Industry Wary of Greenhouse Gas Rules
Controls on PFCs and other greenhouse gases by the Obama administration could impact how the semiconductor industry does business, ranging from the need for more gas monitoring to longer permit cycles. Proposed EPA rules "could change the way we do business," an Intel lawyer said during a climate change roundtable at ISMI Manufacturing Week.
David Lammers, News Editor -- Semiconductor International, 10/21/2009
With the Obama administration taking a much tougher stand on greenhouse gas emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) are wrangling over proposed EPA rules that will govern fab emissions into the air, participants said at a Climate Change Regulation Roundtable held during ISMI Manufacturing Week, going on this week in Austin, Texas.
The International Sematech Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI, Austin, Texas) has worked with SIA to present EPA officials with the chip industry's viewpoint on proposed EPA rules for electronics manufacturers. In September, the EPA published rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions for most industries, but left unfinished the rules that will govern electronics manufacturing, said Laurie Beu, an ISMI ESH program manager who moderated the roundtable.
The semiconductor industry uses significant quantities of perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (e.g., HFC-23), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and others, much of it in the etching and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) steps. Although some gas emissions can be reduced further, the industry doesn't have substitutes in case the EPA calls for a phase-out or a phase-down of consumption.
Kirsten Cappel, a staff member in the EPA's Climate Change Division who has led the agency's discussions with the semiconductor industry, said 2010 is a "pivotal year" because a 1995 voluntary agreement between the EPA and the semiconductor industry to reduce pollutants is set to expire. Under the Obama administration, a reduction of fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs) "is an important part of climate solution," Cappel told an audience of ~40 ESH experts at the climate change roundtable. "At this point we are trying to get more information to inform our next steps," she added.
 |
|
The Obama administration seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from semiconductor fabs. |
One early proposal by the EPA called for chipmakers to monitor gas usage at each tool. Although most manufacturers track how much gas is used at the fab level, monitoring gas usage or GHG emissions at the tool level is seen as expensive and impractical, said Tim Higgs, an environmental engineer in Intel Corp.'s corporate environmental department.
As originally proposed by the EPA, "gas usage tracking imposes a significant cost and burden," said Laura Mendicino, a Freescale Semiconductor ESH manager who works with SIA on the emissions issue. Gas flow controllers can cost ~$20,000 each, and large fabs would require hundreds of them, one participant estimated. "To measure process-specific emissions is impractical, and involves data that we consider highly proprietary," she said.
Pete Maroulis, an ESH manager at Air Products and Chemicals Inc., also brought up the trade secrets issue. "Some gases used by our customers are trade secrets," he said. Much of the non-emission supporting data — including feedstock input, fuel use and product volumes — is often confidential business information for both Air Products and its customers "which could be used to a competitor's advantage," he said.
Rather than provide the EPA with documents describing those gases and their usage rates, Maroulis said Air Products would prefer that the EPA audit the gas manufacturing operations. One audience member said it was unlikely that the EPA would be able to fund the audits, but would hand the task over to third-party companies, which would be paid by the industry to provide the EPA with GHG emission information. Maroulis was reluctant to endorse that approach either, saying that third-party audits also might endanger proprietary information. "Confidentiality is the main thing," he said.
Another audience member said the equipment industry has urged the EPA to communicate with Taiwan and other chip manufacturing nations. Coordinating GHG rules with the rules imposed by those countries would provide U.S.-based chip manufacturers with a more level playing field, he said. "If our customers look around to other locations, they start to look more attractive if we don't have a scheme to deal with these things," he said.
Cappel said the EPA has been extraordinarily busy and has yet to get in touch with its counterparts in Taiwan or elsewhere regarding semiconductor-related emissions, though she said she would take action on the suggestion. The EPA has shared information with Taiwan regarding LCD manufacturing.
The EPA expects to finalize its rules governing electronics manufacture "shortly," Cappel said, but added that it would be unwise for her to be more specific. One roundtable participant said he personally expects the EPA rules to require many more months of discussions, with rules promulgated in 2010.
Overall, the stepped-up GHG activity by the Obama administration and Congress is the opposite of the hands-off policies of the Bush administration, said Todd Rallison, an Intel attorney working on ESH-related issues. Not only is Obama's staff active, but much of the Democratic leadership in Congress comes from California, a state that itself is proposing new "Green Chemistry" rules, for example. "Environmental policy is somewhat stalled behind health care right now," Rallison said. "But the Obama administration wants to establish the United States in a leadership role on the environment."
Environmental legislation, such as the Waxman-Markey bill introduced to Congress earlier this year, has the potential to change the way the chip industry operates, he noted. One example is that semiconductor companies would have to get approval for their gas usage plans before they could begin to build a new fab. That could introduce delays to an industry that has become accustomed to quick responses to market conditions. The proposed emission source review regulations, Rallison said, would require more permits, taking more time and effort. "If we go this way, it will change the way we do business."
Congress is discussing cap and trade legislation that will impact the semiconductor industry, and an overhaul of chemical industry regulations also is expected, he said.
-
There are 2 changes needed. First, strict laws like Germany has (TA Luft) that limit the emissions from ANY manufacturing. There are lots of gas abatement technologies to limit these to low levels, and most semiconductor makers in US and Europe already use these. However, there needs to be independant audits and fines to make sure they are really properly used. Not a huge extra expense considering the consequences.
Second - products produced in any factory worldwide that does not pass similar standards would have to have added tarrifs.
Solar is an example. The panels today are made in countries like China who play very fast and loose with environmental rules. Germany is very strict, but their companies are losing share due to bottom line cost.
We simply MUST have environental equal playing field. You don't play, fine - your products cost extra and that money can go toward green technologies
Louis - 10/24/2009 5:43:12 AM CDT -
I agree! The government greenhouse gas nonsense is an outright lie and burden placed on the american consumer and tax payers. A serious greenhouse gas emission is methane or natural gas. It comes from the fat idiots running our country. We can safely and easily limit greenhouse gas emissions by getting rid of them...
Stanley Hirsh - 10/22/2009 4:40:33 PM CDT -
MFC's don't cost $20K. What may cost that much would be an FTIR system to analyze effluent for un-reacted gases. The real problem with PFC's is CF4 generated by the aluminum industry. Semiconductor emissions are trivial in comparison.
Mike Olewine - 10/21/2009 12:49:13 PM CDT -
This whole GHG thing is as corrupt as can be. Please, let me send to all these people the real science about Global Warming that clearly shows the fraudulent claims the Government is making. The Energy numbers science clearly shows quantities of gases are trivial as they claim. It is extremely serious fraud on all of us. I will send to anyperson actual science and the calculations that tell the truth. My email address is supperguytwo@hotmail.com and I am as smart as anyperson about this basic science.
Earl David Shaffer - 10/21/2009 11:16:08 AM CDT
VIEW ALL PODCASTS
