[Federal Register: May 22, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 99)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27913-27931]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my03-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0086, FRL-7461-3]
RIN 2060-AG93
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Semiconductor Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing semiconductor
manufacturing operations located at major sources of emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The final standards implement section
112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which requires the Administrator to
regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA. The
intent of the standards is to protect public health and the environment
by requiring new and existing major sources to control emissions to the
level attainable by implementing the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The primary HAP that will be controlled with this
action include hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen flouride (HF),
methanol, glycol ethers, and xylene. Exposure to these substances has
been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of
the lung, eye, and mucous membranes; effects on the central nervous
system; liver and kidney damage; and, possibly cancer. We do not have
the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities and the
people living around the facilities covered by today's final rule for
this source category that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to
determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these
facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore,
we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described
above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However,
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, and today's final rule
reduces emissions, subsequent exposures will be reduced.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-15 and E-Docket No. OAR-2002-0086 contain
supporting information used in developing the standards for the
semiconductor manufacturing source category. The docket is located at
EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Room B108, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division (C504-
05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0296,
electronic mail (e-mail) address: schaefer.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the
development of the rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material
is added throughout the rule development 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 rule development 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 CAA.) The regulatory text and other
materials related to the final rule are available for review in the
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 566-1742. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
to view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility in the above paragraph entitled ``Docket.'' Once in
the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW
through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of the final rule will be
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at 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 those listed on the following table. This table
is not intended to be exhaustive, but is just a guide to entities
likely to be regulated by these standards. It lists the types of
entities that may be regulated, but you
[[Page 27914]]
should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 63.7181 and
63.7182 of the final rule to decide whether your facility is regulated
by the standards. If you have any questions about whether your facility
is subject to the standards, call the person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Categories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS SIC Examples of regulated
Category code code entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial................ 334413 3674 Semiconductor crystal
growing facilities,
semiconductor wafer
fabrication facilities,
semiconductor test and
assembly facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b) of the CAA, judicial review
of the final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by July 21, 2003. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to the rule which was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this final action may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceeding we bring to enforce these
requirements.
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 Do We Use in the Development of NESHAP?
II. What Changes and Clarifications Have We Made for the Final
Standards?
A. MACT Floors and Emission Limits
B. Compliance Options and Procedures
III. Response to Comments on the Proposed NESHAP for Semiconductor
Manufacturing
IV. What Are the Final Standards?
A. What Is the Source Category?
B. What Is the Affected Source?
C. What Are the Emission Standards?
V. When Must I Comply With the Final Rule?
VI. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
A. Test Methods and Procedures
B. Monitoring Requirements
VII. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
Must I Follow?
VIII. What Are the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
the Final Rule?
A. What Are the Secondary and Energy Impacts?
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review 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. On July 16,
1992, major source categories covered by the NESHAP were listed under
the Semiconductor Manufacturing industry group (57 FR 31576). Major
sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit considering
controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP
or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
B. What Criteria Do We Use in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we 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. 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 the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than the 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 in the category or subcategory (or the best performing
five sources for categories 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 based on consideration of the cost of achieving the
emission reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
II. What Changes and Clarifications Have We Made for the Final
Standards?
In response to public comments received on the proposed standards,
we made several changes in developing the final rule. Some of the
changes had a direct effect on the MACT floors and emission limits,
while other changes clarified the substantive requirements for the
final rule. A more comprehensive summary of comments and responses can
be found in Docket No. A-97-15 and E-Docket No. OAR-2002-0086.
A. MACT Floors and Emission Limits
Process vents. When we developed the original MACT floors for
process vents, we first determined the control efficiency, expressed as
percent emission reduction, for each process vent for which we had
inlet and outlet HAP concentration data. We then ranked the process
vents based on the control efficiency achieved. Based on the best
performing five process vents, we determined that thermal oxidation was
used for emission control on four of them. Consequently, we selected
thermal oxidation as the MACT floor. For the emission limit, we chose
98 percent control as representative of the level of control typically
achieved by thermal oxidizers in practice. We decided not to base the
emission limit on the reported performance of the thermal oxidizers
because, in all cases, the inlet streams were high volume with low
concentration of HAP. Under those conditions, measurements of the
actual performance of a thermal oxidizer can be unreliable. As such, we
believe
[[Page 27915]]
choosing 98 percent control efficiency is more representative of what
the thermal oxidizers can consistently achieve in practice.
One commenter objected to this procedure, stating that the CAA
directs us to consider only the actual performance of the sources used
to establish the MACT floor. The commenter believed that we should
revise the MACT floor and emission limits based on the reported
performance of the five best performing sources. While we agree that
the CAA directs us to base the MACT floors on actual performance, we
believe that the test data do not accurately represent actual
performance because of the high-volume, low-concentration nature of the
emission streams.
In response to this comment, we decided to reevaluate the process
vent MACT floor by considering organic and inorganic streams
separately, as suggested by another commenter. By doing so, we can more
accurately assess the performance of the different control devices used
for these two types of emission streams.
Organic emission streams are almost always controlled by some type
of thermal oxidation. As discussed above, measurements of thermal
oxidizer performance can be unreliable for high-volume, low-
concentration streams. Thus, we continue to believe that the test data
for organic HAP emission control we obtained for thermal oxidizers
controlling semiconductor manufacturing process vents may not
accurately portray actual performance. Thus, our original selection of
a known achievable emission reduction percentage, as used for MACT in
rules such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or HON (57 FR 19402), better
represents actual performance as directed by the CAA. For the final
rule, we retained 98 percent control as the emission limit for organic
emission streams from process vents. We also retained the alternative
emission limit of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for organic
emission streams.
For inorganic emissions from process vents, all the data we
obtained showed that scrubbers were used to control those emissions.
Unlike thermal oxidizers, scrubbers experience less erratic performance
characteristics with high-volume, low-concentration emission streams.
Accordingly, we were able to use the actual performance data to
establish the MACT floor for the control of inorganic emissions from
process vents. Again, using the top five best performing process vents,
we established the MACT floor as 95 percent control. Based on the
actual outlet emissions of those five process vents, we established the
alternative emission limit as 0.42 ppmv.
Storage tanks. We received comments on whether all of the tanks we
included in the MACT floor analysis were the type of tank we intended
to regulate through the rulemaking. The comments provided additional
clarifying information on a number of the tanks we used to develop the
MACT floor. Specifically, the comments questioned whether storage tanks
for wastewater with very low concentration of HAP, waste storage tanks
already covered under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), and wastewater treatment tanks should have been included in the
MACT floor analysis.
With the exception of wastewater treatment tanks, it was our intent
to include all of these types of tanks in the affected source. However,
based on the additional information provided by the industry, we have
concluded that it was not appropriate to develop one MACT floor for all
types of tanks due to the wide range of emissions from the each type of
tank. Therefore, we developed separate MACT floors for chemical storage
tanks (including waste storage tanks regulated under RCRA) and
wastewater storage tanks.
We found that the level of control, based on the top five best
performing sources in each data set, is the same for each type of tank.
The level of control is to reduce emissions through the use of a
scrubber and is identical to the level of control used to establish the
MACT floor that was the basis of the emission limits in the proposed
rule. However, based on other comments we received, we have decided not
to use the same MACT floor procedure for the final rule.
Since the semiconductor industry storage tank emission streams will
have similar characteristics to those of process vents (i.e., low
pollutant concentration), rather than hydrochloric acid production
industry storage tanks, we now believe the most representative similar
sources for evaluating the MACT floor for storage tanks are the
semiconductor industry process vents. Therefore, in response to the
comments concerning our use of hydrochloric acid production industry
storage tanks as the most representative similar source, we are
adopting the process vent inorganic HAP emission limits for all storage
tanks required to control emissions in the final rule.
The comments we received clarified that the reported wastewater
treatment tanks were not actually storage tanks but flow-through tanks
used for certain continuous treatment processes such as pH adjustment.
The tank volume merely allows for a buffer so that the treatment can be
adequately carried out. All of the flow-through tanks in the data
supplied by the industry are controlled by scrubbers. However, the
industry also provided information that the purpose of all of these
scrubbers was primarily to control ammonia odors. We do not believe
that requiring scrubbers on flow-through tanks would result in
significant reductions of HAP emissions, nor was it our intent in the
proposed rule to regulate such tanks. Therefore, the definition of
storage tank that we added to the final rule clarifies that flow-
through tanks are not considered storage tanks for the purposes of the
final rule.
We made an additional change for the final rule based on our
revised storage tank MACT floor analysis. Because we eliminated several
tanks from the data set used in the MACT floor analysis, the cutoff for
the smallest size tank for which the final rule applies increased from
800 gallons to 1,500 gallons. We also revised our analysis of
alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor to reflect the
increased tank size. We found that the cost per ton of additional
emission reduction (approximately $300,000/ton) is still too great to
warrant a more stringent level of control. We have also included a
definition for ``storage tank'' to 40 CFR 63.7195 to clarify which
tanks we intended to be subject to the final rule.
B. Compliance Options and Procedures
As part of our reevaluation of the MACT floors for process vents as
described above, we also considered other compliance options to reflect
our position on the performance of control devices. While we believe
the performance of scrubbers controlling high-volume, low-concentration
emission streams can be measured, we also recognize that control
efficiency cannot always be reliably predicted for such streams. Also,
facilities may choose to use a control device other than a scrubber
which may be more difficult to measure performance. For these
situations, we have included a compliance option to the final rule (see
40 CFR 63.7187(i)) that allows a source to perform a design evaluation
of the add-on control device. If the inlet concentration of inorganic
HAP is less than or equal to 20 ppmv, then the facility may choose to
perform a design evaluation of the control device that demonstrates the
device is capable of achieving the required control efficiency.
We chose 20 ppmv as the cutoff for allowing a design evaluation
because the data we obtained showed erratic
[[Page 27916]]
performance measurement values below this level. The test results show
control device performance decreasing as the inlet concentration
decreases. However, the last entry shows that even at very low inlet
concentrations, control device performance can sometimes be high. These
data show the difficulty of measuring control device performance with
high-volume, low-concentration inlet streams, and why we believe a
design evaluation procedure is necessary. In the final rule, we have
adopted the design evaluation procedure alternative from the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG).
During our review of the proposed rule, we realized that we
inadvertently omitted Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for
analysis of emission streams for inorganic HAP. The final rule includes
this test method.
III. Response to Comments on the Proposed NESHAP for Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA consider providing
exemptions that would exclude insignificant sources from regulation.
The commenter argued that the administrative burdens associated with
the proposed rule are unwarranted for such sources. The commenter
further argued that if additional add-on control devices would be
required, it would result in insignificant HAP reductions. Another
commenter suggested that storage tanks are insignificant HAP emission
sources and should be excluded from the final rule.
Response: While we understand the commenters' concern with the
burden imposed by regulation of sources with low annual emissions, the
CAA does not provide a mechanism by which we can exempt such emission
sources from the affected source solely on the basis of emissions.
Additionally, some facilities in the semiconductor industry are
characterized by multiple point sources of emissions, many of which
have low annual emissions. If we exempted all such sources, there is a
possibility that a large portion of the emissions from the facility
could escape regulation. For these reasons, we are not exempting
sources with low HAP emissions from the final rule.
Comment: One commenter contended that EPA's exemption of sources
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction is a violation of
the requirement for continuous compliance. The commenter argued that
EPA may only allow unavoidable deviations from emissions standards and
must require that sources use best air pollution control practices
during those periods.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's interpretation of the
proposed rule. The General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) require
that sources must at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction, maintain the affected source in a manner such that
emissions are minimized to the level required by the relevant standard.
That section further clarifies that this means to ``meet the emission
standards or comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.''
The purpose of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP), as
described in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), is to:
[e]nsure that, at all times, the owner or operator operate and
maintain affected sources, including associated air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions to
at least the levels required by the relevant standards.
A properly written SSMP does not allow the source to emit at
whatever levels they want merely because they comply with what they
have written in the SSMP. Under the SSMP, the source must detail the
procedures that will be used to maintain emissions within the limits
set by the rule during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
In this case, the SSMP is analogous to parameter monitoring for
evaluating continuous compliance of add-on control devices. Just as
maintaining the temperature of a thermal oxidizer at the proper
operating temperature as determined during the initial compliance
demonstration is deemed to be compliance with the emission limits,
following the SSMP is deemed to be compliance with emission limits
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
Comment: One commenter was concerned with the burden of compliance
as proposed at facilities that are classified as major sources of HAP
due to processes other than semiconductor manufacturing and that only
conduct minimal production of semiconductors for research and
development purposes. The commenter requested that EPA add a de minimis
threshold for rule applicability.
Response: Through our data gathering efforts, we found that
research and development activities are often integrated into the
production activities at semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Such
research and development activities are often used in actual production
because the technology upon which the manufacturing process is based
undergoes substantial change every few years. This extremely short
technology life cycle results in constant research and development
efforts geared toward developing and implementing new manufacturing
technologies. The continual research and development efforts result in
an ongoing integration of new technologies into mainstream production
operations. New manufacturing operations are typically not developed
apart from existing manufacturing operations, but rather side-by-side
with them. The new operations are gradually integrated into mainstream
production. As such, the majority of research and development work is
done in a manner nearly indistinguishable from the existing
manufacturing process.
Given the manner in which research and development activities are
integrated into production, there is no bright line distinction between
research and development and production. They are located in the same
clean rooms and, more importantly, share the same exhaust plenums and
emission control devices. For these reasons, the research and
development activities are considered part of the production process
and are within the affected source.
We note, however, that the research and development operations have
to be located at a semiconductor manufacturing facility to be
considered a semiconductor manufacturing process unit. Therefore,
research and development activities that are not used to produce
semiconductors for commerce, or produce them only for captive use,
would not be semiconductor manufacturing process units and would not be
subject to the final rule. Nor would research and development
operations that are stand alone activities (that is, not integrated
into the production process) be subject to the final rule. We modified
40 CFR 63.7182(b) of the final rule to clarify this point.
Comment: One commenter argued that EPA must regulate all major
sources and believed the proposed rule fails to do this because it does
not apply to sources that installed add-on control devices after the
facility was designed and commenced operation. The commenter
interpreted the court's ruling in Alabama Power (Alabama Power Co. v.
U.S. EPA, 636 F.2d 323 (DC Cir. 1979)) as specifying that controls must
be incorporated into the original design of the facility in order to be
considered when calculating the facility's potential to emit.
[[Page 27917]]
Response: We believe the commenter incorrectly interpreted the
court's decision in Alabama Power. That case addressed, in part, the
interpretation of ``potential to emit'' in the definition of major
source in the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations
(also part of the CAA, but unrelated to hazardous air pollutant
regulations). The court found that EPA ``must look to the facility's
`design capacity' a concept which not only includes a facility's
maximum productive capacity * * * but also takes into account the
anticipated functioning of the air pollution control equipment designed
into the facility.'' (Alabama Power, 636 F.2d at 353). The commenter
has interpreted this statement to mean that only controls that were
part of the original design of the facility can be taken into account
when calculating potential to emit. Nowhere does the court state or
even imply such a result in its decision. The commenter failed to take
into account that the PSD regulations define a preconstruction
permitting process. Because the air emission sources under
consideration in the PSD process have yet to be constructed, the
permitting process must necessarily deal with only designs of future
air emission sources. We believe the court's language reflects only
this aspect of the PSD review process, not the interpretation given by
the commenter.
The NESHAP program, on the other hand, is concerned with air
emission sources already in existence, as well as new sources. If we
were to apply the wording of Alabama Power to the NESHAP program, our
interpretation would be that the phrase ``designed into the facility''
means any air emission control equipment in use at the facility at the
time a major source determination must be made, not the interpretation
given by the commenter. This is reflected in our memorandum \1\ on the
interim policy on federal enforceability of limitations on potential to
emit. In this memorandum, we stated:
\1\ ``Release of Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability of
Limitations on Potential to Emit'' (January 22, 1996) (available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/pte122.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[T]he EPA regulations provide that ``controls'' (i.e., both
pollution control equipment and operational restrictions) that limit
a source's maximum capacity to emit a pollutant may be considered in
determining its potential to emit. Historically, large numbers of
new or modified sources that otherwise would be subject to PSD and
NSR permitting requirements have limited their PTE in order to
obtain ``synthetic minor'' status and thereby avoid major source
requirements. With the advent of operating permit programs under
Title V and the MACT program under section 112, many sources that
otherwise would be subject to these new requirements under the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 also have obtained, or plan to obtain,
PTE limits to avoid coverage.
The phrase ``have obtained, or plan to obtain'' implies that these
sources will be adding controls to limit emissions. Since these
controls would be added to an existing facility, they could not have
been designed into the facility before it was ever constructed. Thus,
the commenter's interpretation is incorrect, and we have made no
changes for the final rule in response to this comment.
Comment: One commenter requested that a definition for ``process
vent'' be added to the final rule. Additionally, the commenter further
argued that if EPA cannot exclude research and development vents from
the definition of process vents, then the final rule must provide an
exemption for research and development activities consistent with
section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
A second commenter was also concerned with the absence of a
definition for process vent. The commenter pointed out that the absence
of a definition results in ambiguity regarding compliance obligations.
The commenter also suggested that a process vent definition would allow
EPA to exclude categories of emission points with negligible emissions
potential.
Response: We agree that a definition of ``process vent'' would be
beneficial in determining which emission points at a semiconductor
manufacturing facility are subject to the emission limitations in 40
CFR 63.7184 of the final rule. Because the affected source is defined
in terms of semiconductor manufacturing process units (see 40 CFR
63.7182), the process vents subject to regulation necessarily must
originate from these process units. Therefore, we have included the
following definition to 40 CFR 63.7195: Process vent means the point at
which HAP emissions are released to the atmosphere from a semiconductor
manufacturing process unit or storage tank by means of a stack,
chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. The HAP
emission points originating from wastewater treatment equipment, other
than storage tanks, are not considered to be a process vent, unless the
wastewater treatment equipment emission points are connected to a
common vent or exhaust plenum with other process vents.
We do not believe any of the other process vent exemptions
requested by these commenters are appropriate. Research and development
operations are considered to be part of the overall semiconductor
manufacturing process unless they are stand alone operations. We
believe that relief valve discharge points, process analyzers, and
conservation vents can be adequately connected to process vent exhaust
ducts, if this is not already the case. Emergency electrical generators
are not included in the definition of semiconductor manufacturing
process unit, so there is no need to exclude them from the definition
of process vent.
Comment: One commenter was concerned about the broad definition of
``control device'' in 40 CFR 63.981(a). According to the commenter,
this paragraph could be interpreted to mean that certain devices that
are part of the process (not an add-on control device) would be subject
to the rule.
Response: We agree that there are certain devices used by the
semiconductor industry that could be construed as control devices but
are in fact an inherent part of the process, and that clarification is
necessary in the final rule. In response, we have included the
following definition to 40 CFR 63.7195: Control device means a
combustion device, recovery device, recapture device, or any
combination of these devices used for the primary purpose of reducing
emissions to comply with this subpart. Devices that are inherent to a
process or are integral to the operation of a process are not
considered control devices for the purposes of this subpart, even
though these devices may have the secondary effect of reducing
emissions.
Comment: One commenter objected to the EPA's approach of using area
source information to establish the MACT floor as being inconsistent
with section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. The commenter believed that area
sources are not part of the semiconductor manufacturing category for
major sources and should not be relied on for establishing the MACT
floor.
Response: Section 112(a)(1) of the CAA defines major source as
``any stationary source or group of stationary sources * * * that emits
or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10
tpy or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of hazardous air pollutants.'' An area source is then
defined in section 112(a)(2) as any stationary source that is not a
major source. The facilities which we used to establish the MACT floor
were ``synthetic minor'' sources, meaning that they reduced their
potential to emit below the major source threshold (here, through the
use of add-on control devices and material substitution). Without these
controls, these facilities
[[Page 27918]]
would have the potential to emit at major source levels.
We disagree that the MACT floors must be based solely on major
sources of HAP emissions. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA directs us to
promulgate rules for categories of major and area sources of HAP
emissions. Then, section 112(d)(2) mandates that these standards
``shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions * * *
achievable for new or existing sources.'' Section 112(d)(3) specifies
how we are to determine the maximum degree of emission reduction and
describes it as ``not less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source'' for new
sources, and for existing sources describes it as ``the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the
existing sources * * *'' Even though Congress saw fit to distinguish
between major and area sources in many other places in section 112 of
the CAA, they specifically did not require that the floor be based on
major sources. Throughout section 112(d), Congress simply used the term
``source.'' We interpret this to mean that Congress left it to our
discretion to determine the most appropriate sources on which to base
the MACT floors. Accordingly, for the proposed rule we used both major
sources and synthetic minor sources as the basis of the MACT floors. We
believe our interpretation of section 112(d) of the CAA is correct, and
no changes were made for the final rule as a result of these comments.
Comment: One commenter contended that EPA may not set floors for
process vents based on the technology of thermal oxidizers, but must
identify the best performing process vents, determine their actual
performance, and calculate floors based on the average of that
performance. Another commenter questioned the validity of establishing
a single concentration for total HAP emissions from process vents and
requested that different control and concentration limits be set for
the organic HAP and inorganic HAP emissions.
Response: After reviewing the procedure we used to establish the
MACT floors in light of these comments, we agree that we should first
establish a MACT floor for both organic and inorganic HAP emissions
from process vents (other than storage tanks) and then evaluate the
appropriate emission limits for each. Based on a revised analysis, we
calculated the MACT floor for organic process vents to be 98 percent
control, or an organic HAP emission limit of 20 ppmv, which were the
emission limits in the proposed rule. For inorganic HAP, we calculated
the MACT floor to be 95 percent control or an inorganic emission limit
of 0.42 ppmv. We have written 40 CFR 63.7184 of the final rule to
reflect these revised MACT floors.
Comment: One commenter had several concerns with the approach used
to establish the MACT floor for storage tanks. The commenter believed
that area source semiconductor manufacturing facilities and HCl
production sources are not part of the major source semiconductor
manufacturing category and should not have been relied on to set the
storage tank MACT floor. Two commenters requested that any storage tank
limits should be limited specifically to tanks storing HCl or
hydrofluoric acid (HF).
Another commenter argued that EPA improperly based floors for
storage tanks over 800 gallons on the performance of scrubbers. The
commenter stated that EPA must identify the relevant best performing
storage tanks, determine their actual performance, and recalculate
floors for storage tanks over 800 gallons based on the average of that
performance. The commenter also contended that EPA must conduct beyond-
the-floor analysis for storage tanks under 800 gallons to determine the
maximum degree of emissions reductions achievable.
One commenter argued that any final rule should exclude hazardous
waste storage tanks and vessels storing wastewater. The commenter
contended that EPA has not made the required MACT finding for hazardous
waste storage tanks and vessels storing wastewater. The commenter
further argued that hazardous waste storage vessels and vessels storing
wastewater have low HAP concentrations and do not warrant regulation
beyond RCRA requirements.
Response: We agree that the procedure outlined by these commenters
is the best procedure for determining the MACT floors, assuming that
the appropriate data are available. In the case of storage tanks, we
had no such data. The only data the industry could provide to us were
the size of the tank, contents of the tank, and whether emissions from
the tank were controlled. No performance data were available for the
tank emission controls used by the semiconductor industry. For these
reasons, we used data on the performance of the most representative
similar source for which data were available, which were for scrubbers
on HCl storage tanks obtained from the HCl manufacturing industry.
Based on these comments, we now believe it is more appropriate to
develop separate MACT floors for the different types of storage tanks
in the semiconductor industry, and that it was inappropriate to use
storage tanks from the HCl production industry as the most
representative similar source.
It was always our intent to include all storage and wastewater
tanks containing HAP in the affected source. However, based on the
additional information provided by the industry, we have concluded that
it was not appropriate to develop one MACT floor for all types of tanks
due to the wide range of emissions from the each type of tank. While we
cannot exempt an emission source solely due to the low annual emissions
from that source, we thought that the MACT floor level of control could
be influenced by the level of emissions from each type of tank and the
existing regulations (i.e., RCRA) to which some tanks may be subject.
Therefore, we developed separate MACT floors for chemical storage tanks
(including waste storage tanks regulated under RCRA), wastewater
storage tanks, and wastewater treatment tanks.
We found that the MACT floor level of control for both chemical
storage tanks and wastewater storage tanks, based on the top five best
performing sources in each data set, is the same for each type of tank.
The level of control is to reduce emissions through the use of a
scrubber and is identical to the level of control used to establish the
emission limits as proposed. However, based on other comments we
received, we decided not to use the same procedure to establish the
emission limits for the final rule. For wastewater treatment tanks, we
determined the MACT floor level of control to be no emissions
reduction.
The data set we used to establish the original MACT floor for
storage tank emissions included the type of control (e.g., scrubbers),
but no information on the performance of the control devices or
pollutant concentration in the outlet streams. In order to establish
emission limits, we previously relied on the performance of controls
used by the HCl production industry on HCl storage tanks. We used these
data because the majority of tanks reported by the semiconductor
industry contained HCl as well. We considered the HCl production
industry data to be the most representative similar source for which we
had data.
The comments we received questioned whether these storage tanks
were representative, similar sources. In response to these comments, we
further investigated the similarities and differences of the
semiconductor manufacturing industry storage tanks
[[Page 27919]]
and the HCl production industry tanks. We first determined that there
is a large size differential between the tanks used by the
semiconductor industry and those used by the HCl production industry.
The largest reported semiconductor industry storage tank was 16,000
gallons, and most were less than 10,000 gallons. In contrast, most of
the storage tanks reported by the HCl production industry ranged from
200,000 gallons to over 2 million gallons. We then determined that the
HCl stored by the semiconductor industry was often diluted, while the
HCl production industry almost exclusively stored concentrated HCl.
Based on the larger tank size and the higher concentration of material
stored, the emission streams from the HCl production industry storage
tanks will have a considerably higher pollutant concentration than from
the semiconductor industry storage tanks. We believe this is a more
important consideration when establishing emission limits than simply
looking at the similarity of the material stored. Thus, we expect that
the emissions streams from the semiconductor manufacturing industry
storage tanks will have a very low concentration of pollutants.
Since the semiconductor industry storage tank emission streams will
have similar characteristics to those of process vents (i.e., low
pollutant concentration), we now believe the most representative
similar sources for evaluating the MACT floor for storage tanks are the
semiconductor industry process vents. Therefore, in response to the
comments concerning our use of HCl production industry storage tanks as
the most representative similar source, we are adopting the process
vent inorganic HAP emission limits for storage tanks in the final rule.
We also agree that we should have given further consideration to
controls more stringent than the MACT floor for storage tanks less than
800 gallons (now 1,500 gallons in the final rule as discussed below)
and wastewater treatment tanks. The MACT floor for both of these types
of tanks was determined to be no control. However, controls more
stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., scrubbers) are technically
feasible as demonstrated by the data provided by the industry on tanks
greater than 1,500 gallons.
In order to include emission limits more stringent than the MACT
floor level of control in the final rule, they must be feasible on both
a technical and cost basis. Technical feasibility is assumed based on
similar control on larger tanks as reported by the industry. To
evaluate cost feasibility, we estimated the HAP emissions from a 1,500
gallon tank containing concentrated HCl, assuming one complete turnover
per day. These parameters will result in the maximum amount of HAP
emissions from the tank that we would expect for the semiconductor
manufacturing industry. We then estimated the cost of a scrubber to
control these emissions by 99 percent. Finally, we calculated the cost
per ton of additional HAP emission reduction achieved above the MACT
floor level of control, which was more than $285,000 per ton. Based on
this result, we considered this level of control to be infeasible on a
cost basis and did not require emission control more stringent than the
MACT floor for storage tanks less than 1,500 gallons or wastewater
treatment tanks in the final rule.
We made an additional change for the final rule based on our
revised storage tank MACT floor analysis. Because we eliminated several
tanks from the data set used in the MACT floor analysis, the cutoff for
the smallest size tank for which the final rule applies increased from
800 gallons to 1,500 gallons.
While the storage tanks that were used to establish the MACT floor
level of control stored either HCl or HF, we believe this level of
control is applicable to any material stored by a semiconductor
manufacturing facility. Therefore, we do not believe that the emission
limits must necessarily be limited to these two chemicals, as suggested
by one of the commenters.
In our final analysis, we determined that the level of control
already existing on waste storage tanks regulated under RCRA is
equivalent to the storage tank MACT floor level of control. We also
determined that the MACT floor for wastewater treatment tanks was no
emissions reduction. Accordingly, we excluded both types of tanks from
any requirements in the final rule. We added the following definition
(based on the definition of ``tank'' in 40 CFR 63.901, (subpart OO--
National Emission Standards for Tanks-Level 1) and 40 CFR 63.1101
(subpart YY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Standards)) for ``storage tank'' to 40 CFR 63.7195 that clarifies which
tanks we intended to be covered under the final rule: Storage tank
means a stationary unit that is constructed primarily from nonearthen
materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic) which
provides structural support and is designed to hold an accumulation of
liquids or other materials used in or generated by a semiconductor
manufacturing process unit. The following are not storage tanks for the
purposes of the final rule:
[sbull] Tanks permanently attached to motor vehicles such as
trucks, railcars, barges, or ships;
[sbull] Flow-through tanks where wastewater undergoes treatment
(such as pH adjustment) before discharge, and are not used to
accumulate wastewater;
[sbull] Bottoms receiver tanks; and
[sbull] Surge control tanks.
Comment: One commenter reiterated a previous request for EPA to
delist the Semiconductor Manufacturing source category and provided
information to support their request. The commenter claimed that this
information shows that there will be no stand alone semiconductor
manufacturing facilities. Therefore, since EPA listed this category on
the MACT source category list at a time when there were stand alone
facilities that were major sources, the basis for listing the category
no longer exists. The commenter cited the preamble language from the
initial source category listing notice (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and
the first notice revising the list (61 FR 28200, June 4, 1996) to
support their interpretation of when a category should be included on
the source category list. The commenter stated that if a stand alone
major source did come into existence in the future, EPA could
promulgate a MACT standard at that time. Additionally, the commenter
pointed out that case-by-case MACT determinations under section 112(g)
of the CAA could also be used to control emissions from such a source.
The commenter also pointed to other EPA actions to support their
position. The commenter noted that EPA guidance issued after the
National Mining Association court case (National Mining Association v.
U.S. EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995)) states that section 112(d)
standards should be applied to source categories that contain stand
alone major sources or that have sources ``commonly located'' at major
source facilities. The commenter also noted that EPA, in promulgating
MACT standards for industrial process cooling towers (IPCT), had found
that co-location of an IPCT on a major source site is not sufficient to
trigger applicability of the rule, rather, the IPCT must be co-located
and an integral part of the facility.
The commenter disagreed with EPA's interpretation that a source
category delisting can proceed only under section 112(c)(9) of the CAA.
The commenter believed that EPA has a non-discretionary duty under
section
[[Page 27920]]
112(c)(1) to periodically revise the list in response to new
information. Under the provisions specified in section 112(c)(1), which
the commenter believes are wholly separate from the delisting procedure
in section 112(c)(9), EPA has the authority and the latitude to remove
a previously listed source category from the MACT standard source
category list.
Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule for semiconductor
manufacturing, we acknowledged receipt of the pre-proposal request to
remove the Semiconductor Manufacturing source category from the list of
source categories and indicated we would respond in the final
rulemaking (67 FR 30852, May 8, 2002).
Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA directs EPA to promulgate regulations
for categories of major sources of HAP emissions. We interpret section
112(a) as requiring consideration of all emissions sources in
determining major source status. Thus, if a source emits 10 tons or
more per year of any single HAP or 25 tons or more per year of any
combination of HAP, it is a major source. Similarly, if a source is co-
located with sources in other categories and the aggregate emissions of
the combined sources is 10 or more tons per year of a single HAP or 25
tons or more per year of any combination of HAP, that group of co-
located sources is a major source. This interpretation is consistent
with the legislative history on the definition of ``major source,''
which indicates clearly that all portions of a major source are subject
to MACT even if, standing alone, individual portions of that source
would not qualify as major. [136 Cong. Rec. S. 16927 (October 27,
1990)].
The definition of major source also includes provisions to assure
that stationary sources which would otherwise be subject to the
emissions standards are not excluded from control requirements as the
result of arbitrary subdivision or description of the source. A
stationary source potentially subject to an emissions standard because
it emits a listed air pollutant is to be defined to include all
emission points and units of such source located within a contiguous
area and under common control.
Because the statute instructs EPA to consider co-located sources as
major sources, we believe we must list and promulgate standards for
source categories that are major sources as a result of co-location.
Accordingly, when we published the initial list of source categories,
we ``includ[ed] categories of major sources where there was reasonable
certainty that at least one stationary source is a major source or
where sources in the category [were] commonly located on the premises
of major sources.'' (57 FR 31576, July 16,1992). The EPA continues to
believe that major source determinations must be based on facility-wide
emissions and that a major source can be either a stand alone major
source or co-located with other sources that in combination emit or
have the potential to emit over the major source threshold.
We disagree with the commenter's reading of the preamble to the
IPCT MACT standard. In promulgating the MACT standard, we said that
even though no individual source in the IPCT source category is itself
a major source, we promulgated a MACT standard in light of IPCT being
co-located with other major sources of HAP (59 FR 46339, September 8,
1994). The IPCT MACT provides clear precedent both for promulgating a
semiconductor MACT standard and to not remove the Semiconductor
Manufacturing source category from the list of source categories.
Accordingly, because section 112(d) requires EPA to promulgate MACT
standards for all major sources, and since the Semiconductor
Manufacturing source category is a category of major sources, albeit,
because existing sources are co-located with other sources that in
combination emit or have the potential to emit over the major source
thresholds, EPA will not revise the list of source categories to remove
the Semiconductor Manufacturing source category.
Finally, we also believe this source category is not static and
that changes (either economic or process) may trigger operational
changes that could result in increased HAP emissions. Thus, it is not
entirely clear whether those sources that are currently ``synthetic
area sources'' will continue to be ``synthetic area sources.'' And
accordingly, it is not inconceivable that the MACT standards
promulgated today will eventually be applicable to more than the one
currently co-located facility. In addition, there is always the
possibility of new major sources being constructed in the future.
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA reconsider delisting this
source category using de minimis principles under section 112(c)(1) of
the CAA. The commenter proposed exemption of all nonmajor semiconductor
process units from regulation in a manner consistent with the approach
to applicability in section 112(g) of the CAA.
Response: The commenter's suggested de minimis cutoff levels are
inconsistent with the CAA's prescribed method for determining the MACT
floor. We do not believe that the CAA authorizes exempting an emission
source solely due to the low annual emissions from that source. The
outlet concentration limits for both inorganic and organic emissions
serve as the minimum applicable limits for the affected sources. If the
outlet concentration is below the applicable emission limit, no
controls are required to demonstrate compliance.
IV. What Are the Final Standards?
A. What Is the Source Category?
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 integrated into the
manufacturing process (that is, they are not stand alone operations),
and these 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
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 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.
[[Page 27921]]
B. What Is the Affected Source?
We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of
stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which specific
NESHAP apply. Within a source category, we select the specific emission
sources (emission points or groupings of emission points) that will
make up the affected source for that category. To select these emission
sources, we mainly consider the constituent HAP and quantity emitted
from individual or groups of emission points.
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 integrated into the manufacturing process at a semiconductor
manufacturing site, and storage tanks located at a major source.
A semiconductor manufacturing process 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.
C. What Are the Emission Standards?
Emission limits. We are promulgating standards that regulate HAP
emissions from process vents and storage tank vents at semiconductor
manufacturing facilities. The standards are the same for existing and
new sources. All major sources must reduce process vent organic HAP
outlet concentrations by 98 percent from their uncontrolled levels and
reduce uncontrolled inorganic HAP outlet concentrations by 95 percent.
As an alternative, process vents may be controlled to a level below 20
ppmv organic HAP and 0.42 ppmv inorganic HAP. In addition, all major
sources must reduce storage tank vent HAP outlet inorganic HAP
concentrations by 95 percent from their uncontrolled levels. As an
alternative, storage tank vents may be controlled to a level below 0.42
ppmv inorganic HAP.
General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) also apply to you as outlined in the final rule. The General
Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part
63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures,
preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for
conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications,
reporting, and recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The
final rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to
emphasize key sections that you should be aware of. However, unless
otherwise specifically excluded in the final rule, all of the relevant
General Provisions requirements apply to you.
V. When Must I Comply With the Final Rule?
Existing semiconductor manufacturing affected sources must comply
with the final rule no later than 3 years after May 22, 2003. The
effective date is May 22, 2003. New or reconstructed affected sources
must comply upon start-up or May 22, 2003, whichever is later. Details
of the compliance requirements can be found in the General Provisions,
as outlined in Table 2 to the subpart.
VI. What Are the Testing and Initial Continuous Compliance
Requirements?
In addition to the specific testing and monitoring requirements
specified below for the affected source, the final rule adopts the
testing requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.7.
We are promulgating 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 promulgated today. For example,
we are promulgating 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 promulgating compliance procedures to determine process vent and
storage tank vent flow rates and HAP concentrations. The promulgated
test methods parallel what we have used for process vents in previous
organic HAP emissions standards (e.g., the HON) and inorganic HAP
emission standards. For measuring vent stream flow rate, you must use
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, you must use 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, you must use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
For measuring inorganic HAP that are hydrogen halides, such as HCl or
HF, you must use Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Additionally, we are requiring 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
promulgating 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 final rule requires you
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
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 you 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.
VII. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Must
I Follow?
We are promulgating notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and other
previously promulgated NESHAP for similar source categories.
[[Page 27922]]
We are requiring 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 are 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 requiring that you list
the semiconductor manufacturing operations at your facility, and the
provisions of the final 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 by May
21, 2004, 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 requiring
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 requiring 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 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 requiring 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 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).
VIII. What Are the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the
Final Rule?
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 will be built on the site of another
major HAP emitting operation. We also project that the types of
technologies that have evolved (e.g., producing larger wafers), which
are in general emit fewer HAP per chip manufactured, will continue.
A. What Are the Secondary and Energy Impacts?
We do not anticipate any significant increase in national annual
energy usage as a result of the final rule. Energy impacts include
changes in 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 and scrubbers--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 the final rule 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 the final rule. 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 the annualized cost for the one major source affected
by this final rule to be $2,300, solely to comply with monitoring,
inspecting, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. (Note: This
source meets the CAA section 112 definition of ``major source'' not
because it emits 10 tons or more of any one HAP or 25 tons or more of
HAP in aggregate, but because it is collocated at a plant site that is
a major source subject to other NESHAP. We estimate this semiconductor
manufacturing source emits less than one ton of HAP per year.) We
project there will be no capital or operating costs for control
equipment. Further, we estimate a one-time total cost of $33,000 for
the approximately 126 non-major sources to read the rule. We estimate
that there will be no impacts on new sources because we do not project
that any new major sources will be built over the next 3 years.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The final rule applies 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 $6,956 over a 3-
year period. Therefore, no economic impact on the industry is expected.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) 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,
[[Page 27923]]
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 obligation 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 this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2042.01) and a copy may be obtained
from Susan Auby by mail at the Collection Strategies Division (2822),
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-
mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The
information requirements are not enforceable 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 EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency 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 41 labor hours per year at a total
annual cost of $2,319. This estimate includes a one-time plan for
demonstrating compliance, annual compliance certification reports,
notifications, and recordkeeping. Total labor burden associated with
the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are
estimated at $6,956.
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 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. The OMB
control number for the information collection requirements in this rule
will be listed in an amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in a subsequent Federal
Register document after OMB approves the ICR.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The
EPA has also determined that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final 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.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on the above definition of small entities, the EPA has determined
that there are no small businesses within this source category that
would be subject to the final rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rule 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 an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the
final rule for any year has been estimated to be about $35,800. Thus,
the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the standards
contains no regulatory
[[Page 27924]]
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the 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'' are 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.''
The final 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to the rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to the rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials
to enable them to provide timely input in the development of the final
rule.
F. 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 the 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.'' The final rule
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order
13175. No tribal governments own or operate semiconductor manufacturing
facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final
rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA 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 regulation. The final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on an assessment of health or safety risks.
Furthermore, the final rule has been determined not to be
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 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, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), with explanations when an agency does not use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards in this rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 26, 26A, and 320. Consistent with the
NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards
in addition to these EPA method. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G. The
search and review results have been documented and are placed in the
docket A-97-15 for the final rule.
The voluntary 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 this rule in
addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A for the
measurement of toluene and total organic HAP.
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: (1) The target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1
of ASTM D6420-99, and (2) the target concentration is between 150 ppbv
and 100 ppmv.
For target compound(s) not listed in Section 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 Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM
D6420-99 does not apply.
As a result, EPA will cite ASTM D6420-99 in this rule. 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 standard EPA cites in this
rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14
other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 11 of
these 14 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or
surrogates subject to emission standards in this rule were impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule.
Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this
purpose. The reasons for this
[[Page 27925]]
determination for the 11 methods are discussed in the docket.
Two of the 14 voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the
purposes of the final rule 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); and ASME/BSR
MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' has been reviewed by the EPA as a potential
alternative to EPA Method 320. Suggested revisions to ASTM D6348-98
were sent to ASTM by the EPA that would allow the EPA to accept ASTM
D6348-98 as an acceptable alternative. The ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is
currently undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348-98. Because of this, we
are not citing this standard as a acceptable alternative for EPA Method
320 in the final rule today. However, 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. In the interim, facilities have the option to
request ASTM D6348-98 as an alternative test method under 40 CFR
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) on a case-by-case basis.
Table 1 to subpart BBBBB lists the EPA testing methods included in
the final rule. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A, a source
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report
containing the rule and other required information to the United States
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will be effective May
22, 2003.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 28, 2003.
Christine T. Whitman,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart BBBBB to read as follows:
Subpart BBBBB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing
Sec.
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
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
integrated into a semiconductor manufacturing process unit. A
semiconductor manufacturing process 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
[[Page 27926]]
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 May 22, 2003, then
you must comply with the emission standards for new and reconstructed
sources in this subpart no later than May 22, 2003.
(2) If you start up your affected source after May 22, 2003, 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
May 22, 2003.
(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. 63.7182(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 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 all applicable
emission limitations in this section on and after the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.7183.
(b) Process vents--organic HAP emissions. For each process vent
that emits organic HAP, other than process vents from storage tanks,
you must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in
paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section. 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 organic HAP from the process vent
stream by 98 percent by weight.
(2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted organic HAP
from the process vent to less than or equal to 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv).
(c) Process vents--inorganic HAP emissions. For each process vent
that emits inorganic HAP, other than process vents from storage tanks,
you must limit inorganic HAP emissions to the level specified in
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met
by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent
system to a halogen scrubber meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.
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 inorganic HAP from the process vent
stream by 95 percent by weight.
(2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted inorganic HAP
from the process vent to less than or equal to 0.42 ppmv.
(d) Storage tanks. For each storage tank, 1,500 gallons or larger,
you must limit total HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section if the emissions from the storage tank
vent contains greater than 0.42 ppmv inorganic 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
Sec. Sec. 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 inorganic HAP from each storage tank by
95 percent by weight.
(2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted inorganic HAP
from the process vent to less than or equal to 0.42 ppmv.
(e) 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).
[[Page 27927]]
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 to
measure the total organic regulated material or total organic carbon
(TOC) concentration. The EPA Methods 26 and 26A are 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 26 or 26A must be used for testing
regulated material containing inorganic HAP. 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 an organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or an
inorganic HAP concentration of 0.42 ppmv or less, or your storage tank
vent stream has an inorganic HAP concentration of 0.42 ppmv or less,
you may 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) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission
limitations in Sec. 63.7184 and the inlet concentration of HAP to the
control device is 20 ppmv or less, then you may demonstrate that the
control device meets the percent by weight HAP emission reduction
limitation in Sec. 63.7184(c)(1) or (d)(1) by conducting a design
evaluation as specified in paragraph (i) of this section. Your design
evaluation 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 design evaluation.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with your SSMP.
(e) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must
develop and submit for approval a site-specific monitoring plan that
addresses the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) 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);
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system; and
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(f) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the procedural processes in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and
(8);
(2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
(g) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(h) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(i) Design evaluation. To demonstrate that a control device meets
the required percent by weight inorganic HAP emission reduction
limitation in Sec. 63.7184(c)(1) or (d)(1), a design evaluation must
address the composition of the inorganic HAP concentration of the vent
stream entering the control device. A design evaluation also must
address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating
parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of
this section, depending on the type of control device that is used. If
the vent stream is not the only inlet to the control device, the
efficiency demonstration must also consider all other vapors, gases,
and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.
(1) For a condenser, the design evaluation shall consider the vent
stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall
establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level,
design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and
the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser
inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the
condenser must be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP
concentration.
(2) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed
directly onsite in the control device such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the
design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative
humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent
stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time,
number and capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of
activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total regeneration stream
mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon bed
regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration,
design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon.
For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be included.
(3) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the
carbon bed directly onsite in the control device such as a carbon
canister, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream mass or
volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall
establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration
level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of activated
carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval
based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device and
source operating schedule.
(4) For a scrubber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent
stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio,
scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the
reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The
design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent stream
organic compound concentration level and will include the additional
information in paragraphs (i)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section for trays
and a packed column scrubber.
(i) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays;
[[Page 27928]]
(ii) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and
for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed
section.
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 Sec. Sec. 63.983 through 63.995. If you
used the design evaluation procedure in Sec. 63.7187(i) to demonstrate
compliance, you must use the information from the design evaluation to
establish the operating parameter level for monitoring of the control
device.
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
Sec. Sec. 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 May 22, 2003, you must submit an Initial Notification not
later than 120 calendar days after May 22, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after May 22, 2003. 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. If you used the
design evaluation procedure in Sec. 63.7187(i) to demonstrate
compliance, you must include the results of the design evaluation in
the Notification of Compliance Status.
(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 you
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 40 CFR 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
[[Page 27929]]
paragraphs (d)(1) through (2) 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.
(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 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 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 (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
Sec. Sec. 63.2 and 63.981, the General Provisions of this part (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A), and in this section as follows:
Control device means a combustion device, recovery device,
recapture device, or any combination of these devices used for the
primary purpose of reducing emissions to comply with this subpart.
Devices that are inherent to a process or are integral to the operation
of a process are not considered control devices for the purposes of
this subpart, even though these devices may have the secondary effect
of reducing emissions.
Process vent means the point at which HAP emissions are released to
the atmosphere from a semiconductor manufacturing process unit or
storage tank by means of a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally
equivalent opening. The HAP emission points originating from wastewater
treatment equipment, other than storage tanks, are not considered to be
a process vent, unless the wastewater treatment equipment emission
points are connected to a common vent or exhaust plenum with other
process vents.
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
[[Page 27930]]
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 associated with
semiconductor manufacturing and conducted at a semiconductor
manufacturing facility are considered to be semiconductor manufacturing
process units.
Storage tank means a stationary unit that is constructed primarily
from nonearthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass,
or plastic) which provides structural support and is designed to hold
an accumulation of liquids or other materials used in or generated by a
semiconductor manufacturing process unit. The following are not storage
tanks for the purposes of this subpart:
(1) Tanks permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(2) Flow-through tanks where wastewater undergoes treatment (such
as pH adjustment) before discharge, and are not used to accumulate
wastewater;
(3) Bottoms receiver tanks; and
(4) Surge control tanks.
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:
Table 1 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . 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 (if
the number of A. emission reduction or
traverse ports. 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 only;
rate. part 60, appendix A. not necessary for
determining compliance
with a ppmv concentration
limit.
c. Conduct gas i. Method 3, 3A, or 3B For flow rate determination
molecular weight of 40 CFR part 60, only.
analysis. appendix A.
ii. ASME PTC 19.10- You may use ASME PTC 19.10-
1981-Part 10. 1981-Part 10 (available
for purchase from Three
Park Avenue, New York, NY
10016-5990) as an
alternative to EPA Method
3B.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR For flow rate determination
content of the stack part 60, appendix A. and correction to dry
gas. basis, if necessary.
2. Process vent stream............. a. Measure organic and i. Method 18, 25, or (1) To determine compliance
inorganic HAP 25A of 40 CFR part with the percent by weight
concentration (two 60, appendix A, AND emission reduction limit,
method option). ii. Method 26 or 26A conduct simultaneous
of 40 CFR part 60, sampling at inlet and
appendix A. outlet of control device
and analyze for same
organic and inorganic HAP
at both inlet and outlet;
and
(2) 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 gas is at
least 20 times the
standard deviation of the
response from the zero
calibration gas when the
instrument is zeroed on
its most sensitive scale.
--The span value of the
analyzer must be less than
100 ppmv.
To determine compliance
with 98 percent reduction
limit, conduct
simultaneous sampling at
inlet and outlet of
control device and analyze
for same organic and
inorganic HAP at both
inlet and outlet.
c. Measure organic and Method 320 of 40 CFR To determine compliance
inorganic HAP part 63, appendix A. with the percent by weight
simultaneously (one emission 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 26 or 26A of 40 To determine compliance
concentration. CFR part 60, appendix with percent by weight
A, or Method 320 of emission reduction limit,
40 CFR part 63, conduct simultaneous
appendix A. 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:
[[Page 27931]]
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 Abbreviations Yes.
Sec. 63.4............ Prohibited Activities Yes.
and Circumvention.
Sec. 63.5............ Construction and Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6............ Compliance with Yes.
Standards and
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.7............ Performance Testing Yes, with the
Requirements. exception of Sec.
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 Requirements Monitoring
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.
Sec. 63.10........... Recordkeeping and Yes, with the
Reporting Requirements. exception of Sec.
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. 03-5519 Filed 5-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U