atoms or other reactive fluorine-containing fragments to remove residual material from wafer surfaces, including the wafer edge.

• Electronics manufacturing production processes in which the chemical vapor deposition process (CVD) or other manufacturing processes use N

• Production processes which use fluorinated GHGs as heat transfer fluids to cool process equipment, to control temperature during device testing, to clean substrate surfaces and other parts, and for soldering (e.g., vapor phase reflow). Heat transfer fluids commonly used in electronics manufacturing include those sold under the trade names “Galden®” and “Fluorinertsu.

”

Reporting Threshold.

Electronics manufacturing facilities that meet the applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2) must report GHG emissions. Electronics manufacturing facilities covered by subpart I are those that have emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO

e. For electronics manufacturing, EPA is requiring that uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of determining whether a facility's emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO

Facilities must determine if they meet the applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)(2)) by using the methods in 40 CFR 98.91 and summarized as follows:

For purposes of calculating and reporting emissions for this subpart, facilities may report controlled emissions if they abide by provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(f) of this rule.

• Semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD manufacturing facilities are required to use gas specific emission factors and 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity. Because heat transfer fluids are widely used in semiconductor manufacturing, to account for emissions from heat transfer fluids, semiconductor manufacturing facilities are required to add 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a facility to their total estimate. For semiconductor and LCD manufacturing facilities, the gas specific emission factors are consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. For MEMS manufacturing facilities, because there is no IPCC factor available, the emission factor was developed by EPA and is based on the IPCC Tier 2b SF

emission factor for semiconductors.

For a more detailed explanation of the MEMS default factor, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

• PV manufacturing facilities are required to multiply annual fluorinated GHG purchases or consumption by the gas-appropriate 100-year GWPs (provided in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part).

It is important to clarify that these methods for determining whether a manufacturer exceeds the threshold are different from those used to calculate and report annual GHG emissions. The methods for calculating GHG emissions and consumption for reporting purposes are provided in the following paragraphs.

GHGs to Report.

Each facility must calculate and report the following GHG emissions and consumption:

• Fluorinated GHG emissions from plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning.

• N

O emissions from chemical vapor deposition and other electronics manufacturing processes.

• Fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid use.

• Consumption for all fluorinated GHGs and N

O including gases used for manufacturing processes other than those listed above.

• CO

, CH

, and N

O combustion emissions from stationary combustion units by following the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources).

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring.

To calculate fluorinated GHG and N

O emissions from electronics manufacturing, reporters must use the following methods, as appropriate for each electronics manufacturing facility (depending on the product manufactured, i.e., MEMS, LCD, PV, or semiconductors).

Fluorinated GHG Emissions

All electronics manufacturing facilities are required to calculate fluorinated GHG emissions from etch and clean processes by estimating emissions of input fluorinated GHGs and of by-product fluorinated GHGs. This is done by applying utilization factors and by-product formation factors (collectively referred to as “emission factors” below) to the consumption of each fluorinated GHG by each process type, process sub-type or recipe, as appropriate. However, the methods prescribed for use by different types of electronics manufacturing facilities differ in the values of these emission factors, the level of aggregation to which the factors are applied (process type, process sub-type, or recipe), and whether defaults or recipe-specific factors are applied. This framework is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

To calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions, reporters must adhere to the typology shown in Figure 1 of this preamble.

ER01DE10.000

At the top of the typology figure are process types, which consist of plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning. The second level in the figure consists of process sub-types, which are identified for only the chamber cleaning process type. As explained in Section II.D.2 of this preamble (Summary of Major Changes Since the Proposal) and Section II.D.3 of this preamble (Summary of Comments and Responses), EPA is only establishing sub-types for the chamber cleaning process type because sufficient information was available for these sub-types to establish default emission factors. The three chamber cleaning process sub-types are in-situ plasma, remote plasma, and in-situ thermal cleans. The bottom of the figure displays production process recipes. Definitions are provided in the paragraphs below.

Process Type.

EPA is defining a process type as a broad group of manufacturing steps used at a facility associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG emissions and fluorinated GHG usages are calculated and reported. The process types are plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning.

As defined in the final rule, the plasma etching process type consists of any production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively remove materials that have been deposited on a substrate during electronics manufacturing. Also as defined in the final rule, the wafer cleaning process type consists of any production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at any step during production.

Process Sub-type.

EPA is defining a process sub-type as a set of similar manufacturing steps, more closely related within a broad process type. (For clarity, EPA is referring to what was previously termed process categories in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652) as process sub-types).

In situ plasma process sub-type

consists of the cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma generated inside the chamber where the films are produced.

Remote plasma process sub-type

consists of the cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., upstream) plasma source.

In situ thermal process sub-type

consists of the cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside the chamber where one or more thin films are produced.

Production Process Recipe (Recipe).

EPA has included definitions of “individual recipe” and “similar” with respect to recipes in this final rule as an aid to understanding the portions of the rule where a facility is required or allowed to calculate emissions on a recipe-specific basis. The final rule uses the term “individual recipe” to refer to a specific combination of gases, under specific conditions of reactor temperature, pressure, flow, radio frequency (RF) power and duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a specific film or substrate. EPA is also introducing the term “similar,” with respect to recipes, to refer to recipes that are composed of the same set of chemicals and have the same flow stabilization times and where the documented differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure, individual gas flow rates, and applied RF power are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percent. For purposes of comparing and documenting recipes that are similar, facilities may use either the best known method provided by an equipment manufacturer or the process of record, for which emission factors for either have been measured (see the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for supporting information). Generally, where facilities develop recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates, they may apply the utilization and by-product formation rates developed for an individual recipe to any “similar recipe.

”

To be included in a set of similar recipes for the purposes of this subpart, a recipe must be similar to the recipe in the set for which recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates have been measured.

Electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate and report emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at the facility by adhering to typologies discussed and defined earlier in this section, as appropriate, and using the following methods based on the use of (1) Gas consumption, and (2) emission factors for fluorinated-GHG utilization and by-product formation rates. Where facilities are required to estimate and calculate emissions for sub-types or recipes, they are also required to report those emissions in aggregate by process type.

The required methods are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble. EPA is naming the methodologies described below using a format similar to that used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. While EPA's methodologies may be viewed generally as an extension from and building upon the IPCC's methods, EPA's approach is distinct in terms of its applicability and level of detail.

Table 3—Summary of Final Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities To Estimate and Report Fluorinated GHG Emissions From Etching and Cleaning Processes

Product manufactured

Manufactured wafer size

Annual capacity

Required methodology

Optional methodology

PV, MEMS, LCDs

Modified Tier 2b—Use EPA default emission factors

for plasma etching and chamber cleaning process types.

Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production processes that use fluorinated GHGs.

Semiconductors

300 mm and smaller

Less than or equal to 10,500 m

of substrate

Tier 2c—Use EPA default emission factors for plasma etching, chamber cleaning (including in-situ plasma cleaning, remote plasma cleaning, in-situ thermal cleaning sub-types), and wafer cleaning process types.

Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production processes that use fluorinated GHGs.

Semiconductors

300 mm and smaller

Greater than 10,500 m

of substrate

Tier 2d—Use EPA default emission factors for chamber cleaning (including in-situ plasma cleaning, remote plasma cleaning, in-situ thermal cleaning sub-types), and wafer cleaning process types, and recipe-specific emission factors for plasma etching.

Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production processes that use fluorinated GHGs.

Semiconductors

Larger than 300 mm

Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production processes that use fluorinated GHG.

None.

Manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.

These emission factors are consistent with emission factors published in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Where default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular fluorinated GHG and process type or sub-type combination, a facility must either use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0 or use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors using the procedures of this subpart.

Gas Consumption

Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the following methods to calculate and apportion fluorinated GHG consumption:

• Total annual gas consumption, for all fluorinated GHGs, calculated using the facility's purchase records, disbursements, gas container inventories, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors.

• Total annual gas consumption apportioning factors developed using facility-specific engineering models based on quantifiable metrics (i.e., a metric that is proportional to gas usage) of fluorinated GHG-using activity. Facilities must document these models in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 CFR 98.3) and verify them. At a minimum, facilities must verify and document the information listed in 40 CFR 98.94(c) and 40 CFR 98.97(c), respectively. This information must be updated each reporting year.

Fluorinated GHG Utilization and By-Product Formation Rates (Emission Factors)

Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the following methods for applying (and in some cases, developing) fluorinated GHG emission factors, as appropriate. Where a facility uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, rather than calculate emissions using an emission factor, they may report the emissions of that gas as equal to consumption.

Facilities That Manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV

Facilities that manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV are required to calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions from two process types: Plasma etching and chamber cleaning. These facilities are required to use default emission factors presented in Tables I-5, I-6, or I-7 to subpart I for MEMS, LCDs, PV, respectively. EPA is using the term “Modified Tier 2b Method” to refer to this methodology.

A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors in lieu of defaults for all production processes that use fluorinated GHGs only if the recipe-specific emission factors are measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.

The facility must develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that a factor developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma etching and chamber cleaning). In addition, where a facility reports using recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched.

EPA is permitting facilities to use emission factors measured using the 2001 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR, provided the emissions factors were measured prior to January 1, 2007. Documentation for the measurements is required.

A facility that is using a method based on default emission factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type for which default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or I-7, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0 or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.

The facility must develop and report the recipe-specific emission factors using the same procedures as discussed in the paragraph above.

See footnote 6.

With the exception of where default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular process type, EPA is prohibiting a facility from creating and using a hybrid method to ensure consistent methods of calculating and reporting emissions. This means that a single facility must choose between using only default emission factors or using recipe-specific emission factors for all process types; hybrid methods using both default emission factors and recipe-specific factors within the same reporting year are not permitted. This restriction will enable EPA to analyze emissions and trends using a consistent set of data.

Facilities That Manufacture Semiconductors

EPA is requiring facilities that manufacture semiconductors to use a method to calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions which varies depending on the size of wafers that the facility is manufacturing (i.e., whether the facility manufactures wafers measuring 300 mm and less or greater than 300 mm). This distinction was proposed in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652). For facilities that manufacture wafers measuring 300 mm and less, EPA is requiring the use of one of two following methods for calculating and reporting emissions, depending on the facility's manufacturing capacity: (1) A method for facilities that have an annual manufacturing capacity that is less than or equal to 10,500 m

of substrate, and (2) a method for those

that have an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 m

of substrate. A facility's manufacturing capacity (as calculated using Equation I-5 of subpart I) is 100 percent of the maximum designed substrate starts, expressed as surface area, for the reporting year. This distinction in manufacturing capacity was part of EPA's initial April 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 16448).

Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter and That Have an Annual Manufacturing Capacity of Less Than or Equal to 10,500 m

of Substrate

Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and that have an annual manufacturing capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m

of substrate

must calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions using the following five process types and sub-types, and the corresponding default emission factors presented in Tables I-3 and I-4 to subpart I:

As calculated in Equation I-5 of subpart I, manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.

• Plasma etching process type.

• Chamber cleaning process type which includes the following three process sub-types:

—In-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.

—Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.

—In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type.

• Wafer cleaning process type.

Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300 mm wafer technologies. The default emission factors were developed using the data provided in Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term “Tier 2c Method” to refer to this methodology.

A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors for each individual recipe or recipe that is not a similar recipe in lieu of defaults only if the recipe-specific emission factors are measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.

The facility must develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that factors developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop recipe-specific emission factors only for new recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In addition, where a facility reports using recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched.

See footnote 6.

A facility that is using a method based on default emission factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type or sub-type for which default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-3 and I-4, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0 or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.

The facility must develop and report the recipe-specific emission factors using the same procedures as discussed in the paragraph above.

See footnote 6.

With the exception of where default emission factors are not provided in the Tables I-3 and I-4 for a particular process type or sub-type, a facility must use either default emission factors only, or recipe-specific emission factors only for all process types and sub-types; creating and using a hybrid method is not permitted for the reasons discussed earlier in this section.

Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter and That Have an Annual Manufacturing Capacity of Greater Than 10,500 m

of Substrate

Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and that have an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 m

of substrate (the “largest” semiconductor manufacturing facilities)

must calculate and report their emissions using a combination of default emission factors and directly measured recipe-specific emission factors.

EPA estimates that the largest semiconductor facilities comprise 29 facilities out of 175 total semiconductor facilities. See the Electronics Manufacturing TSD available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for EPA's analysis.

For the following four process types and sub-types, facilities must calculate emissions using only the default emission factors in Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I:

• Chamber cleaning process type:

—In-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.

—Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.

—In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type.

• Wafer cleaning process type.

Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300 mm wafer technologies. These emission factors, which are the same emission factors as specified for the Tier 2c method, were developed using the data provided in Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term “Tier 2d Method” to refer to this methodology.

For the plasma etching process type, facilities must calculate emissions using only directly measured recipe-specific emission factors. The facility must develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that factors developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year. Plasma etching recipe-specific emission factors must be measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exemptions.

Facilities must also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the total emissions by plasma etching process type. In addition, the facility is required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched for recipes used.

See footnote 6.

A facility also has the option of using directly measured recipe-specific emission factors in lieu of default emission factors for the chamber and wafer cleaning process types, but only if the recipe-specific factors are measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.

specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the recipe-specific approach for the chamber and wafer cleaning process types must also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the total emissions by those process types. In addition, where a facility reports using recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched.

See footnote 6.

The facility must develop and report the recipe-specific emission factors using the same procedures as discussed in the paragraph above.

See footnote 6.

With the exception of where default emission factors are not provided in the Tables I-3 and I-4 for a particular process type or sub-type, a hybrid method using both default emission factors and recipe-specific factors for the chamber cleaning and wafer cleaning process types within the same reporting year is not permitted for reasons discussed earlier in this section.

Semiconductor Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers Measuring Greater Than 300 mm in Diameter

Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter, regardless of capacity, must calculate and report all of their emissions from processes that use fluorinated GHGs (including plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning process types) using directly measured recipe-specific emission factors (i.e., an approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 methodology). EPA is using the term “Tier 3 Method” to refer to this methodology. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year. Emission factors must be measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.

Facilities must also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In addition, each facility is required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched for recipes used.

See footnote 6.

O Emissions:

Electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate emissions of N

O using:

• Requirements for calculating and apportioning gas consumption as outlined above for “Fluorinated GHG Emissions.”

• Production process emission factors for chemical vapor deposition and other electronics manufacturing processes using either defaults provided in Table I-8 to subpart I or facility-specific N

O emission factors based on facility measurements of N

O. Emission factors must be measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.

Where a facility uses less than 50 kg of N

O in one reporting year, rather than calculate emissions using an emission factor, they may report the emissions as equal to consumption.

See footnote 6.

Heat Transfer Fluid Emissions:

Electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate and report emissions from heat transfer fluids using a mass balance approach.

Reporting Controlled Emissions from Abatement Systems:

Electronics manufacturing facilities that wish to calculate and report controlled fluorinated GHG and N

O emissions from the use of abatement systems must certify that their abatement systems are installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications, as well as account for uptime of abatement systems.

Facilities must calculate controlled emissions from abatement systems using either:

In the final rule, EPA is defining controlled emissions as the quantity of emissions that are released to the atmosphere after application of an emission control device (e.g., abatement system).

• Destruction or removal efficiencies based on a default value of 60 percent. This approach requires certification that the abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N

O abatement. A facility must support its certification that the abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N

O abatement by documenting the suppliers specifications; or

• Directly measured destruction or removal efficiencies measured in accordance with EPA's Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA's DRE Protocol), Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These destruction or removal efficiencies must be measured at a frequency specified by EPA's random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP).

Best Available Monitoring Methods.

EPA is allowing electronics manufacturing facilities to use Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) through June 30, 2011 for this source category without submitting a request. The owner or operator must use the calculation methodologies and equations in the Calculating GHG Emissions section of subpart I (40 CFR 98.93), but may use BAMM for any parameter for which it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring equipment in a facility, or to procure measurement services from necessary providers. EPA is allowing facilities to use BAMM for 6 months based on EPA's experience implementing the Final MRR issued in October 2009 and because it has determined that some electronics manufacturing facilities may need additional time to comply with the requirements in the final rule.

Facilities wishing to extend the use of BAMM beyond the initial 6-month period, but no later than December 31, 2011, must submit a petition to EPA by February 28, 2011. Requests for BAMM extensions must include detailed explanations and supporting documentation to describe why it is not reasonably feasible for the facility to comply with the required provisions. In general, extension requests must include detailed descriptions and evidence that it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring equipment in a facility, or to procure necessary measurement services from providers by July 1, 2011.

Where a facility is required to estimate emissions using recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates for the plasma etching process type (i.e., the Tier 2d method) and they are unable to develop those factors, EPA is requiring the facility to provide reasons why it is not reasonably feasible to obtain, install, or operate the needed equipment, or to procure necessary measurement services, before December 31, 2011 (in lieu of July 1, 2011) because recipe-specific emission factors may be measured at any time during the reporting year. These facilities must

submit a petition to EPA by June 30, 2011.

BAMM extension requests must also document the facility's efforts to comply with the requirements and explain the best available monitoring method that the facility will use, should EPA approve the request.

EPA is requiring that if a facility is allowed to use BAMM in 2011 the facility must recalculate and resubmit 2011 emissions with their report for the 2012 reporting year (to be submitted in 2013). For example, such a facility having been granted BAMM may use a default etch emission factor to calculate and report its 2011 emissions. This facility must then recalculate and report its 2011 emissions with its 2012 report. Where a facility is allowed to use BAMM for apportioning gas consumption it is not required to verify its 2011 engineering model with its recalculated report.

EPA does not anticipate approving the use of BAMM beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the right to approve any such requests submitted by June 30, 2011 for unique and extreme circumstances which include safety, technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or Federal regulations. Facilities requesting BAMM past December 31, 2011 would have to submit similar documentation to support the request as was required for BAMM requests in 2011. In addition, these facilities would be required to describe the unique and extreme circumstances which necessitate the extended use of BAMM. Facilities allowed to use BAMM through 2012 would be required to recalculate and resubmit their 2012 emissions. The recalculated emissions must be reported with the 2013 report (submitted in 2014). Where a facility is allowed to use BAMM for apportioning gas consumption it is not required to verify its 2012 engineering model with its recalculated report.

Data Reporting.

In addition to the information required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must annually submit additional data used to calculate GHG emissions and consumption. A list of the specific data to be reported for this source category is contained in 40 CFR 98.96.

Recordkeeping.

In addition to the records required by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of additional data used to calculate GHG emissions and consumption. A list of specific records that must be retained for this source category is included in 40 CFR 98.97.

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

The major changes in this rule since the April 2010 proposal are identified in the following list. The rationales for these, and the identification of and rationale for other significant changes to the proposed rule can be found below or in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Relevant comments on EPA's initial April 2009 proposal for electronics manufacturing are included below or in the Response to Comment Document. In addition to the changes identified below, EPA reorganized sections of the proposed regulatory text and made editorial changes to improve clarity and readability.

Definition of the source category:

• EPA has clarified that semiconductors include, among others, light-emitting diodes (LEDs). As explained in more detail in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing,” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927), LEDs are a semiconductor light source. When a LED is switched on, electrons are able to recombine with holes within the device, releasing energy in the form of light whose color is governed by the nature of the semiconductor. Many LEDs are manufactured on a wafer (usually different than silicon) using methods that are similar to the manufacture of integrated circuits.

Reporting threshold:

• EPA has clarified what manufacturing capacity of a facility means by providing a new equation (Equation I-5 of this rule) in the final rule that specifies manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period. EPA has also provided a definition of maximum designed substrate starts.

Calculating GHG emissions:

• EPA has revised the requirements for semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter to calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions from etching and cleaning process types. In the final rule, EPA is requiring these facilities to use one of two different methodologies, depending on the manufacturing capacity of the facility.

• EPA has modified the requirement for semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter to require those facilities that have an annual manufacturing capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m

of substrate to calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions based on five process types and sub-types, as opposed to nine emitting process sub-types as proposed in the April 2010 rule. These facilities must calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions from the etching process type, the chamber cleaning process type and its associated sub-types (in-situ plasma, remote plasma, in-situ thermal), and the wafer cleaning process type. The five process types and sub-types are differentiated by two wafer technologies (150/200 mm and 300 mm wafer size). EPA is using the term “Tier 2c” to refer to this methodology. EPA is combining default emission factors for 150 mm and 200 mm wafer technologies because EPA did not have sufficient measured emissions data to establish different factors for these two technologies. For each of these process types and associated sub-types, EPA provides default emission factors accounting for (1) The mass fraction of the input gas that is utilized during manufacturing (i.e., not emitted from the process type or sub-type), and (2) the mass of each reportable fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a fraction of the mass of the fluorinated GHG input gas with the largest mass flow used.

• EPA has added provisions to require the largest semiconductor facilities (defined as facilities with annual capacities of greater than 10,500 m

of substrate) to calculate and report their emissions from the plasma etching process type using directly measured recipe-specific emission factors, while using EPA's default emission factors for chamber cleaning sub-types, and for the wafer cleaning process type. EPA is using the term “Tier 2d” to refer to this hybrid methodology. All emission factors (utilization and by-product formation rates) for the etch processes are required to be measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, with limited exceptions.

See footnote 6.

The requirement for semiconductor manufacturing facilities to calculate their emissions using process-specific process utilization and by-product formation rates (i.e., recipe-specific emission factors) was originally proposed in EPA's initial April 2009 proposal (74 FR 16448). In that proposed rule, EPA proposed to require the large semiconductor manufacturing

facilities to calculate and report emissions from all fluorinated GHG using processes using such an approach. Further, in EPA's April 2010 proposal (75 FR 18652), EPA proposed, as an alternative to the Refined Method, to require all semiconductor manufacturing facilities to estimate and report using recipe-specific emission factors.

EPA's “Refined Method” as proposed in April 2010 (75 FR 18652) is based on nine process sub-types under the etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning process types (four etching process sub-types, three chamber cleaning process sub-types, and two wafer cleaning process sub-types) and EPA-published default emission factors.

• EPA clarified the requirement for recipe-specific measurements to facilitate the implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier 3 methods. EPA provided definitions of “individual recipe” and “similar” with respect to recipes. For recipe-specific emission factors, rather than requiring each and every individual recipe to be measured, EPA is permitting a facility to apply one measured recipe-specific emission factor to a group of “similar recipes.” In a given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year. In addition, where a facility reports using recipe-specific emission factors, EPA is requiring that they report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched.

Monitoring and QA/QC requirements:

• EPA has modified the procedures by which facilities must develop gas consumption apportioning factors. In the final rule, facilities must apportion gas consumption using facility-specific engineering models based on quantifiable metrics of activity. Facilities must verify these models as specified by EPA in 40 CFR 98.96(c) and document them in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 CFR 98.3). EPA will permit the use of facility-specific gas apportionment models based on quantifiable metrics, such as wafer pass or wafer starts, provided the facility documents and verifies the model. As part of these new requirements, EPA has added definitions for actual gas consumption, modeled gas consumption, repeatable, and wafer starts. Further, EPA has clarified that all electronics manufacturing facilities must apportion consumption of fluorinated GHGs and N

O used at a facility using the apportioning methods outlined in the final rule.

• EPA has revised the requirement to recalculate gas- and facility-specific heel factors. EPA is requiring facilities to recalculate gas- and facility-specific heel factors if the trigger point for change out used to establish a gas- and facility-specific heel factor differs by more than 5 percent, expressed as a percent of the previously used trigger point for change out. To clarify requirements to develop gas- and facility-specific heel factors, EPA has added a definition for trigger point for change out.

EPA made this revision in response to comments received on its proposal. EPA agrees with commenters that asserted the proposed requirement to recalculate the heel factor when the percentage change from the original trigger point exceeded 1 percent was too burdensome. Please refer to “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for additional information on EPA's rationale.

• EPA has added equations specifying how to calculate uptime and how to account for uptime in DREs for abatement systems where a facility is calculating and reporting controlled emissions. EPA has also modified how uptime is calculated by defining an “operational mode” for abatement systems and removing the reference to SEMI Standard E-10-0304

, Specification for Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability.

• EPA has modified the Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) provisions for subpart I to allow electronics manufacturing facilities to use BAMM through June 30, 2011 without submitting a request to EPA. Facilities wishing to extend the use of BAMM beyond the initial 6-month period, but no later than December 31, 2011, must submit a petition to EPA by February 28, 2011 (or June 30, 2011 where a facility is requesting the use of BAMM for recipe-specific emission factors for the plasma etching process type). EPA anticipates facilities will need to use best available monitoring methods only under limited circumstances. See Section II.D.1 of this preamble for additional information about the BAMM provisions.

Based on comments received on EPA's proposed rules (i.e., EPA's April 2009 and April 2010 proposed rules for electronics manufacturing) regarding the complexities perceived in implementing the methods contained in the final rule, EPA has concluded that some electronics manufacturing facilities may need additional time to fully meet the requirements finalized in this rule. However, EPA expects all electronics manufacturing facilities will be prepared to fully comply with this rule's requirements no later than year-end 2011. Therefore, extension of BAMM provisions beyond 2011 would only be granted in unique and extreme circumstances which include safety, technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or Federal regulations. For a more detailed discussion on EPA's rationale, see “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

3. Summary of Comments and Responses

This section contains a brief summary of major comments and responses. A large number of comments were received on this subpart covering numerous topics. Responses to additional significant comments received can be found in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

Comment:

EPA received a broad range of comments stating that the initial and revised methodologies for calculating GHG emissions in subpart I were overly burdensome and costly. For example, with respect to EPA's revised proposal (75 FR 18652, April 2010), commenters asserted that the requirements for apportioning of gas usage without the use of “engineering judgment” would require the development of complex software systems and monitoring of activity data at a level of detail that would be costly and time-intensive. In another example, in regards to EPA's initial proposal (74 FR 16448, April 2009), commenters argued that the direct measurement requirement would result in high costs associated with the development of process-specific gas utilization and by-product formation factors for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities.

Response:

EPA considered all of these comments, and evaluated alternative methods for calculating GHG emissions for electronics manufacturing, controlled and uncontrolled. EPA considered alternative methods that would result in reduced burden on industry while maintaining or improving the quality and breadth of reported data. EPA also considered the gaps in the available emission factor knowledge base and has implemented a method to gain additional data to improve EPA's efforts to characterize the sector's GHG emissions.

EPA has made every effort to reduce burden to the industry while maintaining requirements that it has determined are necessary to obtain facility-specific emission estimates. For example, based on comments received, EPA has revised the gas apportioning method to allow for the use of quantifiable metrics other than wafer passes. In the final rule, facilities will be allowed to develop apportioning factors based on other quantifiable metrics provided the method is described in writing, is repeatable, and is verified through comparison with actual gas consumption. This approach provides facilities flexibility in the choice of apportioning methods and assures a high degree of data quality. Additional details on the gas apportioning method are described in this Section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments and Responses) of the preamble.

As another means to reduce burden to the industry, EPA is only requiring the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to calculate and report emissions using directly measured recipe-specific emission factors, ensuring that burden is commensurate with potential to emit. The largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities account for nearly two-thirds of uncontrolled emissions while accounting for less than 20 percent of all facilities expected to report under subpart I. In addition, the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities are only required to directly measure etch process emissions. Etch processes are the least understood of the electronics manufacturing processes in terms of GHG emissions, and EPA lacks sufficient data to establish default emission factors for multiple etch processes. Lastly, in the final rule, EPA is also allowing the use of “similar recipe” emission factors to reduce the number and burden of direct measurements required.

Additional details on steps taken to reduce the burden are described in this section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments and Responses) and in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

In general, while commenters asserted that EPA's proposed requirements were too burdensome and costly, comments lacked sufficient quantitative detail or substantiation. However, in response to concerns that EPA did not fully account for compliance costs in its economic analysis, EPA did update its costs estimates to reflect the costs associated with the requirements finalized in the rule. EPA has concluded that its final cost estimates appropriately account for the compliance burden under this rule. For details on how EPA developed its final costs for this rule, please see Sections 4 & 5 of the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

Method for Calculating GHG Emissions

Comment:

While some commenters supported EPA's intent for the Refined Method to gather representative and accurate facility level emissions estimates, they argued that the Refined Method itself was not supported for several reasons.

Commenters asserted that the Refined Method stemmed from a technically flawed uncertainty analysis and apparent misunderstandings of current process realities. Commenters also stated that extending the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b etch category (“process type”) from one to four refined categories (“sub-types”) was not justified given the limited data available for developing emissions factors. Several commenters suggested that etch emission factors could be developed through another process (i.e., not part of the rule) such as through the existing Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the semiconductor industry.

As an alternative to EPA's Refined Method, many commenters suggested an “Alternative Refined Method,” that they argued would achieve greater accuracy than the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method and would avoid uncertainty issues created by EPA's Refined Method.

See footnote 19.

Since 1996, EPA has maintained a partnership with the U.S. semiconductor industry, EPA's PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry. As part of the Partnership, semiconductor facilities have committed to reduce fluorinated GHG emissions by at least 10 percent below the industry's 1995 baseline level by year-end 2010.

The “Alternative Refined Method,” as described in comments, would be comprised of five process types and sub-types, which include: The three chamber clean sub-types (remote plasma clean, in-situ plasma clean, and in-situ thermal clean), the wafer cleaning process type, and one process type for all etch processes. Commenters suggested that this method would be superior to EPA's proposed Refined Method in terms of accuracy and cost.

One commenter stated that the use of EPA's Refined Method to estimate emissions would result in less accurate emission data as compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 Method. This commenter encouraged EPA to require the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all semiconductor facilities given the need for accurate data and the significant emissions from this sector, but argued that at a minimum EPA should rely on Tier 3 estimation for “large facilities,” as it did in its initial proposal.

Response:

In general, EPA agrees with commenters that stated the available data as of the proposal was sufficient to establish default emissions factors for multiple chamber clean process sub-types, but insufficient to support establishing default emission factors for multiple etch process sub-types. EPA did not receive enough additional data during the comment period to address this insufficiency.

Accordingly, EPA is not establishing default emissions factors for etch sub-types in this final rule. EPA also agrees with the commenter that stated an estimation approach based on the IPCC Tier 3 method would result in the most accurate data. However, EPA is mindful of the burden that would be imposed by requiring all covered facilities to use an approach based on the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all emissions.

In its proposed rule (75 FR 18652, April 2010), for each emission factor for the nine proposed process categories, EPA published a range of values. EPA proposed a range of values because it had not received sufficient data to select a specific value within each range. Based on additional information received after publication of the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability where it made available to the public draft default emission factors for semiconductor manufacturing refined process categories (75 FR 26904, May 2010). As of publication of this final rule, EPA has not received additional data (i.e., utilization and by-product formation rates).

In this final rule, EPA is requiring semiconductor facilities to calculate and report fluorinated emissions by adhering to one of three different emission estimation methodologies, depending on the wafer size manufactured and the facility's manufacturing capacity.

These requirements are presented in section II.D.1 (Summary of the Final Rule) of this preamble and summarized in Table 3 of this preamble. EPA has determined that the requirements in the final rule effectively balance EPA's objectives with an appropriate level of burden to industry.

As calculated in Equation I-5 of this rule, manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.

In response to comments received on EPA's proposed methodology for semiconductor manufacturing facilities, EPA undertook another analysis to evaluate the uncertainty associated with emission estimation methods. Specific information on the analysis can be

found in the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). In summary, results from this exercise showed (a) emissions estimated with a Tier 2b method are understated, (b) more facility-level, emissions-relevant information would permit an uncertainty analysis to be performed with more meaningful and robust results, and (c) moving from the use of a default factor(s) for etch sub-types to the use of recipe-specific measurements appears to increase certainty in emission calculations. These results support the methodology finalized in the final rule.

Given the current lack of available facility-level gas usage and emission information for etching in particular, and EPA's need for increased accuracy in emission estimates relative to the 2006 Tier 2b method, EPA is requiring that the largest semiconductor facilities estimate and report recipe-specific emission factors for all etch processes. EPA views the generation of such data as essential to improving future efforts to characterize this sector's GHG emissions.

While EPA recognizes that more than half of the gas consumed in semiconductor manufacturing is for chamber cleaning, EPA also recognizes that most of the variability in gas consumption, and hence emissions, across many facilities is found for recipes used under the plasma etch process type. Etch recipes utilize many gases (approximately six or more either alone or in combination) with varying GWPs. Process recipes vary between facilities because they are a crucial part of company competitiveness and innovation.

While EPA is finalizing the Tier 2c method for some semiconductor facilities (i.e., not the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities) and has determined that it is an improvement over the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method, EPA maintains that estimating emissions based on process sub-types for etch with robust default factors would result in more accurate facility-level emission estimates as compared to estimating emissions using a single broad etch process type. To this end, in future years, EPA may evaluate the recipe-specific emission factors received through this final rule to determine whether a sufficiently robust data set exists to establish default emission factors for plasma etching process sub-types. In the future, EPA may consider requiring the semiconductor facilities that will be using a default emission factor for the etch process type under this final rule to estimate and report emissions using an approach based on multiple etch and chamber clean process sub-types similar to the Refined Method EPA proposed in April 2010.

EPA is requiring only the largest facilities to report recipe-specific emission factors for etching processes, rather than requiring all semiconductor facilities to report all etch processes regardless of capacity, or requiring the largest facilities to report all process emissions using recipe-specific emission factors, because EPA has concluded that this approach minimizes burden to industry. Further, this requirement ensures that the burden associated with reporting is proportional to the magnitude of a facility's potential emissions.

EPA selected 10,500 m

of substrate as the threshold for large facilities because facilities above this threshold are expected to account for nearly two-thirds of uncontrolled emissions while accounting for less than 20 percent of all facilities expected to report under subpart I. Based on EPA's analysis, the expected number of the “largest” facilities is 29 of the 175 total facilities. EPA originally proposed this distinction (i.e., facilities with an annual manufacturing capacity of greater than 10,500 m

) in its initial proposal for semiconductor manufacturing facilities (75 FR 18652, April 2009). In response to EPA's proposal, some commenters stated that in the semiconductor industry, “large” facilities do not inherently have higher emissions of fluorinated GHGs. These commenters noted that beginning with the second generation of 200 mm facilities, transitions to NF

remote cleans and deployment of point of use abatement resulted in significantly lower emissions as compared to older facilities. In response, while EPA acknowledges qualitative reports on second generation 200 mm wafer facilities adopting NF

remote plasma cleans and point of use abatement systems as presented in comments, it is unaware of published studies that quantitatively document the market penetration of either NF

remote plasma source (RPS) or point of use fluorinated GHG abatement systems in those facilities.

In the final rule, EPA is also clarifying what meets the requirement for recipe-specific measurements to facilitate implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier 3 methods. EPA recognizes a facility may employ potentially hundreds of recipes. Therefore, as a means to reduce burden for facilities that are required or elect to develop recipe-specific measurements, EPA is permitting a facility to apply the same emission factor to a group of “similar recipes.” In this regard, once a facility develops a recipe-specific emission factor for an individual recipe, it may apply that emission factor to recipes that are similar. This provision allows a facility to measure fewer manufacturing processes to develop the emission factors required for Tier 2d and Tier 3, thereby reducing burden in comparison to a more stringent approach which would require measurements for each and every individual recipe used at a facility. As another means to reduce burden EPA is clarifying that in a given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year.

EPA is defining an individual recipe as a specific combination of gases, under specific conditions of reactor temperature, pressure, flow, RF power, and duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a specific film or substrate. EPA is defining similar, with respect to recipes, as those recipes that are composed of the same set of chemicals and have the same flow stabilization times and where the documented differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure, individual gas flow rates, and applied RF power are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percent. For purposes of comparing and documenting recipes that are similar, facilities may use either the best known method provided by an equipment manufacturer or the process of record, for which emission factors for either have been measured (see the Electronics Manufacturing TSD for supporting information).

Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements

Comment:

Many commenters voiced concerns regarding the burden associated with EPA's proposed requirement to measure DRE of abatement equipment in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol, (EPA 430-R-10-003). Some commenters also argued the required frequency of measurements in the proposed random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP) is overly burdensome and unnecessary.

With respect to EPA's requirement to measure DRE in accordance with EPA's Protocol, commenters noted few facilities have characterized the DRE of installed abatement systems using EPA's DRE Protocol because the Protocol was published in 2010. One commenter requested that EPA permit the use of measurements made prior to the publication of EPA's DRE Protocol as long as the facility can demonstrate the measurements were based on test

methods substantially similar to those outlined in EPA's Protocol. In addition to providing comments on the required use of the DRE Protocol, commenters also requested that EPA allow the use of CF

as a tracer to determine dilution when an abatement system is in “low fire” and that EPA permit the use of a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) without the additional use of Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy (QMS).

In regards to EPA's proposed RSASTP, many commenters asserted that the burden placed on facilities to comply with the RSASTP is not necessary. One commenter noted that that RSASTAP is an excessive burden as large facilities may have hundreds of abatement systems. Further, commenters argued that new abatement systems should not be required to be tested as long as the facility has installed, operated, and maintained the equipment properly. Some commenters asserted that testing should be required only for new models of abatement systems that are not simply a variant of an existing system used at a facility. Other commenters also suggested alternative testing regimes to the RSASTP that would place most of the DRE measurement burden in the early years of testing.

Response:

In general, EPA does not agree with commenters and is finalizing the requirements for measurement of abatement DRE using EPA's DRE Protocol and for the testing frequency described in the RSASTP.

EPA is finalizing the requirement that facilities measure abatement system DREs in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol because it will ensure that measured DREs are accurate through properly accounting for dilution and by meeting EPA's established performance standard (as specified in EPA's DRE Protocol). EPA's DRE Protocol is the only protocol (i.e., standard measurement method, not guideline) that exists to date for measuring DREs of abatement equipment used in electronics manufacturing. EPA's DRE Protocol is reliable because it was based upon and validated by actual experience and data collection in fully operational manufacturing facilities during multiple measurement studies performed by EPA in collaboration with industry.

EPA's DRE Protocol has been through two public peer review processes over the course of two years and is based on input from national and international industry experts. For documentation of the comments received during these peer reviews, and EPA's response, please refer to the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

For more information about the three studies, please see the following reports:

Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with IBM

(EPA 430-R-10-004);

Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with NEC Electronics, Inc.

(EPA 430-R-10-005); and

Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with Qimonda

(EPA 430-R-08-017).

It is important to clarify that EPA is not specifically prohibiting the use of previously measured DREs; a facility may use previously measured DREs provided the facility can demonstrate that the measurements were made in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol. EPA's DRE Protocol permits flexibility in measurement practices provided the measurements achieve a performance standard that, among other things, ensures dilution is properly measured.

EPA does not wholly prohibit the use of CF

as a tracer in the DRE Protocol. Specifically, with respect to measuring systems that do not abate CF

and/or SF

EPA's DRE Protocol states, “In such systems, CF

or SF

can be used in place of an inert gas since their DREs are zero percent. Table 2 of the Protocol provides a list of acceptable gases for measuring total abatement system flows, along with their use conditions.” As discussed in this excerpt, EPA's DRE Protocol does not permit the use of either CF

or SF

as tracer gases in abatement systems designed to abate these gases. Additionally, EPA prohibits use of CF

as a tracer in fluorinated GHG abatement systems operating in “low fire” because reviewers of early drafts of EPA's DRE Protocol made repeated claims that one could not be certain some abatement was not occurring.

EPA does not agree with commenters who suggested that the use of only an FTIR and not a QMS to measure dilution, and hence DREs, should always be permitted. The DRE Protocol permits the use of an FTIR in place of a QMS when tracer gases, such as CF

and SF

, are used in place of an inert gas to measure dilution (provided the abatement system which is being tested does not abate the tracer gas (CF

or SF

)). The DRE Protocol does not permit, however, the use of an FTIR in place of a QMS for measuring dilution with tracers that are inert because while a method that uses FTIR-measurable gases may become available, EPA is not aware of robust measurements that demonstrate such a method.

With respect to EPA's requirement to measure DREs with the frequency prescribed in the RSASTP, EPA does not agree with commenters who suggested the RSASTP is burdensome and unnecessary. Commenters did not provide EPA sufficient information or data to support their claim that the RSASTP is unnecessary. As described below, the RSASTP provides a much less burdensome device measurement scheme when compared to requiring a facility to test all abatement systems used annually, but still allows EPA to ensure a facility has measured DREs accurately and at least once every five years.

EPA considered commenters' concerns about the RSASTP and EPA does not agree with commenters who state that new abatement systems should not be required to be tested as long as the facility has installed, operated, and maintained the equipment properly. Abatement manufacturer specified installation, operation and maintenance practices are based upon the testing and development of abatement systems in controlled settings. When using these systems in actual facility settings, ensuring the proper installation, operation, and maintenance of abatement systems may not always be a means to guarantee that the abatement system will run exactly as abatement manufacturers intended, or that the manufacturer supplied DRE will be achieved. However, EPA is maintaining the requirement for facilities to properly install, operate, and maintain abatement systems according to system manufacturer specifications. This practice is expected to reduce the likelihood of inaccurate estimations of DREs.

Even if abatement systems rely on the same operating principle (e.g., thermal oxidation) and are used to abate the same gases, their performance can vary depending on their operation and maintenance. Thus, maintenance that is adequate for abatement systems in some applications may not be adequate for abatement systems in others (e.g., those that handle high volumes of etched or cleaned material, which can be deposited inside abatement equipment and clog lines).

EPA has concluded that there is a need for gradually testing all of the abatement systems within a class, and for retesting individual abatement systems over time. As EPA stated in the preamble to the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652), some fluorinated GHGs, such as CF

, are harder to destroy than others; thus, the performance of abatement systems with one fluorinated GHG cannot necessarily be assumed to

apply to other fluorinated GHGs. It is well known across the industry that abatement system performance varies greatly depending on a variety of abatement device and process parameters such as temperature, flow and exhaust composition.

As stated by many commenters, facilities develop and ultimately use new processes potentially every year, and the parameters of these processes vary. To this end, by requiring the gradual testing and retesting of abatement systems over time through the RSASTP, EPA can ensure properly measured DREs and DRE class averages used at a facility will accurately reflect controlled emissions. In addition, through the use of the RSASTP, EPA is reducing burden, for instance, for facilities that continually modify their processes. EPA is basing the RSASTP around classes defined as abatement systems grouped by manufacturer model number(s) and by the gas which the system is used to abate; varying process parameters, such as flows, temperature and exhaust composition do not factor into the requirements of the RSASTP.

Beu, L. (2005). “Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC) Emissions: 2005 State-of-the-Technology Report”, TT#0510469AENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), December 2005. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf.

Comment:

In general, most commenters supported the inclusion of a default DRE value, but opposed EPA's proposed default DRE value of 60 percent. Commenters argued EPA's proposed default DRE factor of 60 percent was unreasonably low, in part because the 60 percent default factor was based on CF

destruction data and therefore, should not be applied to other fluorinated GHGs. Commenters noted that CF

is the most stable compound and the most difficult among all fluorinated GHG to destroy and, as a result, it should be addressed separately to avoid significantly overestimating emissions. Further, one commenter asserted that the unreasonably low value for the default DRE penalizes semiconductor manufacturers who have operated voluntarily and in good faith under EPA's MOU and other GHG reduction programs to install and maintain control devices.

See footnote 21.

As an alternative, commenters recommend that IPCC and/or abatement system manufacturer default DREs should be permitted, and potentially discounted by 10 percent to account for differences between field and lab certification conditions. Commenters also suggested that EPA provide additional default factors for C

and other fluorinated GHGs that are easier to abate than CF

One commenter opposed EPA's default DRE value and asserted that default DREs should not be permitted at all because a default DRE does not capture the potentially high variability in DREs across different systems and across similar systems installed at different facilities. In addition, the commenter noted that EPA's default value was based on only 11 actual measured DRE values. The commenter encouraged EPA to require only direct measurement of DREs in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol and disallow any application of a default DRE.

Response:

EPA disagrees with commenters that asserted EPA should permit electronics manufacturing facilities to report controlled emissions from abatement systems using 2006 IPCC default factors or the manufacturer's DRE values, with or without applying a 10 percent discount. As EPA stated in the proposal, EPA is not permitting the use of the IPCC 2006 default factors or the manufacturer's DRE values because once installed, abatement equipment may fail to achieve the IPCC 2006 default or supplier's claimed DRE. DRE performance claimed by equipment suppliers and upon which the 2006 IPCC default factors were based may have been incorrectly measured due to a failure to account for the effects of dilution (e.g., CF

can be off by as much as a factor of up to 10 (Burton, 2007). This understanding is supported by industry assessments as presented in Beu, 2005. As EPA stated in the proposal, the 60 percent default DRE value was calculated using data from measurements assured to properly account for the effects of dilution. In addition, the tested systems were properly installed, operated, and maintained.

EPA is including the option for facilities to use a default DRE in the final rule to permit those facilities that have fluorinated GHG and N

O abatement systems to calculate and report controlled emissions using an approach that is less burdensome than directly measuring abatement systems in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol. The default DRE is based on EPA's practical experience measuring the performance of abatement systems during the development of the DRE Protocol.

Further, for a facility to use the default DRE, they are required to certify that their abatement systems are installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications, and provide certification that the abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N

See footnote 24.

EPA is proud of its extensive collaboration with the semiconductor industry via the PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry.

EPA and its Partners have investigated the origins and magnitude of GHG emissions as well as technologies to minimize this pollution. EPA does not agree with one commenter's claim that the 60 percent default DRE penalizes Partner's facilities. One of many important lessons learned by the Partnership concerns the challenge of properly measuring and maintaining fluorinated GHG abatement system performance. As discussed above, the 60 percent default DRE value is based upon EPA's technical experience studying abatement systems, properly installed, operated and measured in actual production settings.

http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/.

Further, EPA does not agree with commenters' suggestion to apply a 10 percent discount to the manufacturer's DRE values to account for differences between field and lab certification conditions. The 10 percent discount appears arbitrary and was not accompanied by any empirical data. To this end, EPA is not permitting electronics manufacturing facilities to apply a 10 percent discount to manufacturers' DRE values.

EPA agrees with commenters, in principle, that default DRE values could be developed for specific fluorinated GHGs, for example those that are easier to abate than CF

. However, EPA does not have sufficient DRE data for other fluorinated GHGs that were measured using EPA's DRE Protocol and thus assured to properly account for the effects of dilution. Further, commenters did not provide any such data in their comments to the proposed rule. In future years, EPA may consider establishing default DRE values for other fluorinated GHGs and N

O using data received from DRE measurements made in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol.

Comment:

Most commenters opposed EPA's proposed procedures to account for abatement system uptime. Although several commenters agreed that accounting for uptime of abatement systems used at a facility is reasonable, some commenters asserted that EPA's proposed procedures may not reflect actual practices at most facilities.

In some cases, commenters stated that tools and abatement systems are

interlocked (i.e., a tool can not be operated if an abatement device is not operating). As an alternative, commenters suggested that EPA allow facilities to monitor uptime by documenting where abatement systems and production tools are interlocked and recording instances when abatement systems fail.

One commenter asserted that EPA's inclusion, in the uptime calculation procedures, of SEMI Standard E-10-0304

, Specification for Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability was incorrect. The commenter noted that the SEMI Standard E-10-0304

does not include the concept of co-dependent uptime of different equipment in any of its metrics. As a result, the commenter urged EPA to remove the reference to the SEMI standard and to define the appropriate calculation and its individual terms in the regulation unless EPA determines that one of the SEMI E-10-0304

formulas may in fact be used.

Response:

EPA took into consideration all concerns from commenters about the methods by which EPA proposed to calculate uptime of abatement systems. In response, EPA has modified the procedures required for monitoring and accounting for uptime by removing reference to SEMI E-10-0304

because EPA agrees with the commenter that SEMI E-10-0304

does not fit appropriately in this rule. To this end, the final rule allows a facility to calculate an abatement system's uptime by taking the ratio of (1) The total time during which the abatement system is in an operational mode with fluorinated GHGs or N

O flowing through production process tool(s) connected to that abatement system, to (2) the total time during which fluorinated GHGs or N

O are flowing through production process tool(s) connected to that abatement system. Further, EPA has defined operational mode as the time in which an abatement system is being operated within the range of parameters as specified in the operations manual provided by the system manufacturer. For clarification purposes, EPA has also added a discrete equation for calculating uptime into this rule. Lastly, also for clarification, EPA has added an equation that provides direction for facilities to account for uptime in overall facility emissions calculations.

With respect to the commenter who suggested that EPA allow facilities to monitor and track uptime by documenting that tools are interlocked and instances in which abatement systems have failed, EPA appreciates the comment, but is not modifying the uptime requirements as suggested by the commenter. EPA expects facilities with interlocked abatement systems should be able to easily monitor and account for uptime of abatement systems using the methods provided in this rule. Also, EPA is not permitting facilities to use the method suggested by the commenter as this would allow the use of multiple methods to monitor and account for uptime. Where feasible, EPA would like to ensure that facilities are using consistent methods as part of estimating emissions because these methods will create a consistent basis on which to compare industry emissions and will also reduce EPA's administrative burden. Lastly, EPA is requiring detailed monitoring and reporting of uptime because this information will allow EPA to carry out emissions verification to ensure the consistency and accuracy of data collected under this rule.

Comment:

Many commenters expressed concern with EPA's proposed method to apportion gas consumption to the nine sub-types of the Refined Method (previously referred to as refined process categories in the April 2010 proposal) for semiconductor facilities using a quantifiable metric. According to commenters, the proposed method of apportioning gas to the nine process sub-types of the Refined Method using a facility-specific engineering model based on wafer passes is overly burdensome and not currently feasible. More specifically, commenters asserted that because many facilities do not currently track wafer passes, to do so would impose a burden in the form of capital costs for the software needed to collect these data. Some commenters argued that it is not feasible to apportion gas to the nine proposed process sub-types solely based on wafer pass information. For example, one commenter noted that when one recipe is used to etch multiple films in one wafer pass, emissions from the use of that one recipe would fall under multiple process sub-types for etch (which were based on film type). The commenter further stated that because tools do not, and can not, track how much of each gas in the recipe was specifically used for each film etched in that one wafer pass, it is not feasible in this situation to apportion gas based on wafer pass.

In most cases, commenters provided alternative methods for apportioning gas consumption. For example, some commenters suggested more flexible methods in which the apportioning is based on at least one quantifiable indicator and engineering knowledge. Commenters also asserted that apportionment should be determined by the facility and that EPA should not prescribe specific quantifiable indicators for apportioning gas consumption in the final rule.

Response:

EPA appreciates the concerns raised by commenters about EPA's proposed method to apportion facility gas consumption. EPA is sensitive to the burden imposed by the rule and seeks to minimize it when possible without compromising the accuracy of reported emission estimates.

Apportioning gas consumption to process types, process sub-types, or recipes, as defined in 40 CFR 98.98, regardless of the type of electronics manufacturing facility, is an essential part of the emission estimation methodology required by EPA in this subpart. Apportionment is required because emission factors are for specific process types, process sub-types, or recipes, and are based on knowledge of the amount of gas consumed. Requiring facilities to apportion gas consumption based on a metric that is quantifiable and measurable (a metric that is proportional to gas usage) is necessary for EPA to ensure that methods by which gas is apportioned, and hence emissions are estimated, are verifiable and accurate.

In the final rule, to effectively balance commenters' concerns about burden and feasibility with EPA's objectives, EPA has decided to permit the use of facility-specific engineering models based on a quantifiable metric selected by the facility, (such as wafer passes or wafer starts) to apportion gas consumption. Under this final requirement, to develop apportioning factors, facilities must develop an engineering model that utilizes measureable process information.

EPA is not specifying the quantifiable metric that must be used in these models; rather EPA is allowing reporters the flexibility to select the most appropriate quantifiable metric on which to base the facility-specific engineering model, provided model documentation and verification requirements as described below are met.

An apportioning factor denotes the amount of a specific gas consumed during a specific manufacturing process relative to the total amount of that gas used during all processes at the facility.

Documentation:

As part of recordkeeping requirements, EPA is requiring facilities to document, in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 CFR 98.3), specific information about their facility-specific engineering model, including definitions of variables, derivations of

equations and formulas, and example calculations to ensure apportioning factors are repeatable. This information must be updated annually in the facility's site GHG monitoring plan. EPA is requiring this documentation as a means to verify that facility-specific engineering models are developed and then verified and documented each year for each facility, and that the apportioning factors developed from these models are based on a quantifiable metric. EPA is requiring facilities to update model documentation and verification each year to account for changes to tools or process at a facility between reporting periods.

Verification:

EPA is requiring facilities to verify their engineering models used to apportion gas consumption by demonstrating that the results from the model are repeatable

and by comparing the difference between modeled gas usage and actual gas usage. EPA is requiring this comparison to be made yearly for two different gases, one corresponding to the gas used in the largest quantity for etching on a mass basis, and one used in the largest quantity for chamber cleaning on a mass basis during a reporting period, based on the total amount of gas usage measured by a facility. EPA would consider a model as verified when the apportioned plasma etching gas usage as modeled differs from the actual gas usage by less than or equal to 5 percent relative to actual gas consumption, reported to one significant figure using standard rounding conventions. This verification requirement only applies to the comparison for the plasma etching gas, and does not have to be completed for the comparison for the chamber cleaning gas.

Repeatable means that the variables used in the formulas for the facility's engineering model for gas apportioning factors are based on observable and measurable quantities that govern gas consumption rather than engineering judgment about those quantities or gas consumption.

EPA selected a verification standard of 5 percent as a means for a facility to demonstrate to EPA that the uncertainty in modeled estimates of gas usage does not appreciably affect the uncertainty in that facility's reported emissions.

EPA is focusing the verification of facility-specific engineering models on etching because information received in comments

on the proposed rule and from Partner reports from EPA's PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry show that reportable gases used for etching rank second and third in total quantities of usage industry-wide, and have the highest emission factors, which together make gas usage for etching process types a significant contributor to total facility emissions.

Please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for more details on the verification metric.

Refer to comment number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0131.

Although EPA understands that chamber cleaning processes require the largest quantities of gas usage, the emission factors for chamber cleaning are low compared to etching emission factors.

To reduce burden associated with verification, in the final rule, EPA is requiring that gas usage data for verification purposes be collected only for a single 30-day period of operation during which the capacity utilization equals or exceeds 60 percent of the design capacity. EPA selected a 30-day period for model verification to minimize disruptions to normal manufacturing operations while, at the same time, establishing a time period that is sufficiently long and a utilization that is sufficiently high to be representative of facility operations.

E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)

1. Summary of Final Rule

Source Category Definition.

• The fluorinated gas production source category consists of processes that manufacture a fluorinated gas from any raw material or feedstock chemical, except for processes that generate HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22. Producing a fluorinated gas includes the following:

—Producing a fluorinated GHG as defined at 40 CFR 98.410(b).

—The manufacture of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) from any raw material or feedstock chemical, including the manufacture of a CFC or HCFC as an isolated intermediate for use in a process that will result in its transformation either at or outside of the production facility.

• Producing a fluorinated gas does not include the following:

—The reuse or recycling of a fluorinated gas.

—The creation of HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22.

—The creation of intermediates that are created and transformed in a single process with no storage of the intermediates.

—The creation of fluorinated GHGs that are released or destroyed at the production facility before the production measurement at 40 CFR 98.414(a). However, although such release and destruction do not themselves constitute fluorinated gas production, they must be reported when they occur during fluorinated gas production.

Reporters must submit annual GHG reports for facilities that meet applicability criteria in the (General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2)).

GHGs to Report.

For facilities that produce fluorinated gases, report the following:

• CO

, CH

, and N

O combustion emissions from each stationary combustion unit

• The total mass of fluorinated GHG emitted from:

—Each fluorinated gas production process and all fluorinated gas production processes combined.

—Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of a fluorinated gas production process and all such fluorinated gas transformation processes combined.

—Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not part of a fluorinated gas production process or a fluorinated gas transformation process and all such fluorinated gas destruction processes combined.

—Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs in containers (e.g., returned heels).

GHG Emission Calculation and Monitoring.

Reporters must calculate F-GHG emissions for each process as follows:

•

Initial Scoping speciation.

Perform an initial scoping speciation under 40 CFR 98.124(a) to identify all fluorinated GHGs that occur in the process. The deadline for completing the scoping speciation is February 29, 2012.

•

Estimating emissions.

There are two methods for estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated gas production and transformation processes: The mass balance method and the emission factor method.

• Mass balance method.

—

Accuracy and Precision Requirements.

Before using the mass-balance approach to estimate emissions from a process, you must ensure that the process and the equipment and methods used to measure it meet either the error limits specified at 40 CFR 98.123(b) or the requirements specified at 40 CFR 98.124(b)(8).

•

Error limits.

Based on one of the approaches described in the rule, determine the absolute error and the relative error of using the mass balance method to estimate emissions from the process. If these calculations show that use of the mass-balance approach to estimate emissions from the process will result in an absolute error less than or equal to 3,000 metric tons CO

e per year or a relative error less than or equal to 30 percent of the estimated emissions,

then you may use the mass-balance approach to estimate emissions from the process. Otherwise, you must either comply with the alternative to the error limits or use the emission factor (or emission calculation factor) method.

•

Alternative to error limits.

You must ensure that the process, and the equipment and methods used to measure it, meet the following requirements:

• The process must have a total annual throughput of 500,000 mtCO

e or less, where the throughput is defined as the sum of the CO

-weighted masses of the fluorinated GHG reactants, products, and by-products.

• You must measure the masses and concentrations identified in the rule at least weekly, and you must calculate emissions at least weekly.

• You must measure the masses identified in the rule with an accuracy and precision of ±0.2 percent of full scale or better.

• You must measure the concentrations identified in the rule using analytical methods with an accuracy and precision of ±10 percent or better.

—

Mass-balance calculation.

To perform the mass balance calculation, you must track and measure the fluorine-containing compounds that are added to or removed from the process, including reactants, by-products and products, to determine the emissions in terms of fluorine. (Alternatively, you may track the flows of another element, such as carbon, as long as this element is contained in all of the fluorinated GHGs fed into or generated by the process.) To track the fluorine removed from the process and destroyed or recaptured, you must either speciate the contents of the streams removed from the process or you must use analytical methods that measure the total fluorine in these streams.

—To characterize emissions (i.e., divide them among reactants, products, and by-products), you must either assume that all emissions consist of the fluorinated GHG that has the highest GWP among the fluorinated GHGs that occur in more than trace concentrations in the process, or you must possess emission characterization measurements. For process vents that emit more than 25,000 mtCO

e per year, these measurements must include sampling and analysis of emitted streams. For other process vents, these measurements may also include previous measurements, provided the measurements are representative of the current operating conditions of the process, or bench-scale or pilot-scale test measurements representative of the process operating conditions.

• Emission factor (and emission calculation factor) methods.

—For each continuous process vent, perform a preliminary estimate of emissions, considering any controls, using one of the methods outlined below. For any continuous process vent with estimated emissions greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO

e, you must conduct emissions testing to develop an emission factor. For any batch process vent, and for any continuous process vent with estimated emissions less than 10,000 mtCO

e, you have the option to use engineering calculations or assessments to develop an emission calculation factor.

—In the preliminary estimate, account for the demonstrated destruction efficiency and expected downtime of the destruction device, if applicable. Both the expected downtime of the device and the expected activity level for the process must be based on typical recent values unless there is a compelling reason to adopt a different value. If there is such a reason (e.g., introduction of controls for a previously uncontrolled vent), it must be documented in the facility's GHG Monitoring Plan. If your process vent emits one or more fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A, you may use a default global warming potential (GWP) of 2,000 for these fluorinated GHGs, or you may request to use provisional GWPs for these fluorinated GHGs if:

• The fluorinated GHGs are emitted in quantities that, with a default GWP of 2,000, result in total calculated annual emissions equal to or greater than 10,000 mtCO

e for the vent, and

• You possess data and analysis that indicate that the fluorinated GHGs have GWPs that would result in total calculated annual emissions less than 10,000 mtCO

e for the vent.

—For the preliminary estimate, facilities may use the following methods:

• Facilities may use the Emissions Inventory Improvement Process, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2007.

• Facilities may determine the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions from any process vent within the process using the procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i), “National Emission Standards for Pharmaceutical Production,” except as specified in 40 CFR 98.123, paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (b)(1)(i)(B)(4).

• Facilities may use commercial software products that follow chemical engineering principles, including the calculation methodologies in 40 CFR 98.123, paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B).

• Facilities may use previous test results, bench scale, or pilot-scale data, provided they are representative of the current process operating conditions.

• Facilities may use design analysis based on chemical engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or properties.

• Facilities may use maximum flow rate, fluorinated GHG emission rate, concentration, or other relevant parameters specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the process vent.

—

Emission and emission calculation factors for continuous processes:

For continuous process vents with emissions, considering controls, that are greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO

e, conduct emissions testing to determine the site-specific, process vent-specific emissions factor.

• If the vent is controlled and annual emissions bypassing, i.e., not venting to, the control device are less than 10,000 mtCO

e, then you may conduct emissions testing after the control device.

• Otherwise, conduct emissions testing before the control device. You may conduct emissions testing for fluorinated GHG following an acid gas scrubber, if there is no appreciable fluorinated GHG reduction occurring.

—For batch process vents and for continuous process vents with annual emissions of less than 10,000 mtCO

e, either conduct emissions testing or use one of the engineering calculation or assessment methods outlined above (except the approach based on maximum flow rates, concentrations, etc.) to develop the site-specific, process-vent specific emission calculation factor. If and when emissions from a continuous process vent meet or exceed 10,000 mtCO

e (e.g., due to activity increases, process changes, or destruction device malfunctions), you must conduct emissions testing and develop an emission factor for the vent by the end of the following year.

—

Emission and emission calculation factors for batch processes:

For process vents from batch processes, either perform emissions testing as described above or use one of the engineering calculation or assessment methods outlined above (except the approach based on maximum flow rates, concentrations, etc.) to develop the site-

specific, process-vent specific emission calculation factor.

—

All processes:

Determine the emissions factor or the emissions calculation factor using the fluorinated GHG emission rate and the process activity rate.

—The deadline for completing development of emission factors and emission calculation factors is February 29, 2012.

—Estimate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from each process vent using the emission factor or the emission calculation factor and the actual activity data along with the use and uptime of the destruction device.

—Sum the fluorinated GHG emission for all vents in the process.

—If using the emission factor or emission calculation factor approach, estimate emissions from equipment leaks using EPA's Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017). The equipment leak emission estimates may include use of Method 21 for appropriate fluorinated GHGs. Alternatively, use a site-specific leak detection method that you have validated for the fluorinated GHGs (or their surrogates) that occur in the process.

• To establish the destruction efficiency, conduct a performance test or use the destruction efficiency determined during a previous performance test that meets the rule requirements. For certain difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHGs such as CF

, SF

, and saturated PFCs other than CF

, a destruction efficiency must be developed specifically for that compound or for a more difficult-to-destroy surrogate (e.g., CF

may be used as a surrogate for SF

). For other fluorinated GHGs, the destruction efficiency may be developed using any Class 1 compound on the Thermal Stability Rankings List.

• For destruction processes, estimate emissions using the calculation methods in the rule.

• To estimate emissions from venting of container heels in cases where the heels are not recaptured or destroyed, either:

—Weigh each container upon its return to the facility and before venting or

—Develop a representative heel factor for each fluorinated GHG and container size and type and multiply it by the number of containers of that gas and size and type vented annually.

•

Request to use a GWP other than 2,000 for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A.

As noted above, for purposes of the preliminary emissions estimate under the emission factor approach, facilities may request to use a GWP other than 2,000 for fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in Table A-1 to subpart A. Facilities must submit this request by February 28, 2011.

—For each fluorinated GHG that does not have a GWP listed in Table A-1 to subpart A and that constitutes more than one percent by mass of the stream emitted from the vent, the facility must provide the identity of the fluorinated GHG (including its chemical formula), the estimated GWP of the fluorinated GHG, the data and analysis that supports the facility's estimate of the GWP of the fluorinated GHG, and the engineering calculations or assessments and underlying data that demonstrate that the process vent is calculated to emit less than 10,000 mtCO

e only when the proposed provisional GWPs, not the default GWP of 2,000, are used for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A.

—If EPA makes a preliminary determination that the request is complete, that it substantiates each of the provisional GWPs, and that it demonstrates that the process vent is calculated to emit less than 10,000 mtCO

e only when the provisional GWPs, not the default GWP of 2,000, are used for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A, then EPA will publish a notice including a summary of the data and analysis supporting the GWPs. If, after review of public comment on the notice, EPA finalizes its preliminary determination, then EPA will permit the facility to use the provisional GWPs for the preliminary emissions calculations.

•

Best available monitoring methods (BAMM).

We are allowing facilities to use Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) for any parameter that cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements of subpart L. The owner or operator must use the calculation methodologies and equations in the “Calculating GHG emissions” section of subpart L, but may use the best available monitoring method for any parameter for which it is not reasonably feasible to achieve the following by either July 1, 2011 or March 1, 2012 (these dates are discussed further below):

—Acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring equipment.

—Procure services from necessary providers (e.g., contractors specializing in stack testing to support the development of emission factors).

—Gain physical access to make required measurements (e.g., because a measurement requires the installation of a port and it is unsafe to install the port during process operation).

•

BAMM Deadlines.

Facilities may use BAMM to estimate emissions that occur through June 30, 2011 without submitting a request to EPA.

• Facilities wishing to use BAMM to estimate emissions that occur throughout 2011 for parameters other than scoping speciations, emission factors, and emission characterizations must submit a request to EPA by February 28, 2011.

• Facilities wishing to use BAMM to estimate emissions that occur throughout 2011 (or in unique or extreme circumstances, until after that date) for scoping speciations, emission factors, and emission characterizations must submit a petition to EPA by June 30, 2011.

•

Contents of BAMM Extension Requests.

Requests for BAMM extensions must include detailed explanations and supporting documentation to describe why it is not reasonably feasible for the facility to comply with the applicable monitoring requirements. In general, extension requests must include detailed descriptions and evidence that it is not reasonably feasible for the facility to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring equipment, to procure services from necessary providers, or to gain physical access to make required measurements in a facility before July 1, 2011 (for parameters other than scoping speciations, emission factors, and emission characterizations) or March 1, 2012 (for scoping speciations, emission factors, and emission characterizations). BAMM extension requests must also document the facility's efforts to comply with the requirements and explain the BAMM that the facility will use, should EPA approve the request. EPA does not anticipate approving the use of BAMM beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the right to approve any such requests submitted by June 30, 2011 under unique and extreme circumstances which include safety, technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or Federal regulations. Facilities requesting BAMM past December 31, 2011 would have to submit documentation to support the request similar to that required for BAMM requests in 2011. In addition, these facilities would be required to describe the unique and extreme circumstances which necessitate the extended BAMM.

• We anticipate that facilities will need to use best available monitoring methods only under limited circumstances.

•

BAMM for facilities pursuing the emission factor approach.

For facilities pursuing the emission factor approach for a given process, we expect that most activity data is already monitored using measurement devices with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale or better. However, where this is not the case and where it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate the measurement device by January 1, 2011 (or July 1, 2011), the facility would use the currently installed device (or would request to use it) through June 30, 2011 (or December 31, 2011).

• Facilities already have until February 29, 2012 to develop emission factors and emission characterizations; thus, they would not need to use BAMM for these parameters unless they could not complete stack testing and parameter development until after that date. In this case, if the request for extended BAMM were granted, the facility would have until February 28, 2013 to complete emissions testing and develop the emission factor or emission characterization for the affected vent and process. In the meantime, the facility would use an emission calculation factor or emission characterization developed through engineering calculations or assessments to estimate 2011 emissions. As a condition for any approval of 12-month BAMM during the development of emission factors and emission characterizations, we are requiring facilities to recalculate and re-submit their 2011 emission estimates for the affected processes to reflect the scoping speciations, emission factors, and emission characterizations that they complete or develop for those processes after February 29, 2012.

• We do not expect facilities to require BAMM for estimating emissions from equipment leaks because we are already providing a great deal of flexibility in how such leaks may be estimated, including allowing the use of default emission factors.

•

BAMM for facilities pursuing the mass-balance approach.

For facilities using the mass-balance approach for a given process, we anticipate that the main reason for using BAMM will be an inability to meet the error limit due to an inability to acquire, install, or operate measurement devices with sufficient accuracies and precisions by January 1, 2011. In such cases, facilities will have a choice regarding the monitoring method they select to estimate emissions from the process under the BAMM provisions. They may use engineering calculations or assessments to develop emission calculation factors, or they may apply the mass-balance equations to the data they acquire using their current measurement devices. Before pursuing the latter method, facilities must estimate the relative and absolute errors that would be associated with using the mass-balance method to estimate emissions based on their current monitoring data. We anticipate approving the use of BAMM with the mass-balance method only if those errors are less than 50 percent or less than 2,500 mtCO

e for 6 months of emissions from the process, respectively. If facilities cannot meet these error limits, they should use engineering calculations or assessments as their BAMM.

•

BAMM for facilities pursuing either approach.

Facilities requesting BAMM while they prepare to implement either the emission-factor or the mass-balance approach must explain and document why it is not reasonably feasible for them to apply the other approach to estimate emissions from the relevant process. Thus, facilities requesting BAMM until January 1, 2012 while they prepare to implement the mass-balance approach must explain and document why it is not reasonably feasible for them to apply the emission factor approach by July 1, 2011, and vice versa.

•

Destruction efficiencies.

We do not anticipate approving the use of BAMM for destruction efficiencies for two reasons. First, facilities have the option of not reflecting, in their reporting, the destruction of fluorinated GHGs for which destruction efficiencies have not been demonstrated. Second, it would be difficult to select or justify the selection of a provisional destruction efficiency value if the destruction efficiency had not been measured for the fluorinated GHG at issue (or for a fluorinated GHG that is more difficult to destroy according to the hierarchy laid out at § 98.124(g)(1)).

Data Reporting.

In addition to the information required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must submit additional data that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of the specific data to be reported for this source category is contained in 40 CFR 98.126.

Recordkeeping.

In addition to the records required by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of additional data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific records that must be retained for this source category is included in § 98.127.

1. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

The major changes since proposal are identified in the following list. The rationale for these and any other significant changes can be found below or in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production Processes.”

• We are adding a number of clarifications to assist reporters in determining when and how the initial scoping speciation must be performed. Specifically, the initial scoping speciation applicability criteria are applied on a process vent basis rather than a process basis; facilities may conduct sampling and analysis on process vents or on process streams; and testing methods specific to stack testing do not have to be used. Other validated industry sampling analysis standards may be used.

• We have added more flexibility and robustness to the mass-balance approach by:

—Allowing use of the mass-balance approach with processes that do not produce fluorinated GHGs but may nevertheless emit them (e.g., processes that transform fluorinated GHGs). The mass-balance equations no longer assume that the mass that is lost from the process is emitted in the form of the product; instead, the equations express losses as emissions of fluorine. To divide emissions among reactants, products, and by-products, facilities either must assume that all emissions consist of the fluorinated GHG that has the highest GWP among the fluorinated GHGs that occur in more than trace concentrations in the process, or they must use emission characterization measurements.

—Incorporating process variability into the error calculation.

—Providing an alternative to the error limits for facilities that do not wish to calculate these limits.

• We have added more flexibility to the emission factor approach by:

—Allowing the use of engineering calculations or assessments to develop emission calculation factors for all batch process vents, regardless of emissions.

—Changing the method for determining whether the emissions of a continuous process vent fall below the 10,000 mtCO

e cutoff that allows the use of engineering calculations rather than stack testing. First, we are allowing the use of controlled rather than uncontrolled emissions in this determination and are consequently eliminating the separate exemption for vents that are 99.9 percent controlled.

Second, where one or more fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent do not have a GWP listed in Table A-1 to subpart A, we are allowing the use of a default GWP of 2,000 for these GHGs in the determination rather than setting a cutoff of one ton of chemical. We are also allowing facilities to request to use a provisional GWP where the facility believes that the fluorinated GHG's GWP is less than 2,000 and where the difference would reduce the calculated vent emissions from above the 10,000 mtCO

e cutoff to below it.

—Providing an additional two months (until February 29, 2012) to develop emission factors, emission calculation factors, emission characterizations, and destruction efficiencies.

—Allowing emissions testing after the control device if the vent is controlled and annual emissions bypassing (i.e., not vented to) the control device are less than 10,000 mtCO

e. This change is expected to reduce the number of situations in which testing of hazardous streams on the inlet side to the control device may be required, to limit the number of potential sampling ports that may need to be installed, and to increase the number of situations in which testing of outlet emissions only will be required, i.e., without need for additional destruction efficiency testing.

—For vents from continuous processes with emissions over 10,000 mtCO

e, summed across operating scenarios, requiring testing of only the largest-emitting operating scenario and any other operating scenario that (1) emits more than 10,000 mtCO

e through the vent, and (2) has an emission calculation factor that differs by 15 percent or more from the emission calculation factor of the tested operating scenario. (In the proposed rule, stack testing would have been required for each operating scenario.)

—Expanding the set of test methods that can be used for emissions testing. We are allowing industry standard sampling and analytical methods that have been validated using EPA Method 301 or other validation methods.

—Expanding the set of methods that can be used for quantifying emissions from equipment leaks. We are now allowing use of the default average emission factor approach in EPA's Protocol for Equipment Leaks and are allowing facilities to implement their own methods for detecting and quantifying fluorinated GHG emissions from equipment leaks. Site-specific leak detection methods must be validated and both the methods and their validation must be documented in the facility's GHG Monitoring Plan.

—For purposes of quantifying emissions from equipment leaks, defining “in fluorinated GHG service” as containing or contacting a feedstock, by-product, or product that contains 5 percent or more total fluorinated GHG by weight.

• We are adding a requirement to monitor and report fluorinated GHG emissions from containers when the residual fluorinated GHG (heel) is vented to the atmosphere rather than recaptured and reused or destroyed. As discussed in the proposed rule and in the technical support document, venting of residual gas from containers can have a significant impact on the overall emission rate of a fluorinated GHG production facility. Estimating such emissions is straightforward and is not expected to impose a significant burden on facilities.

• We are adding a one-time requirement to report existing data and analysis regarding the formation of products of incomplete combustion (PICs) that are fluorinated GHGs during the destruction of fluorinated gases. Studies of high-energy processes in the electronics industry indicate that PFC PICs may form in significant quantities during the destruction of fluorinated GHGs. Once formed, such PICs are likely to be very difficult to destroy. We considered requiring regular reporting of fluorinated GHG PIC generation and emissions under this rule, but we concluded that more information on the nature and magnitude of such emissions was needed to determine whether and how to craft reporting requirements. The one-time reporting requirement regarding PICs is intended to begin addressing this need.

• To clarify that PICs are excluded from reporting under this rule (except for the one-time reporting requirement), we are amending the definition of destruction efficiency in subpart A to express it in terms of the tons of a particular GHG that is fed into and exhausted from the device, rather than in terms of the tons of CO

e of all GHGs fed into and exhausted from the device. We are also deleting the phrase “including GHGs formed during the destruction process” from the definition of the quantity exhausted from the device.

• We are modifying the proposed BAMM provision to allow fluorinated gas production facilities to use BAMM to estimate emissions through June 30, 2011 without submitting a request to EPA. In the proposal, facilities would have been allowed to use BAMM to estimate emissions only through March 31, 2011 without submitting a request. We are also reserving the right to allow, in extremely limited circumstances, facilities to use BAMM to estimate 2012 emissions. We are allowing facilities to use BAMM for 6 months rather than three and are potentially allowing the use of BAMM beyond 2011 based on comments received on the April 12, 2010 proposed rule and our experience implementing the final reporting rule issued in October 2009. For a more detailed discussion on EPA's rationale, see “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

2. Summary of Comments and Responses

This section contains a brief summary of major comments and responses. A number of comments on fluorinated GHG production were received covering numerous topics. Responses to additional significant comments received can be found in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production Processes.”

Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements

Comment:

A number of commenters argued against requiring emission testing of vents from batch processes, stating that the episodic and variable nature of batch emissions make them extremely difficult to measure accurately. These commenters noted that both the flow rates and fluorinated GHG concentrations in batch emissions can change rapidly, making them difficult to characterize and quantify correctly, and that vents often consist of small diameter process piping where traditional gas flow measurement devices are not effective. Commenters specifically cited depressurizations and vapor displacements as batch events whose emissions are hard to measure because they are characterized by varying and very low flows, respectively. They also observed that batch processes can last for days, meaning that it could take weeks to complete three test cycles, or even one year or more if the process is run infrequently. The commenters concluded that due to these concerns, other regulations that required estimation of emissions from batch processes allowed estimates to be based on a broad range of engineering calculations and assessments, which yield accurate emission estimates for batch processes. They recommended that EPA provide similar flexibility for batch processes in subpart L. Rather

than requiring stack testing for high-emitting batch process vents, one commenter suggested that EPA require the verification of emission calculations using “stack gas measurements that characterize the major emission events.”

Response:

In response to comments describing the technical issues associated with emission testing for batch processes, we have revised the requirements for estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from batch processes. In the final rule, facilities with batch process vents are required to develop emission calculation factors rather than conduct emission testing. As several commenters noted, there are several difficulties associated with conducting emissions testing for batch processes. Many batch processes have short to moderate batch lengths, short emission episode periods, low flow rates, and intermittent flow rates, and these characteristics make emissions from batch processes difficult to measure accurately. It is generally accepted that emission calculations for batch processes yield reasonably accurate results. As commenters noted, certain other rules for batch processes in the chemical manufacturing industry require emission calculations. Emission calculations are required for batch processes in the Pharmaceutical NESHAP and in the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP, and emission calculations for batch processes are also laid out for industry in the Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) guidance and in the Batch CTG document. The Pharmaceutical NESHAP and Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP do not require emissions testing to determine the emission rates for individual process vents from batch processes under these rules. (However, emissions testing to demonstrate the control efficiency achieved by an add-on air pollution control device on batch processes is conducted, based on the worst-case scenario).

We considered requiring field verification of emission estimates for the largest batch emission episodes, but determined that we did not have enough information to finalize a requirement that could be consistently applied across different processes and facilities. Follow-up discussions with the commenter that suggested the verification testing (as an alternative to full emissions testing) indicated that the methods used to verify emissions would almost certainly vary from process to process and would be difficult to prescribe. Moreover, it was unclear what the criteria for a successful verification would be, and how a facility would address an unsuccessful verification. For example, if measurements indicated that emissions from a particular episode were significantly lower than expected based on engineering calculations, the discrepancy could be due either to a process-wide overestimate of emissions (perhaps due to overestimated by-product generation rates) or to a misallocation of emissions among emission episodes. Different responses would be appropriate for addressing these two possibilities. Thus, although we strongly encourage facil

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.