[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30848-30863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11298]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7207-7]
RIN 2060-AG93
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Semiconductor Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing operations. The
EPA has identified these operations as major sources of emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as hydrochloric acid (HCl),
hydrofluoric acid (HF), glycol ethers, methanol, and xylene. These HAP
are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse
health effects include irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and damage to the
skeleton system. These proposed NESHAP would require all semiconductor
manufacturing facilities that are major sources to meet emission
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT).
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before July 8, 2002.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by May 28, 2002, a public hearing will be held on June
7, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-15, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number
A-97-15, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, or an alternate site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. A-97-15 includes source category-specific
supporting information for Semiconductor Manufacturing. The docket is
located at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500 (ground floor), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed rule, contact Mr. John Schaefer, US EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone (919) 541-0296, e-mail: [email protected].
[[Page 30849]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption
problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect
format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note
the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES). No confidential business
information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: John Schaefer, c/o OAQPS
Document Control Officer (Room 740B), 411 W. Chapel Hill Street,
Durham, North Carolina 27701. The EPA will disclose information
identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a
submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), US EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5607 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing.
Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also call Ms.
Noell to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public
hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present
data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the record
compiled by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket
is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).)
The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are
available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the proposed rule will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is
needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS Examples of
Category code SIC code regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial.................. 334413 3674 Semiconductor
crystal growing
facilities,
semiconductor wafer
fabrication
facilities,
semiconductor test
and assembly
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7181 of the
proposed subpart. If you have any questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants
emitted from semiconductor manufacturing operations?
II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP
A. What is the source category to be regulated?
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
baseline emissions?
C. What is the affected source?
D. What are the emission limits?
E. When must I comply with these proposed NESHAP?
F. What are the testing and initial and continuous compliance
requirements?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the source category?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for existing and new sources?
D. Did we consider control options more stringent than the MACT
floor?
E. How did we select the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the secondary and energy impacts associated with
these proposed NESHAP?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The
Semiconductor Manufacturing source
[[Page 30850]]
category was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). As specified in
section 112(a) of the CAA, a major source of HAP is any stationary
source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area and
under common control that emits or has the potential to emit,
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more
of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, NESHAP cannot be
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice
by the best-controlled similar source. The NESHAP for existing sources
can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot
be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the best-performing
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor following consideration of cost, any health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted
From Semiconductor Manufacturing Operations?
The primary HAP emitted by the semiconductor manufacturing industry
are HCl, HF, glycol ethers, methanol, and xylene.
Glycol ethers. Glycol ethers are a large group of related
compounds. Acute (short-term) exposure in humans to high levels of
glycol ethers results in narcosis, pulmonary edema, and severe liver
and kidney damage. Chronic (long-term) exposure to glycol ethers may
result in neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea,
tremors, and anemia. No information is available on the reproductive,
developmental, or carcinogenic effects of glycol ethers in humans.
Animal studies have reported reproductive and developmental effects,
including testicular damage, reduced fertility, maternal toxicity,
early embryonic death, birth defects, and delayed development. The EPA
has not classified any glycol ether compounds for carcinogenicity.
Hydrochloric acid. Hydrochloric acid is corrosive to the eyes,
skin, and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye,
nose, and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary
edema in humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been reported
to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged
exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and
erosion. No information is available on the reproductive or
developmental effects of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by
inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in females, and
increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported
in offspring. The EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity.
Hydrogen fluoride. Acute inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can
cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation
and pulmonary edema. While the respiratory effects are attributable to
the HF compound, other effects, including those associated with chronic
exposures are attributable to the fluoride ion absorbed into the body
(as a result of inhalation or ingestion of various fluoride compounds,
including HF). Chronic exposure to fluoride at certain levels may cause
dental fluorosis or mottling, while very high exposures through
drinking water or air can result in crippling skeletal fluorosis. One
study reported menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed
to fluoride. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity.
Methanol. Acute or chronic exposure of humans to methanol by
inhalation or ingestion may result in blurred vision, headache,
dizziness, and nausea. No information is available on the reproductive,
developmental, or carcinogenic effects of methanol in humans. Birth
defects have been observed in the offspring of rats and mice exposed to
methanol by inhalation. A methanol inhalation study using rhesus
monkeys reported a decrease in the length of pregnancy and limited
evidence of impaired learning ability in offspring. The EPA has not
classified methanol with respect to carcinogenicity.
Xylene. Short-term inhalation of mixed xylenes (a mixture of three
closely-related compounds) in humans may cause irritation of the nose
and throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, mild transient eye
irritation, and neurological effects. Long-term inhalation of xylenes
in humans may result in nervous system effects such as headache,
dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and incoordination. Other reported effects
include labored breathing, heart palpitation, severe chest pain,
abnormal electrocardiograms, and possible effects on the blood and
kidneys. The EPA has classified mixed xylenes as Group D carcinogens,
not classifiable with respect to human carcinogenicity.
II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP
A. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
The Semiconductor Manufacturing source category includes operations
used to manufacture p-type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-
state devices from a wafer substrate. Research and development
activities located at a site manufacturing p-type and n-type
semiconductors and active solid-state devices are included in the
definition of semiconductor manufacturing. Examples of semiconductor or
related solid-state devices include semiconductor diodes, semiconductor
stacks, rectifiers, integrated circuits, and transistors. The source
category includes all manufacturing from crystal growth through wafer
fabrication, and test and assembly.
The crystal growing stage is where crystalline wafers of silicon or
other specific semiconducting materials are manufactured for use as the
substrate in the wafer fabrication process. Crystal growing begins with
the storage of the raw materials (usually trichlorosilane, which is
refined from ordinary sand) and ends with the final polishing of a
wafer.
The wafer fabrication process is where a group of integrated
circuits are created on the wafer through a series of pattern-forming
processes. Wafer fabrication begins at the point where the wafer
receives its first protective oxidative layer and ends when a
functional integrated circuit or circuits have been created on a wafer.
The test and assembly process is the final step in the integrated
circuit manufacturing process and begins when a wafer is cut into
individual chips. The chips are then mounted onto a metal
[[Page 30851]]
frame, connected to the leads, and enclosed in a protective housing.
The process endpoint is the last test performed at an assembly facility
to verify proper function of a completed integrated circuit housing.
B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Baseline
Emissions?
We estimate nationwide HAP emissions from the semiconductor
manufacturing industry to be 636 tpy. More than 90 percent of these
emissions come from process vents at these facilities. We estimate that
five chemicals comprise over 90 percent of the total HAP emissions:
HCl, HF, glycol ethers, methanol, and xylene.
C. What Is the Affected Source?
For the Semiconductor Manufacturing source category, the affected
source includes the collection of all semiconductor manufacturing units
used to manufacture p-type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-
state devices from a wafer substrate, research and development
activities on a semiconductor manufacturing site, and storage tanks
located at a major source.
A semiconductor manufacturing unit is the equipment assembled and
connected by duct work or hard-piping including: furnaces and
associated unit operations; associated wet and dry work benches;
associated recovery devices; feed, intermediate, and product storage
tanks; product transfer racks and connected ducts and piping; pumps,
compressors, agitators, pressure-relief devices, sampling connection
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and
instrumentation systems; and control devices. We have identified three
distinct processes used in the manufacture of these semiconductors and
devices: crystal growing, wafer fabrication, and assembly and test. A
semiconductor manufacturing unit is typically engaged in one of these
processes.
D. What Are the Emission Limits?
We are proposing NESHAP that would regulate HAP emissions from
process vents and storage tank vents at semiconductor manufacturing
facilities. We are proposing the same requirements for existing and new
sources. We are proposing that all major sources reduce process vent
HAP outlet concentrations by 98 percent from their uncontrolled levels.
As an alternative, process vents may be controlled to a level below 20
parts per million volume (ppmv) HAP, corrected to 3 percent oxygen. We
are proposing that all major sources reduce storage tank vent HAP
outlet concentrations by 99 percent from their uncontrolled levels. As
an alternative, storage tank vents may be controlled to a level below 1
ppmv HAP.
E. When Must I Comply With These Proposed NESHAP?
Existing semiconductor manufacturing affected sources must comply
with the rule no later than 3 years from the effective date of the
promulgated subpart. New or reconstructed affected sources that startup
before the effective date of the promulgated subpart must comply with
the rule no later than the effective date of the promulgated subpart
unless the provisions in section 112(i)(2) of the CAA apply. New or
reconstructed affected sources that startup after the effective date of
the promulgated subpart must comply with the rule upon startup of the
affected source.
F. What Are the Testing and Initial and Continuous Compliance
Requirements?
We are proposing testing and initial and continuous compliance
requirements that are, where appropriate, based on procedures and
methods that we have previously developed and used for sources similar
to those for which standards are being proposed today. For example, we
are proposing compliance determination procedures, performance tests,
and test methods to determine what level of control a process vent
needs to achieve to demonstrate compliance with the standards.
We are proposing compliance procedures to determine process vent
and storage tank vent flow rates and HAP concentrations. The proposed
test methods parallel what we have used for process vents in previous
organic HAP emissions standards (e.g., the Hazardous Organic NESHAP
(HON)). For measuring vent stream flow rate, we propose the use of
Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For
measuring total vent stream organic HAP concentration to determine
whether it is below a specified level, we propose the use of Method 18
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For measuring the total HAP
concentration of emission streams with inorganic HAP to determine if it
is below a specified level, we propose the use of Method 320 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A.
Additionally, we are proposing to require initial performance tests
for all process vent and storage tank vent HAP emission control devices
other than flares and certain boilers and process heaters. For vents
controlled using flares, we are not requiring performance tests because
we have developed design specifications that ensure these devices will
achieve 98 percent destruction efficiency. As with the HON, we are not
proposing a requirement to perform an initial performance test for
boilers and process heaters larger than 44 megawatts (MW) because they
operate at high temperatures and residence times. In general, the
higher the temperature and residence time, the greater the level of HAP
destruction that is achieved by a control device. Therefore, boilers
and process heaters larger than 44 MW easily achieve the required 98
percent destruction efficiency or the alternative requirement to reduce
outlet concentrations below 20 ppmv.
For all other types of control devices, the proposed NESHAP require
the owner or operator to conduct a performance test to demonstrate that
the control device can achieve the required control level and to
establish operating parameters to be maintained to demonstrate
continuous compliance. The proposed testing requirements for
semiconductor manufacturing list the parameters that can be monitored
for the common types of combustion devices. For other control devices,
we require that an owner or operator establish site-specific parameter
ranges for monitoring purposes through the Notification of Compliance
Status Report and through the facility's operating permit. Parameters
selected are required to be good indicators of continuous control
device performance.
G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
We are proposing notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in accordance with the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) and other previously promulgated NESHAP for similar
source categories.
We are proposing that owners or operators of semiconductor
manufacturing affected sources submit the following four types of
reports: an Initial Notification Report, a Notification of Compliance
Status Report, periodic compliance reports, reports of changes and
other specified events. Records of reported information and other
information necessary to document compliance with the promulgated
standards would be required to be kept for 5 years. Equipment design
records would be required to be kept for the life of the equipment.
For the Initial Notification Report, we are proposing that you list
the
[[Page 30852]]
semiconductor manufacturing operations at your facility, and the
provisions of the rule that may apply. The Initial Notification Report
must also state whether your facility can achieve compliance by the
specified compliance date. You must submit this notification within 1
year after the date of promulgation of these NESHAP for existing
sources, and within 180 days before commencement of construction or
reconstruction of an affected source.
For the Notification of Compliance Status Report, we are proposing
that you submit the information necessary to demonstrate that
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests
and design analyses. For each test method that you use for a particular
kind of emission point (e.g., process vent), you must submit one
complete test report. This notification must also include the specific
range established for each monitored parameter for each emission point
for demonstrating continuous compliance, and the rationale for why this
range indicates proper operation of the control device.
We are proposing that you submit semiannual compliance reports.
These reports must include a statement that no deviations from the
emission limitations occurred during the reporting period, and that no
continuous monitoring system (CMS) was inoperative, inactive,
malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted. Additionally, a
statement must be included if you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the reporting period, and you took actions
consistent with your Startup Shutdown and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). For
process and storage tank vents, records of continuously monitored
parameters must be kept. Records that such inspections or measurements
were performed must be kept, but results are included in your periodic
report only if there is a deviation from the operating limit. For each
deviation from an emission limit, the semiannual compliance reports
must document the time periods of each deviation; its cause; whether it
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; and
whether and what time periods the CMS was inoperative or out of
control.
We are proposing that you submit an immediate startup, shutdown,
and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
that is not consistent with your SSMP.
Other proposed reporting requirements include reports to notify the
regulatory authority before or after a specific event (e.g., if a
process change is made, requests for extension of repair period).
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Source Category?
The Semiconductor Manufacturing source category includes facilities
that grow crystalline wafers for use in the manufacture of
semiconductors, engage in the manufacture of p-type and n-type
semiconductors and active solid-state devices, or engage in the
assembly and test of semiconductor devices. The Semiconductor
Manufacturing source category was included on the initial source
category list at 57 FR 31576 (July 16, 1992). It was included on the
list because there were facilities emitting HAP at major source levels,
as defined in section 112(a) of the CAA.
However, since the initial listing, most of these semiconductor
facilities have controlled emissions to levels below major source
thresholds. As a result, during the course of developing this
rulemaking, EPA received several requests from the Semiconductor
Industry Association (SIA) to delist the semiconductor source category
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1). These requests and comments are
included in the docket (A-97-15).
We recognize this proposal will be of limited significance because
it would regulate only a single source that, standing alone, has very
small emissions. We nonetheless believe promulgation of standards for
this source category is compelled by the Act. Section 112(a) defines
``major source'' as ``any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control, that
emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or
25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air
pollutants.'' Thus, sources such as the semiconductor manufacturing
source subject to this rule are considered part of a major source when
they are collocated with other sources at facilities that in
combination have the potential to emit over the major source
thresholds. Because the statute is clear that such collocated sources
must be considered major, we believe it is also clear in the statute
that we must list categories that include such sources and promulgate
standards for those categories pursuant to section 112(d).
Notwithstanding our reading of the Act, EPA requests comments on
the appropriateness of including semiconductor manufacturing as a
source category for regulation under CAA section 112(d). We will
respond to SIA's pre-proposal requests and all additional comments in
any final action on this rulemaking. We believe this approach is
consistent with the approach outlined in section 112(e)(4), which
indicates that EPA's decision to list a source category is not a
reviewable final agency action unless, and until, EPA issues emissions
standards for that category. See also National Asphalt Paving Ass'n v.
EPA, 539 F.2d 775, 779 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (describing similar
approach for category listing under CAA section 111).
B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?
In selecting the affected source for the Semiconductor
Manufacturing source category, we included all equipment that emits HAP
or has the potential to emit HAP, such as process vents, storage tanks,
wastewater, and fugitive sources. We also included within the affected
source other auxiliary equipment that is necessary to make the
operation run, but which may not emit HAP. We did this to ensure that
all equipment necessary to run a semiconductor manufacturing operation
is included under these proposed NESHAP. In addition, we also included
all research and development activities located at a site engaged in
the manufacture of semiconductors. Thus, we are defining the affected
source broadly to include the sum of all operations engaged in the
manufacture of semiconductors.
C. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards
for Existing and New Sources?
We identified six facilities as having the potential to emit
greater than the major source emissions threshold, but for the presence
of add-on controls. A seventh facility was identified as being a major
source due to the fact that it is collocated with other HAP-emitting
processes. These seven facilities were evaluated to determine the MACT
floor level of control.
Based on data gathering efforts that included site visits, industry
survey responses, and literature searches, we identified three
potential sources of HAP emissions for the semiconductor manufacturing
industry: Process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater treatment. We
did not consider equipment leaks as a separate emissions source because
any potential emissions from this source are emitted into the
manufacturing buildings and are included as part of process vent
emissions.
[[Page 30853]]
We established a floor for process vents based on testing data that
we collected for several vents. Additionally, we established a floor
for storage tanks based on testing data we collected for HCl storage
tanks in the HCl production industry. We could identify no emission
controls, work practices, or other techniques currently used at these
facilities to reduce HAP emissions from wastewater treatment based on
the information obtained from the data gathering efforts. Therefore,
MACT for wastewater treatment is based on no emission reduction.
For a source category with under 30 sources, section 112(d)(3) of
the CAA directs that the MACT floor for existing sources be based on
the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five
sources. The MACT floor for new sources in a source category is
required to reflect the level of control being achieved by the best
controlled similar source. The term ``average'' is not defined in the
CAA, but we have interpreted ``average,'' as used in section 112(d)(3),
to include the mean, median, mode, or some other measure of central
tendency (59 FR 29196, June 6, 1994). In this MACT floor analysis, we
chose a modal analysis to determine the most frequently used control
technology reported by the best performing sources.
For both the process vent and storage tank MACT floor analyses, we
evaluated performance in terms of control device removal efficiency. In
other words, the ``best performing'' semiconductor manufacturing
facilities are those with the highest removal efficiencies.
Semiconductor manufacturing units typically produce process vent
emission streams that contain either organic or inorganic compounds. At
some facilities, the organic and inorganic process vent emission
streams are segregated to facilitate control, while others combine them
into one or more common exhaust streams. For purposes of the MACT floor
analysis, all the data obtained for process vents were considered
together. We made no distinction between organic, inorganic, or
combined emission streams for the test data because the same level of
control can be achieved whether the streams are segregated or combined.
A total of 26 process vents were reported at the seven facilities
that make up the MACT floor data set. We calculated removal efficiency
from the inlet and outlet concentration values for each process vent
emission stream. We then ranked process vents from highest to lowest
removal efficiency. We performed the ranking this way to determine the
most prevalent control technology, not to determine the average removal
efficiency, since the performance of control devices in the
semiconductor manufacturing industry is affected by highly variable
inlet conditions. The performance of these control devices varies in
response to inlet conditions and is more erratic at lower inlet
conditions. Any single control device will perform at peak efficiency
on an episodic basis under optimum conditions, but the removal
efficiencies represented by these test results cannot be maintained
under all operating conditions that are typical in the semiconductor
manufacturing industry.
We determined the MACT floor for process vents for existing sources
from the best performing five sources, rather than the average of the
top 12 percent because fewer than 30 sources are represented. Four of
the top five best performing sources use some form of thermal
oxidation; therefore, thermal oxidation is the technology basis of the
MACT floor.
Consistent with other previously promulgated NESHAP for process
vents, such as the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G), the level of
control deemed to be generally achievable by a combustion control
device, such as thermal oxidation, is 98 percent removal efficiency. We
selected this value as the MACT floor for process vents at existing
semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Because the same considerations
for low concentration, high flow exhaust streams apply equally to new
sources, and the best controlled source uses a thermal oxidizer, we
also selected this level of control as the new source MACT floor for
vents.
In order to account for the variability in the performance of
control devices used in the semiconductor manufacturing industry, as
well as the increased variability inherent in the test methods when
analyzing the high flow, low concentration process vent emission
streams typically controlled by these devices, the MACT floor includes
an alternate format based on outlet concentration of HAP. This
alternate format is intended to provide facilities with added
flexibility to comply with the standard when the inlet concentration of
the add-on control device drops below the point where optimum control
efficiency can be achieved, and it would not be feasible to require
optimum performance levels (expressed in terms of removal efficiency)
to be met. To again be consistent with previous NESHAP that have
specified a control level of 98 percent through the use of a combustion
control device, we selected the alternate format for the MACT floor
that would allow a facility to meet a HAP concentration limit of 20
ppmv for their vents. This level has been used in many other rules,
including 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which is referenced by this
action.
We obtained data on control of HAP emissions from storage tanks
from six semiconductor manufacturing facilities, representing a total
of 56 storage tanks. Emission controls were reported on 29 of these
tanks. The materials stored in the controlled tanks were HCl and HF. In
all cases, the control device was a scrubber. Therefore, scrubbers were
selected as the technology basis of the storage tank MACT floor.
The semiconductor manufacturing industry was unable to provide
control device removal efficiency or emissions data for the storage
tank scrubbers. Therefore, we developed a floor based on scrubber
performance data from scrubbers applied to storage tank vents in the
HCl production industry, which would be expected to have similar
characteristics.
We reviewed data from 17 sources in the HCl production source
category. Because we had less than 30 sources, we based the floor on
the best performing five facilities. The performance of the scrubber at
the median facility of the best performing five was 99 percent HAP
removal. Therefore, we chose 99 percent HAP removal as the floor.
Similar to process vents, the concentration of HAP in storage tank
exhaust streams is low and can vary widely. Low and variable inlet
concentrations can result in high variability in scrubber removal
efficiency. For this reason, we are proposing an alternative emission
limit of 1 ppmv for storage vents. The value of 1 ppmv is the detection
limit of the test method we are proposing for HCl and HF. Therefore,
this is the lowest level outlet concentration we can specify because
this is the lowest level we can measure.
We have no data on the performance of these scrubbers in reducing
HF emissions. However, because HF has a similar solubility to HCl, it
is reasonable to assume that scrubbers can also reduce HF emissions by
99 percent or to 1 ppmv.
The semiconductor industry reported storage tank capacities ranging
from 300 gallons to 16,000 gallons. We ranked the tanks by their
capacity and examined which tanks reported controls on their vents. The
smallest storage tank with controls is 800 gallons. Five storage tanks
in our data set are smaller than 800 gallons and do not control their
emissions. Therefore, we have
[[Page 30854]]
concluded that it is not feasible to control storage tanks of less than
800 gallons. We are proposing that facilities control HAP emissions
from vents by 99 percent or reduce HAP emissions to no more than 1 ppmv
for all storage tanks 800 gallons or larger.
D. Did We Consider Control Options More Stringent Than the MACT Floor?
We considered control options more stringent than the MACT floor
for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater treatment. No such
control options were determined to be feasible.
The MACT floor of 98 percent control for process vents was
determined to be the highest level of control achievable on a
consistent basis. While control devices such as thermal oxidizers can
be operated under certain conditions to achieve greater than 98 percent
removal efficiency, this was not deemed achievable on a consistent
basis for the varying emission streams present throughout the
semiconductor manufacturing industry. Thus, no regulatory alternatives
above the floor value of 98 percent control were identified that were
expected to be technically feasible.
For storage tanks, the MACT floor of 99 percent control was
determined to be the highest level of control achievable on a
consistent basis. Like thermal oxidizers, scrubbers can be operated
under certain conditions to achieve greater than 99 percent removal
efficiency. However, due to the variability of HAP concentrations in
storage tank emission streams, this was not deemed achievable on a
consistent basis. Thus, no regulatory alternatives above the floor
value of 99 percent control were identified that were expected to be
technically feasible.
No wastewater HAP emission controls were identified for the
semiconductor manufacturing industry. Wastewater streams from the
semiconductor manufacturing industry consist predominately of acids
(e.g., HCl), which do not readily volatilize. In addition, the
concentration of HAP contained in these wastewater streams is very
small, typically on the order of 3 to 4 ppmv. Due to these factors, the
potential for emissions is very small. Due to this low level of
emissions, we could not identify any technically or economically
feasible control options.
Finally, we examined process changes that would reduce the amount
of HAP used, and thus, have the potential to reduce HAP emissions from
all emission points. Specifically, we considered requiring industry to
increase the size of wafers used in the manufacture of integrated
circuits. Industry studies indicate that going from one wafer size to
the next larger size decreases a facility's HAP usage by about 20 to 30
percent. Typically, sizes used are 4, 6, and 8 inch wafers.
We have determined, however, that these process changes are not
cost effective because an increase in wafer size requires replacing
most of the equipment in a wafer fabrication facility. The one major
source covered by these NESHAP would need to replace approximately $150
million worth of equipment in order to reduce HAP emissions by several
hundred pounds. Therefore, we determined that process changes would not
be a cost-effective or practical method for reducing HAP emissions at
this time without a further evaluation of risk.
E. How Did We Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements?
The general recordkeeping and reporting requirements of these
proposed NESHAP are very similar to those found in the HON (40 CFR part
63, subparts F, G, and H). You are also required to comply with the
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63 subpart A). We have included a table in the
proposed subpart BBBBB that designates which sections of subpart A
apply.
General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for emission points are contained within the proposed
NESHAP. We specify compliance procedures necessary to determine the
required level of control for process vents. We based the selection of
emission point and/or control device-specific monitoring (including
continuous monitoring), recordkeeping, and reporting requirements on
the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for closed
vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel
gas system or a process. Subpart SS contains a common set of
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. We established
these subparts to ensure consistency among emission requirements
applied to similar emission points with pollutant streams containing
gaseous HAP. We have proposed changes to the performance specifications
for continuous compliance monitoring devices contained within subpart
SS (65 FR 76408, December 6, 2000). Background information and public
comments on the proposed changes can be found in Docket A-97-17.
Interested parties should consider the proposed changes to subpart SS
when reviewing and commenting on today's action for the Semiconductor
Manufacturing source category.
As with the HON, we are not proposing a requirement to perform an
initial performance test for boilers and process heaters larger than 44
MW because they operate at high temperatures and residence times.
Analysis shows that when vent streams are introduced into the flame
zone of these boilers and process heaters, greater than 98 weight-
percent of HAP emissions are reduced, or the outlet concentration of
HAP is below 20 ppmv, corrected to 3 percent oxygen. For flares, a
percent reduction or outlet concentration measurement is not feasible.
Therefore, we determined that a performance test is not necessary for
boilers and process heaters larger 44 MW, or for flares. For all other
types of control devices, the proposed NESHAP require the owner or
operator to conduct a performance test to demonstrate that the control
device can achieve the required control level and to establish
operating parameters to be maintained to demonstrate continuous
compliance. We believe that the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of the proposed NESHAP are consistent with
subpart SS and the HON.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
This section presents projected impacts for existing sources only.
We did not calculate impacts for new sources because we do not project
any new major sources will commence construction in the foreseeable
future. We expect that any new sources will have HAP emissions below
major source thresholds. The industry trend over the past several years
has been that HAP emissions have decreased while semiconductor
production has increased. As a result, only one source in the industry
is still a major source of HAP, and only because it is collocated at a
facility with other HAP-emitting operations. We do not project that any
other new semiconductor sources would be built on the site of another
operation. We also project that the types of technologies that have
evolved (e.g., producing larger wafers), which are inherently less
emitting, will continue.
A. What Are the Secondary and Energy Impacts Associated With These
Proposed NESHAP?
We do not anticipate any significant increase in national annual
energy usage as a result of these proposed NESHAP. Energy impacts
include changes in
[[Page 30855]]
energy use, typically increases, and secondary air impacts associated
with increased energy use. Increases in energy use are associated with
the operation of control equipment--in this case, the use of thermal
oxidizers--to control process vents. Secondary air impacts associated
with increased energy use are the emission of particulates, sulfur
oxides (SOX), and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These
secondary impacts are associated with power plants that would supply
the increased energy demand. Since we project these NESHAP will apply
to only one existing major source, no significant new control equipment
requirements are expected. Therefore, secondary and energy impacts will
be negligible.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
Although we estimate there are approximately 127 facilities engaged
in semiconductor production, we estimate that the source category
contains only one existing major source subject to the regulatory
provisions specified under these proposed NESHAP. The remaining
facilities are either area sources or synthetic minor sources, which
are sources that have the potential to emit above major source
thresholds but have taken enforceable permit conditions limiting their
HAP emissions to below these major source thresholds.
We estimate that the one existing major source will not incur any
control costs or annual operating and maintenance costs to comply with
these proposed NESHAP. We estimate the one major source will incur a
$5,180 cost to conduct all monitoring, inspection, reporting, and
recordkeeping (MIRR) activities during the first 3 years after
promulgation of the NESHAP. Other sources will not incur any costs from
these proposed NESHAP. Because no capital costs will be incurred by the
one major source, the total cost of the proposed NESHAP will be $5,180
in MIRR costs.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The proposed NESHAP apply to only one major existing source, and no
significant new control equipment requirements are expected. We
estimate the MIRR costs for this facility to be only $5,180 over a 3-
year period. Therefore, no economic impact on the industry is expected.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the rule. This proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks. Additionally, the proposed rule is
not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. No facilities subject to the
proposed rule are owned by State or local governments, and the rule
imposes no other obligations on State and local governments. Thus,
Executive order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
tribal governments own or operate semiconductor manufacturing
facilities, and the rule imposes no obligations on
[[Page 30856]]
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is
approximately $22,700 per year. The proposed rule contains no mandates
affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA.
We have also determined that the proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the proposal contains no requirements that
apply to such governments nor imposes obligations upon them.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for
NAICS code 334413 (i.e., semiconductor crystal growing facilities,
semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities, semiconductor test and
assembly facilities) whose parent company has 500 or fewer employees;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
Based on the above definition of small entities, the Agency has
determined that there are no small businesses within this source
category that would be subject to these proposed NESHAP. Therefore,
because these proposed NESHAP will not impose any requirements on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information
Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 2042.01), and you may obtain
a copy from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. EPA, Office of
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be
downloaded off the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective
until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The annual monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection, as averaged
over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule, is
estimated to be 35 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of
$1,727. This estimate includes a one-time plan for demonstrating
compliance, annual compliance certificate reports, notifications, and
recordkeeping. Total labor burden associated with the monitoring
requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $5,180.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
[[Page 30857]]
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after May 8, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by June 7, 2002. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) developed or adopted by
one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency does
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
These proposed NESHAP involve technical standards. The EPA proposes
in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 26, 26A, 316, and 320. Consistent with the NTTAA,
EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in
addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, and 316.
The search and review results have been documented and are placed in
Docket A-97-15.
The consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases
described below for inclusion in these proposed NESHAP for measurement
of xylene, in addition to EPA Method 18, codified at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.
Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18
only where the target compound(s) are those listed in section 1.1 of
ASTM D6420-99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per
billion volume and 100 ppmv.
For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is
no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble. For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99
does not apply.
As a result, EPA proposes to incorporate ASTM D6420-99 into 40 CFR
63.14 by reference for application under subpart SS of part 63. ASTM
D6420-99 is being incorporated as an alternative to Method 18 for
applicable situations discussed above. The EPA will also cite Method 18
as a gas chromatography (GC) option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. This
will allow the continued use of GC configurations other than GC/MS.
In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA proposes to
use in these NESHAP, this search for emissions measurement procedures
identified 17 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined
that 13 of these 17 standards identified for measuring emissions of HAP
or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed NESHAP were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of these
proposed NESHAP. Therefore, EPA does not propose to adopt these
standards today.
The following three of the 17 voluntary consensus standards
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was
conducted for the purposes of these proposed NESHAP because they are
under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M,
``Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and
possibly 1); ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using
Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and
ISO/DIS 12039, ``Stationary Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon
Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' for EPA
Method 3A. While we are not proposing to include these three voluntary
consensus standards in today's proposed NESHAP, the EPA will consider
the standards when final.
One of the 17 voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search, ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is
under consideration by the EPA as an alternative for EPA Method 320.
This ASTM standard has been reviewed by EPA and comments were sent to
ASTM. Currently, the ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is now undertaking a
revision of the ASTM standard. Upon successful ASTM balloting and
demonstration of technical equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the
revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference for EPA
regulatory applicability.
The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements
in these NESHAP and specifically invites the public to identify
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commenters should
also explain why this proposed rule should adopt these voluntary
consensus standards in lieu of, or in addition to, EPA standards.
Emission test methods submitted for evaluation should be accompanied
with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data
and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method
other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
Section 63.7193 and table 1 to proposed subpart BBBBB lists the EPA
testing methods included in the
[[Page 30858]]
proposed NESHAP. Under 40 CFR 63.8 (the General Provisions), a source
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place
of any of the EPA testing methods.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air
pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: May 1, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart BBBBB to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart BBBBB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Semiconductor Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
63.7180 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7181 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7182 What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?
63.7183 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Standards
63.7184 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
Compliance Requirements
63.7185 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.7186 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7187 What performance tests and other compliance procedures
must I use?
63.7188 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
Applications, Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.7189 What applications and notifications must I submit and
when?
63.7190 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7191 What records must I keep?
63.7192 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.7193 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7194 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7195 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63-Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 2 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63-Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart BBBBB
Subpart BBBBB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Semiconductor Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.7180 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and
continuous compliance with the emission standards.
Sec. 63.7181 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
semiconductor manufacturing process unit that is a major source of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions or that is located at, or is
part of, a major source of HAP emissions.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under
common control that emits or has the potential to emit, considering
controls, in the aggregate, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tpy or
more.
Sec. 63.7182 What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source that you own or operate that manufactures
semiconductors.
(b) An affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of
all semiconductor manufacturing process units used to manufacture p-
type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-state devices from a
wafer substrate, including research and development activities at a
semiconductor manufacturing site. A semiconductor manufacturing unit
includes the equipment assembled and connected by ductwork or hard-
piping, including furnaces and associated unit operations; associated
wet and dry work benches; associated recovery devices; feed,
intermediate, and product storage tanks; product transfer racks and
connected ducts and piping; pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure-
relief devices, sampling connecting systems, open-ended valves or
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and control
devices.
(c) Your affected source is a new affected source if you commence
construction of the affected source after May 8, 2002, and you meet the
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7181 at the time you commence
construction.
(d) Your affected source is a reconstructed affected source if you
meet the criteria for ``reconstruction,'' as defined in Sec. 63.2.
(e) Your source is an existing affected source if it is not a new
or reconstructed affected source.
Sec. 63.7183 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) If you start up your affected source before [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must
comply with the emission standards for new and reconstructed sources in
this subpart no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) If you start up your affected source after [DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with
the emission standards for new and reconstructed sources in this
subpart upon startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the emission standards for existing sources no later than 3 years from
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP and an
affected source subject to this subpart, paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section apply.
(1) Any portion of your existing facility that is a new affected
source as specified at Sec. 63.7182(c), or a reconstructed affected
source as specified at Sec. 63.1782(d), must be in compliance with this
subpart upon startup.
(2) Any portion of your facility that is an existing affected
source, as specified at Sec. 63.7182(e), must be in compliance with
this subpart by not later than 3 years after it becomes a major source.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.7189 and
in subpart A of this part. You must submit some of the notifications
(e.g., Initial
[[Page 30859]]
Notification) before the date you are required to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Standards
Sec. 63.7184 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
(a) If you have a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source,
as defined in Sec. 63.7182(b), you must comply with one of the emission
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section for each process
vent that emits HAP. These limitations can be met by venting emissions
from your process vent through a closed vent system to any combination
of control devices meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(2).
(1) Reduce the emissions of total HAP from the process vent stream
by 98 percent by weight, corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
(2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the
process vent to less than or equal to 20 parts per million volume
(ppmv).
(b) If you have a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source,
as defined in Sec. 63.7182(b), you must comply with one of the emission
limitations in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section for each storage
tank (including waste and wastewater storage tanks) 800 gallons or
larger if the emissions from the storage tank vent contains greater
than 1 ppmv HAP. These limitations can be met by venting emissions from
your storage tank through a closed vent system to a halogen scrubber
meeting the requirements of Secs. 63.983 (closed vent system
requirements) and 63.994 (halogen scrubber requirements); the
applicable general monitoring requirements of Sec. 63.996; the
applicable performance test requirements; and the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements referenced therein.
(1) Reduce the emissions of total HAP from each storage tank by 99
percent by weight.
(2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the
process vent to less than or equal to 1 ppmv.
(c) If you have a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source,
as defined at Sec. 63.7182(b), you must comply with the applicable work
practice standards and operating limits contained in Sec. 63.982(a)(1)
and (2). The closed vent system inspection requirements of
Sec. 63.983(c), as referenced by Sec. 63.982(a)(1) and (2), do not
apply.
Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7185 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 63.7184
at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP). Your SSMP must be prepared in accordance with
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(d) You must perform all the items listed in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) of this section:
(1) Submit the necessary notifications in accordance with
Sec. 63.7189.
(2) Submit the necessary reports in accordance with Sec. 63.7190.
(3) Maintain all necessary records you have used to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart in accordance with Sec. 63.7191.
Sec. 63.7186 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
For each process vent or storage tank vent emission limitation in
Sec. 63.7184 for which initial compliance is demonstrated by meeting a
percent by weight HAP emissions reduction, or a HAP concentration
limitation, you must conduct performance tests or an initial compliance
demonstration within 180 days after the compliance date that is
specified for your source in Sec. 63.7183 and according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.7187 What performance tests and other compliance procedures
must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 1 to this
subpart that applies to you as specified for process vents in
Sec. 63.982(a)(2) and storage tanks in Sec. 63.982(a)(1). Performance
tests must be conducted under maximum operating conditions or HAP
emissions potential. Section 63.982(a)(1) and (2) only includes methods
for the measure of total organic regulated material or total organic
carbon (TOC) concentration. The EPA Method 301 is included in Table 1
to this subpart in addition to the test methods contained within
Sec. 63.982(a)(1) and (2). The EPA Method 301 must be used for testing
regulated material containing inorganic HAP. The EPA Method 320 of 40
CFR part 63, appendix A, must be used to measure total vapor phase
organic and inorganic HAP concentrations.
(b) If, without the use of a control device, your process vent
stream has a HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less, or your storage tank
vent stream has a HAP concentration of 1 ppmv or less, you must
demonstrate that the vent stream is compliant by engineering
assessments and calculations or by conducting the applicable
performance test requirements specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
Your engineering assessments and calculations, as with performance
tests (as specified in Sec. 63.982(a)(1) and (2)), must represent your
maximum operating conditions or HAP emissions potential and must be
approved by the Administrator. You must demonstrate continuous
compliance by certifying that your operations will not exceed the
maximum operating conditions or HAP emissions potential represented by
your engineering assessments, calculations, or performance test.
(c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with your SSMP.
(d) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must
develop and submit for approval a site-specific monitoring plan that
addresses the following three criteria:
(i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system (CMS) sampling
probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each
affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of
control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last
control device);
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system; and
(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(e) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following three procedural processes:
(i) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and
(8);
(ii) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
(iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
(f) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
[[Page 30860]]
(g) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
Sec. 63.7188 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
If you comply with the emission limitations of Sec. 63.7184 by
venting the emissions of your semiconductor process vent through a
closed vent system to a control device, you must comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) You must meet the applicable general monitoring, installation,
operation, and maintenance requirements specified in Sec. 63.996.
(b) You must meet the monitoring, installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements specified for closed vent systems and
applicable control devices in Secs. 63.938 through 63.995.
Applications, Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.7189 What applications and notifications must I submit and
when?
(a) You must submit all of the applications and notifications in
Secs. 63.7(b) and (c); 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6); and 63.9(b) through
(e), (g) and (h) that apply to you by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120
calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject
to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii) and according to
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include
a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance
Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following
the completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration required that
includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in
Table 1 to this subpart, you must submit a notification of the date of
the performance evaluation at least 60 days prior to the date the
performance evaluation is scheduled to begin as required in
Sec. 63.8(e)(2).
Sec. 63.7190 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each of the following reports that apply to
you.
(1) Periodic compliance reports. You must submit a periodic
compliance report that contains the information required under
paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, and any requirements
specified to be reported for process vents in Sec. 63.982(a)(2) and
storage tanks in Sec. 63.982(a)(1).
(2) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. You must
submit an immediate Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report if you
had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period
that is not consistent with your SSMP. Your report must contain actions
taken during the event. You must submit this report by fax or telephone
within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with your
SSMP. You are required to follow up this report with a report
specifying the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by letter within 7
working days after the end of the event unless you have made
alternative arrangements with your permitting authority.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first periodic compliance report must cover the period
beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected
source in Sec. 63.7183 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever
date is the first date following the end of the first 12 calendar
months after the compliance date that is specified for your source in
Sec. 63.7183.
(2) The first periodic compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows
the end of the first 12 calendar months after the compliance date that
is specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.7183.
(3) Each subsequent periodic compliance report must cover the
semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the
semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent periodic compliance report must be postmarked
or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent periodic
compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has
established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(c) The periodic compliance report must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations that
apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period and that no CMS was
inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or
adjusted.
(5) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, your
periodic compliance report must include the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5) for each startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation that occurs at
an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the
emission limitations, the periodic compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable, other than downtime associated
with calibration checks).
(3) Information on the number, duration, and cause for monitor
downtime incidents (including
[[Page 30861]]
unknown cause, if applicable, other than downtime associated with
calibration checks).
(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a CMS to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limitation, you must include the information in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped,
and the reason it was inoperative.
(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
calibration checks.
(3) The date and time that each CMS was out-of-control, including
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period, and the cause of the
deviation.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during the reporting period.
(7) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the
affected source.
(8) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
Sec. 63.7191 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Notification of Compliance Status and periodic report of compliance
that you submitted, according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunctions.
(3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) For each CMS, you must keep the records listed in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with
a relevant standard (e.g., 30-minute averages of CMS data, raw
performance testing measurements, raw performance evaluation
measurements).
(3) All required CMS measurements (including monitoring data
recorded during unavoidable CMS breakdowns and out-of-control periods).
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(5) Records for process vents according to the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.982(a)(2) and storage tank vents according to the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.982(a)(1).
Sec. 63.7192 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.7193 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 2 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.
Sec. 63.7194 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority
such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce
this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find
out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal
agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the U.S. EPA Administrator and are not transferred to
the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission
limitations in Sec. 63.7184 under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.7195 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Secs. 63.2 and 63.981, the General Provisions of this part (40 CFR part
63, subpart A), and in this section as follows:
Semiconductor manufacturing means the collection of semiconductor
manufacturing process units used to manufacture p-type and n-type
semiconductors or active solid state devices from a wafer substrate,
including processing from crystal growth through wafer fabrication, and
testing and assembly. Examples of semiconductor or related solid state
devices include semiconductor diodes, semiconductor stacks, rectifiers,
integrated circuits, and transistors.
Semiconductor manufacturing process unit means the collection of
equipment used to carry out a discrete operation in the semiconductor
manufacturing process. These operations include, but are not limited
to, crystal growing; solvent stations used to prepare and clean
materials for subsequent processing or for parts cleaning; wet chemical
stations used for cleaning (other than solvent cleaning); photoresist
application, developing, and stripping; etching; gaseous operation
stations used for stripping, cleaning, doping, etching, and layering;
separation; encapsulation; and testing. Research and development
operations conducted at a semiconductor manufacturing facility are
considered to be semiconductor manufacturing process units.
Tables to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63
As stated in Sec. 63.7187, you must comply with the requirements
for performance tests in the following table:
[[Page 30862]]
Table 1 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For * * * You must * * * Using * * * following requirements
* * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Process or storage tank vent a. Select sampling Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
streams. port's location and CFR part 60, appendix located at the inlet
the number of traverse A. (if emission reduction
ports. or destruction
efficiency testing is
required) and outlet
of the control device
and prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere.
b. Determine velocity Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, For HAP reduction
and volumetric flow 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR efficiency testing
rate. part 60, appendix A. only; not necessary
for determining
compliance with a ppmv
concentration limit.
c. Conduct gas Method 3, 3A, or 3B of For flow rate
molecular weight 40 CFR part 60, determination only.
analysis. appendix A.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR part For flow rate
content of the stack 60, appendix A. determination and
gas. correction to dry
basis, if necessary.
(2) Process vent stream.............. a. Measure oxygen Method 3A or 3B of 40 For correcting HAP
concentration. CFR part 60, appendix concentrations
A. measured from
combustion control
devices to 3 percent
O2.
b. Measure organic and Method 18, 25, or 25A To determine compliance
inorganic HAP of 40 CFR part 60, with the 98 percent
concentration (two appendix A. reduction limit,
method option). conduct simultaneous
sampling at inlet and
outlet of control
device and analyze for
same organic and
inorganic HAP at both
inlet and outlet. If
you use Method 25A to
determine the TOC
concentration for
compliance with the 20
ppmv emission
limitation, the
instrument must be
calibrated on methane
or the predominant
HAP. If you calibrate
on the predominant
HAP, you must comply
with each of the
following:
The organic
HAP used as the
calibration gas must
be the single organic
HAP representing the
largest percent of
emissions by volume.
The results
are acceptable if the
response from the high
level calibration.
c. Measure organic and Method 320 of 40 CFR To determine compliance
inorganic HAP part 63, appendix A. with 98 percent
simultaneously (``one reduction limit,
method'' option). conduct simultaneous
sampling at inlet and
outlet of control
device and analyze for
same organic and
inorganic HAP at both
inlet and outlet.
(3) Storage tank vent stream......... Measure inorganic HAP Method 301 of 40 CFR To determine compliance
concentration. part 63, appendix A. with 99 percent
reduction limit,
conduct simultaneous
sampling at inlet and
outlet of control
device and analyze for
same inorganic HAP at
both inlet and outlet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.7193, you must comply with the applicable
General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
Table 2 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63.--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart BBBBB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to Subpart
Citation Subject BBBBB?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1.................... Applicability.... Yes.
Sec. 63.2.................... Definitions...... Yes.
Sec. 63.3.................... Units and Yes.
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4.................... Prohibited Yes.
Activities and
Circumvention.
Sec. 63.5.................... Construction and Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6.................... Compliance With Yes.
Standards and
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.7.................... Performance Yes, with the
Testing exception of Sec.
Requirements. 63.7(e)(1). The
requirements of Sec.
63.7(e)(1) do not
apply. Performance
testing requirements
that apply are
specified in this
subpart and in Sec.
63.982(a)(1) and
(2).
Sec. 63.8.................... Monitoring Monitoring
Requirements. requirements are
specified in this
subpart and in Sec.
63.982(a)(1) and
(2). The closed vent
system inspection
requirements of Sec.
63.983(c), as
referenced by Sec.
63.982(a)(1) and
(2), do not apply.
Sec. 63.9.................... Notification Yes.
Requirements.
[[Page 30863]]
Sec. 63.10................... Recordkeeping and Yes, with the
Reporting exception of Sec.
Requirements. 63.10(e). The
requirements of Sec.
63.10(e) do not
apply. In addition,
the recordkeeping
and reporting
requirements
specified in this
subpart apply.
Sec. 63.11................... Flares........... Yes.
Sec. 63.12................... Delegation....... Yes.
Sec. 63.13................... Addresses........ Yes.
Sec. 63.14................... Incorporation by Yes.
Reference.
Sec. 63.15................... Availability of Yes.
Information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-11298 Filed 5-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P