North America EHS Committee Meeting Summary and...

NA EHS Committee 1 12 July 2012 Meeting Minutes San Francisco, California

North America EHS Committee Meeting Summary and Minutes

SEMICON West 2012 Meetings

12 July 2012, 0900 – 1600 Pacific Time

San Francisco Marriott Marquis in San Francisco, California

Next Committee Meeting

NA Standards Fall 2012 Meetings

Thursday 1 November 2012, 0900 – 1600 Pacific Time

SEMI Headquarters in San Jose, California

Table 1 Meeting Attendees

Italics indicate virtual participants

Co-Chairs: Chris Evanston (Salus Engineering), Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG), Eric Sklar (Safety Guru, LLC)

SEMI Staff: Paul Trio

Company Last First Company Last First

Air Liquide Irwin Bob Pilz GmbH Pilz Thomas

AKT Wong Carl Product EHS Consulting Brody Steven

Applied Materials Karl Edward R. Macklin & Associates Macklin Ron

ASML Planting Bert Safe Techno Nogawa Kaoru

Cymer Frankfurth Mark Salus Evanston Chris

Cymer Yakimow Byron Salus Visty John

Dainippon Screen Imamiya Ryosuke Seagate Technology Layman Curt

DECON Environmental Services Belk William Texas Instruments Schwab Paul

Hatsuta Seisakusho Crawford Moray Tokyo Electron Ibuka Shigehito

IBM Schmitt Jeffrey Tokyo Electron Krov Alan

IBM Petry William TUV Rheinland Sexton David

Intertek Rai Sunny TUV SUD Prasad Ron

KLA-Tencor Crane Lauren TUV SUD Holbrook Glenn

KLA-Tencor Crockett Alan Ultratech Green Paul

Lam Research Claes Brian

Lam Research Kryska Paul

Lam Research AG Larsen Sean SEMI Baliga Sanjay

Nikon Precision Greenberg Cliff SEMI Trio Paul

Table 2 Leadership Changes

Group Previous Leader New Leader

Fail-Safe / Fault-Tolerant Task Force New task force

Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)

Chris Evanston (Salus)

S6 Revision Task Force John Visty (Salus)

Glenn Holbrook (TUV SUD)

Eric Sklar (Safety Guru, LLC) remains as

TF co-leader


Table 3 Ballot Results

Passed ballots and line items will be submitted to the ISC Audit & Review Subcommittee for procedural review.

Failed ballots and line items were returned to the originating task forces for re-work and re-balloting.

Document # Document Title Committee Action

4683A Line Item Revisions to SEMI S2-0310e, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline

for Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Delayed Revisions Related to Chemical

Exposure

Line Item 1 Chemical Exposure Criteria Failed and returned to

task force.

Line Item 2 OEL Clarification Failed and returned to

task force.

Line Item 3 Change to applied OEL percentage for normal, maintenance and fault conditions Failed and returned to

task force.

5000A Delayed Revisions to SEMI S2-0310e, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Addition of Related Information to S2:

Selection of Interlock Reliability

Failed and returned to

task force.

5009A Line Item Revisions to SEMI S8-0308E, Safety Guidelines for Ergonomics Engineering

of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Delayed revisions related to the SESC

checklist

Line Item 1 Modify Appendix 1, SESC checklist to expand whole body clearance criteria to include

equipment operation tasks and provide criteria for additional postures


task force.

Line Item 2 Modify Appendix 1, SESC checklist to add design criteria for hand and arm clearances

which provide guidance for clearances when a variety of hand tools are used and objects

are handled


task force.

Line Item 3 Modify Appendix 1, SESC checklist to add provisions for controls on equipment lower

than 838 mm (33 in.) and placement of controls outside of recommended reach ranges

for postures other standing or sitting adopted during maintenance and service tasks


task force.

5170 Line Item Revisions to SEMI S2-0310e, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline

for Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment

Delayed Revisions Related to Limitations

Line Item 1 Section 3.3 Revision Passed with editorial

changes.

5357 Line Item Revisions to SEMI S2-0310e, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline

for Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Delayed Revisions Related to Optical

Radiation

Line Item 1 Revision to Optical Radiation Criteria Failed and returned to

task force.

Table 4 Authorized Activities

# Type SC/TF/WG Details

--- TFOF Fail-Safe /

Fault-Tolerant

TF

New task force.

5467 SNARF Fail-Safe /

Fault-Tolerant

TF

Revisions to SEMI S2, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for Semiconductor

Manufacturing Equipment and other normative S references and SEMI S22, Safety

Guideline for the Electrical Design of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment for fail-

safe fault tolerant.

Note: SNARFs and TFOFs are available for review on the SEMI Web site at:

http://downloads.semi.org/web/wstdsbal.nsf/TFOFSNARF


Table 5 Authorized Ballots

# When SC/TF/WG Details

4316I Cycle 6,

2012

S22 TF Line Item Revision to SEMI S2, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, and SEMI S22, Safety Guideline for the

Electrical Design of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment

Delayed Revision Related to Safe Electrical Design

4449D Cycle 6,

2012

S2 Ladders &

Steps TF

Revision to SEMI S2, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for Semiconductor

Manufacturing Equipment. Revisions related to stairs, ladders, platforms, and fall

protection

4683B Cycle 6,

2012

S2 Chemical

Exposure TF

Line Item Revisions to SEMI S2, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment

Delayed Revisions Related to Chemical Exposure

5000B Cycle 5,

2012

(or C6-12)

S2 Interlock

Reliability TF



Delayed Revisions Related to Interlock Reliability and Selection (added as Related

Information)

5009B Cycle 6,

2012

Ergonomics TF Delayed Line Items Revisions to SEMI S8, Safety Guidelines for Ergonomics

Engineering of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment

5357A Cycle 6,

2012

S2 Non-Ionizing

Radiation TF



Delayed Revisions Related to Non-Ionizing Radiation

1 Welcome, Reminders, and Introductions

Sean Larsen called the meeting to order at 9:08 AM. Attendees introduced themselves. Paul Trio presented the

meeting reminders on antitrust issues, intellectual property issues and effective meeting guidelines. Finally, the

agenda was reviewed.

Attachment: 01, SEMI Standards Required Meeting Elements

2 Review of Previous Meeting Minutes

The committee reviewed the minutes of the previous meeting held April 5 in conjunction with the NA Standards

Spring 2012 meetings.

Motion: Approve as written

By / 2nd: Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor) / Cliff Greenberg (Nikon Precision)

Discussion: None

Vote: 17-0. Motion passed.

Attachment: 02, NA EHS Spring 2012 meeting (April 5) minutes

3 Leadership and Liaison Reports

3.1 Japan EHS Committee

Supika Mashiro reported for the Japan EHS Committee. Of note:

• Next meeting is scheduled for September 25 at SEMI Japan (Tokyo)

• Ballot Results:

o S16 reapproval [#5374] passed committee (as balloted) and procedural reviews.

o New Standard Guide for F-GHG (Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas) [#4712A] passed committee

(with editorial changes) and procedural reviews.


o S13 revision [#4976B] failed committee review.

• S13 Revision TF

o Doc. #4976C was submitted for Cycle 4, 2012.

• S17 Revision TF

o S17 revision SNARF (#5353) was approved in September 2011. No progress has been made yet.

• S18 Revision TF

o Ballot # 4400C published as SEMI S18-0312, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Silane Flammable Silicon Compounds.

o TF will work on Japanese translation.

• S23 Revision TF

o Intends to include other components such as refrigerated chillers to Related Information 2.

� Started discussion with chiller makers.

o As proposal related to equipment idle mode have been brought up to the NA I&C Committee,

coordination efforts have been made between the S23 Revision TF and the NA I&C Committee.

• FPD System Safety Task Force

o Will work to include revisions related to non-ionizing radiation to S26 after related criteria are

revised in SEMI S2

• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Characterization Task Force

o Ballot # 4712B passed committee and procedural reviews. TF will work on Japanese translation.

o Will start revision work after the document is publicly available.

• STEP Planning Working Group

o Successfully conducted STEP/SEMI S2 in November, 2011 at SEMI Japan, Tokyo with 70

attendees.

o As a working group consensus, holding STEP/ SEMI S2 in fall was proposed.

• Seismic Protection Working Group

o TFOF approved to form the Seismic Protection Task Force.

o Started with SEMI S2/ S26 discussion, working with Taiwan EHS Technical Committee co-chairs

and committee members.

• Half-day safety program planned during SEMICON Japan 2012. Planning Team Meeting (consists of EHS

Committee co-chairs and some volunteers) will be held on July 24.

Additional Discussion:

• Ibuka-san reported that he will be leaving TEL in September and may continue to participate if he will be

allowed to do so by his new company.

• Editorial changes, per NA EHS inputs, will be proposed for ballot 4976C at the next Japan EHS Committee

in September.

• Seismic Protection TF:

o Carl Wong asked who the leaders are for this TF. Supika Mashiro responded that Eiji Nakatani

(SOKUDO) is the TF leader.


o Sean Larsen asked whether the TF is close to ballot. Supika did not think so. Ibuka-san said that

perhaps next year the task force will be ready to ballot.

o Lauren Crane asked how people can get on the distribution list. Supika said that people can email

her directly or contact SEMI staff.

o Chris Evanston asked whether the TF is still liaised with a similar activity in Taiwan. Ibuka-san

stated that a future teleconference between the two groups is planned.

Attachment: 03, Japan EHS Committee Report

3.2 Europe EHS Committee

Bert Planting reported for the Europe EHS Committee. Of note:

• Tom Pilz (Pilz GmbH) appointed as co-chair

• EU EHS SWOT analysis (from ERSC Strategy Meeting, February 2012)

Strength

• Good contact with NA EHS

• A lot of experience

Weakness

• EHS not core business during SEMICON meetings

• Limited (No) Attendance

• Limited # innovations, need for standards

Opportunities

• Environmental concern

• New legislation

• Provide training

• Involve PV

Threats

• Travel restrictions

• SEMI strategy

• Decline in general attendance of SEMICON Europa

• Action Plan 2012-2013: Existing Activities

o 2 EHS Standards published by European committee

� SEMI S10 (risk assessment)

� SEMI S25 (hydrogen peroxide)

o SEMI S25 revision to be sent out for ballot. To be adjudicated at SEMICON Europa 2012

o New Appendix to SEMI S2 (interlock reliability) balloted in Cycle 4-12. If ballot 5000A fails, it

may be balloted for adjudication by Europe EHS (and perhaps attract more attendees)

• Action Plan 2012-2013: New Activities

o Approval of interlock reliability RI to SEMI S2

o Plan STEP programs on Interlock reliability

Possible actions:

o EHS survey

o Check EHS interest in sustainability

� SEMI S23

� Green House Gas standard

Attachment: 04, Europe EHS Committee Report


3.3 RSC / Committee Leadership Report

Sean Larsen provided the leadership report. Of note:

• Regulations and Procedure Guide Updates

o No updates since last meeting. Planned for around SEMICON Japan

o Topics under development

� Virtual meetings (Japan has proposal that is being considered)

� Revisions to SNARF process

� IP issues

• NARSC Planning Meeting is planned for this fall

o The purpose of the meeting is to come up with ideas on how to resolve the problems we are

having in developing standards

o This meeting is planned to be open to more than RSC members (likely to remain by invitation, but

more open)

o Will occur on Sunday late afternoon/evening before the fall standards meetings

o If you are interested in participating, please contact Sean Larsen

� Sean will share the agenda when it gets more developed and will work on invitations

• Virtual Meetings

o Continuing discussions in many forums on how to resolve virtual meeting questions

� No indications that will be resolved quickly, but lots of effort to move forward

o SEMI will stop using LiveMeeting after West

� Need to resolve company access to GoToMeeting and any training issues

• Training & Information to Speed Up Compiled Ballot Responses

o There are lots of practices that are routinely done that both have no meaning and slow down the

compilation of ballot responses by making the process harder for staff to consolidate the responses

• What determines whether a response is a Negative or Comment?

o What do the terms “Technical” and “Editorial” mean when included with a ballot response?

o Per the Regulations: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. In practical terms it means that you haven’t read

the regulations in over a decade

o Per Regulations:

� A response is a negative if included with a vote of reject

• If a vote submitted with a reject vote is clearly indicated as a COMMENT, it can

be considered as a comment.

• The practice in committee also allows submitter to indicate the response should

be considered as a comment, but this is not addressed in the Regulations

� Responses included with votes of ‘Accept with comments’ or ‘Abstain with comments’

are considered comments

• How to speed up compilation of responses

o Please submit your responses in 3 columns

� Your reference indicator (e.g., SG27, AMAT 6, etc.) WITHOUT AUTONUMBERING


� The section that the response refers to

� The explanation of the concern and any suggested changes

o If submitted with a reject vote, clearly indicate at the beginning of the finding if you consider it to

be a COMMENT

o In MS Word ?????


• Lauren Crane pointed out that including “Technical” and “Editorial” with the vote response can still be

helpful to the committee. For example, a response can be handled via an editorial change if it is marked

“Editorial.” Sean Larsen suggested marking such responses as “can be handled as an editorial change”

instead.

• Lauren Crane pointed out that by copying the ‘autonumbered’ text from MS Word to Excel then back to

Word removes the automatic formatting.

• Alan Crocket suggested adding an extra column for justification so that it would “force” the voters to

provide them.

• Lauren Crane asked Paul Trio whether it would be OK to provide one MS Word file with embedded

attachments. Paul Trio responded, “Yes.” Furthermore, it was pointed out that a template on what needs to

be submitted with the vote responses would be helpful as well.

• Chris Evanston stated that members from other regions (e.g., Taiwan, Korea) can serve in the Audits &

Reviews Subcommittee. He wanted the committee to be aware of how this could impact the NA EHS

committee.

• Chris Evanston also mentioned that EHS activities in Taiwan and Korea appear to be dormant.

• Paul Trio stated that a guide on how to vote on ballots (i.e., view ballot files, access/log-in to voting sheets)

is available on the SEMI website: http://www.semi.org/en/Standards/Ballots

Attachment: 05, Leadership Report

3.4 SEMI Staff Report

Paul Trio gave the SEMI Staff Report. Of note:

• 2012 Global Calendar of Events

o SOLARCON India (September 3-5, Bangalore)

o SEMICON Taiwan (September 5-7, Taipei)

o SEMICON Europa (October 9-11, Dresden, Germany)

o PE2012 – Plastic Electronics Exhibition and Conference (October 9-11, Dresden, Germany)

o SEMICON Japan / PV Japan (December 5-7, Chiba)

• 2013 Global Calendar of Events (through early March)

o European 3D TSV Summit (January 22-23, Grenoble, France)

o ISS Europe 2013 [Industry Strategy Symposium] (February 24-26, Milan, Italy)

o 7th PV Fab Manager Forum (March 10-12, Berlin, Germany)

• Committees meeting at SEMICON West 2012

o 3DS-IC | EHS | Facilities & Gases | HB-LED | Information & Control | Liquid Chemicals |

MEMS/NEMS | Metrics | Microlithography | PV/PV Materials | Physical Interfaces & Carriers |

Silicon Wafer | Traceability

• STEPs (Standards Technical Education Program) & Workshops at SEMICON West 2012

o STEP: 450 mm Standards Overview (Wednesday, July 11)


o [CANCELLED] STEP: PV2 – Guide for Equipment Communication Interface

o [CANCELLED] Emerging Software Communication and Metrics Standards

• NA Standard Fall 2012 Meetings

o October 29 – November 1 at SEMI Headquarters in San Jose, California

o Inviting local companies willing and able to host some of the meetings to maintain one-week

format

o Final schedule to be announced by the end of August

• Technical Ballot Critical Dates for NA Fall 2012 Meetings

o Cycle 5: due July 27 / August 10 – September 11

o Cycle 6: due August 29 / September 12 – October 12

• Standards Publications Report

o April 2012 Cycle

� New Standards – 2, Revised Standards – 3, Reapproved Standards – 8, Withdrawn

Standards – 0

o May 2012 Cycle


Standards – 0

o June 2012 Cycle


Standards – 0, Total in portfolio – 845 (includes 83 Inactive Standards)

• Membership Update (graph/charts)

o Global TC Members by Committee

o Standards Published by Committee (2009-2011)

• Preliminary Standards Use Analysis

o The top 70 standards account for 50% of accesses – primarily:

� EHS

� Equipment Automation Hardware

� Equipment Automation Software

� Silicon Wafer

o FPD, Packaging are infrequently accessed

• List of Top 25 Standards

o Accessed in SEMIViews

o Individual Downloads in SEMI Web store

Attachment: 06, SEMI Staff Report

3.5 EHS Division Liaison

Sanjay Baliga reported that a meeting was held earlier in the week to investigate the applicability of S2 in PV. PV

manufacturers were invited to participate. The meeting drew five (5) attendees.

The meeting participants were then asked to rate the following:

• Applicability of SEMI Standards in relation to primary materials used in PV

o IV (Silicon) | II-VI (CdTe) | I-III-VI (CIGS) | III-V (GaAs) | Complex Organic

• Applicability of SEMI Standards in relation to processing systems


o Wafer System | Thin Film Systems | Epitaxy Systems | Wet System

Ratings used (e.g., 5A, 5B, 4A, 4C):

• 5 = Total Applicability | 4 = High Applicability | 3 = Moderate Applicability | 2 = Low Applicability | 1 =

Zero Applicability

• A = High Confidence | B = Moderate Confidence | C = Low Confidence


• Sanjay clarified that his goal is not to create a standard, but wanted to give the NA EHS committee a report

out of the SEMI EHS Division events that took place earlier in the week.

• Cliff Greenberg stated that a workshop (or “STEP light”) is being developed for the NA Fall meetings

where members of this committee would talk with PV and HB-LED members. The goal is to inform them

what our existing Safety Guidelines offers and how these could (or could not) meet their needs. In turn, PV

and HB-LED members can help identify gaps (if any) that may eventually develop into a standards activity.

• Ron Macklin commented that while he understands what Sanjay is trying to do, he pointed out that there

are other “spheres” involved that will need to be considered. Sanjay then asked the committee to let him

know how this activity should be organized.

• Chris Evanston pointed out that this type of discussion should happen at a task force or working group. The

output of the TF or WG would then be reported to the committee and any requests for a committee vote.

• Bert Planting said that he has been trying to engage PV companies for the past several years, but has not

been successful in getting a response. He proposed bringing this up at the fab manager level. Sanjay

responded that the feedback that he has received from PV manufacturers is that they do not have the time to

develop standards for PV.

• Lauren Crane provided a summary of his conversation with Bettina Weiss (SEMI; Vice President, PV

Business Unit) on the applicability of SEMI Safety Guidelines to the PV industry:

o Disseminate information about the SEMI suite of Safety Guidelines to the PV manufacturers (and

help them understand these documents).

o Identify relevant gaps.

o Invite PV manufacturers to the planned workshop/“STEP light” during the NA Fall meetings.

• Ron Macklin stated that this discussion would be appropriate under the MESSC. Cliff Greenberg pointed

out that this topic is already on the MESSC agenda.

• Supika Mashiro commented that the existing legend for the applicability ratings (as shown above) may lead

to “useless discussions” since the ratings can be interpreted “widely.” She recommended that the ratings be

improved.

Motion: NA EHS West 2012 meeting minutes to reflect that the NA EHS Committee has not reviewed the tables, as

presented by Sanjay Baliga, in detail; do not endorse the tables; and had comments suggesting that the tables are

risky to promulgate.

By / 2nd: Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor) / Ron Macklin (R. Macklin & Associates)

Discussion: None.


Motion: End discussion and assign a working group, to be chaired by Lauren Crane and Cliff Greenberg, to handle this

discussion.

By / 2nd: Chris Evanston (Salus) / Carl Wong (AKT)

Discussion: None.

Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.

Sanjay also announced that he is working on a series of podcasts – with the help of a few EHS professionals – that

would provide an overview of the various Safety Guidelines published by SEMI. Finally, Sanjay informed the

committee of another meeting held earlier in the week about EHS implications on 450 mm wafer manufacturing.

Attendees of this meeting discussed EHS impact differences between 450 mm and 300 mm wafer manufacturing.


Attachment: 07, PV EHS Applicability Table 1

08, PV EHS Applicability Table 2

09, 450 EHS Table


4 Ballot Review

4.1 Document # 4683A, Line Item Revisions to SEMI S2-0310e, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Delayed Revisions Related to Chemical Exposure

4.1.1 Line Item #1: Chemical Exposure Criteria

Tallies at Close of Voting

Voting Return Data Acceptance Rate Data

Voting Interest Returns 55 Voting Interest Accept Votes (VIAccept) 25

Total Voting Interests 89 Interest Reject Votes (IReject) 4

Voting Interest Return % 61.80% Approval % [VIAccept / (VIAccept + IReject)] 86.21%

Other Returns (Intercommittee, etc.)4

# of Interest Rejects that Need to be not found Valid for

Final Approval % >= 90% 2

Total Votes 59

Total Votes with Comments 3

Total Reject Votes 4

Rejects/Negatives

Company: Submitter ID Negs Disp Company: Submitter ID Negs Disp

Applied Materials: Edward Karl AMAT 2

KLA-Tencor: Lauren Crane KT 11

QSES: Tomokatsu Sano QSES 3

Seagate Technology: Curt Layman SEAG 1

W = Withdrawn, NR = Not Related, NP = Not Persuasive, RP = Related and Persuasive, NS = Not Significant, S = Significant

# Ref. Negative including Justification TF Finding and Reason Motion and Reason in Committee: Final




AMAT

-1 LI1,

5.2.X Negative.

Reason 1: The proposed definition of “semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME)” vastly expands the definition of an SME to also include “its component parts, and is auxiliary, support or peripheral equipment”. If misinterpreted or misapplied, it could result in component parts (e.g., wire, switch, terminal block) having to conform to SEMI S2 or any section which the term SME or semiconductor manufacturing equipment is used.

For example:

Section 1.1 of SEMI S2 which states “1.1 The safety guideline is intended as a set of performance-based environmental, health, and safety (EHS) considerations for semiconductor manufacturing equipment.” If the definition of semiconductor manufacturing equipment is expanded to include “component parts…”, then every wire, switch, terminal block, etc. could be required to undergo SEMI S2 evaluation.

Reason 2: “equipment” is already defined in Section 5.2.10. Introducing a definition for “semiconductor manufacturing equipment” which is dramatically inconsistent from the existing definition of “equipment” could introduce confusion.

Proposed Solution:

Replace the definition in 5.2.X with something that aligns with the existing definition of “equipment”. For example, “5.2.X semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) - See definition for “equipment”.”

(Select 1)

Not related

Not persuasive (assumes related)

Related & persuasive

Withdrawn by Subm. (Date: )

Move to find this negative: (select 1)

Not related (requires reason, follow)

Committee new business

Assigned to:

Not persuasive (requires reason)

X Related & persuasive (ballot fails)

Reason:

By/2nd: Ed Karl / Lauren Crane

Disc: Sean Larsen stated that the TF will

move away from “SME” and will use

“equipment” instead.

Vote: 14-0. Motion passed

Comments

Company: Submitter ID # Company: Submitter ID #



ASML: Bert Planting ASML 1


Followup Activity Authorization

Move to:

X Return ballot to the originating task force for rework

and authorize a follow-up ballot

Transfer ballot to the (name) task force for rework


Discontinue work on ballot.

By/2nd: John Visty / Lauren Crane

Disc:


Attachment: 10, 4683A-LI1 Compiled Responses


4.1.2 Line Item #2: OEL Clarification









Total Votes 59



Rejects/Negatives










KT-17 LI2

23.5 Negative

These criteria on OELs is too ambiguous if the specific set of OELs to be used in the equipment assessment is not set. The task force should select an OEL set (or an OEL authority) for equipment design to normalize equipment evaluations. This does not mean the task force must select the most conservative OEL set. OELs are essentially workplace responsibilities so for areas where more conservative OEL sets prevail the customer and supplier can negotiate a solution. The goal of S2 is not to provide equipment that meets all possible regulations (that is why it is placed along side of regulations in 6.3).

Proposed Solution:

Add a section to the effect of

“The OEL set used for conformance assessment should be XYZ. The user and supplier can negotiate additional equipment features, if needed, to achieve conformance to alternate OELs that might be applicable to the workplace, depending on the foreseen facility locations for the equipment.”

Where XYZ is the OEL set recommended by the task force.

(Select 1)

Not related


x Related & persuasive

Karl – Giles

4-4





Assigned to:



Reason:

By/2nd: Ed Karl / Lauren Crane

Disc: It was pointed out that selecting one

agency and set could be detrimental.

Therefore, having it broad allows people to

look for something similar.

Lauren Crane explained that the goal is to

pick one OEL set (that is well enough) to

qualify the equipment to keep a level

playing field.

John Visty saw this as more philosophy

than actual practice.

David Sexton pointed out that picking one

set of values will not solve this problem.

It was also pointed out that what Lauren

was suggesting will take years to

accomplish.


Comments




QSES: Tomokatsu Sano QSES 1


Move to:








Disc:




4.1.3 Line Item #3: Change to applied OEL percentage for normal, maintenance and fault conditions









Total Votes 59



Rejects/Negatives


IBM: Ernest Timlin IBMA 3

DNS: Ryosuke Imamiya DNS 1

IBM: Russel Sinor IBMB 1

IBM: Jeffrey Schmitt IBMC 2


IBM: William Petry IBMD 1

Salus: John Visty SLUS 3






IBMA-

-2 LI1,

5.2.44 2.)I have attached a set of three spreadsheets developed by the American Industrial Hygiene Association's Exposure Assessment Committee members to help illustrate the statistics of air sampling datasets. Environmental data is best described by use of Lognormal parametric statistics, because environmental data is most typically lognormally distributed. I have attached three spreadsheets of my own making: a.) "....Example of all data 1% or less" (Arithmetic Mean= 0.38 (%of the OEL)); b.) ....Example of all data 10% or less." (Arithmetic Mean =2.1(%of the OEL)); and c.)"....Example B of all data 10% or less" Arithmetic Mean=6.9(%of the OEL)) . In these examples, one can see that in all cases the data are not well described by normal parametric statistics, but are well fitted to Lognormal distributions and therefore best described by lognormal parametric statistics. What is also illustrated in the examples (a. and b.)is that a set of 18 datapoints, the first 14 of which are exactly the same and all under 1% or 10%OEL, can show remarkably different results in terms of the percent of actual exposures (0% for the <1%OEL dataset or 0.4% for the <10% OEL dataset) which cannot be proven to be less than the OEL. One must remember that any sampling data is representative of that particular snapshot of air sampled and time and one datapoint or even four, for example, is very little data with which to predict potential exposures in what can be very different fab environments. The last spreadsheet, with an arithmetic mean for the dataset of just 6.9% of the OEL shows that almost 1% of a population exposed could not be proven to have exposure < 100% of the OEL. These examples illustrate that <1% is more protective than a <10% criterion and that the current long standing criteria as shown in line item one should not be modified

AIHAf EASC-IHSTAT11 (Example of all data 1%or less).xls

AIHAf EASC-IHSTAT11 (Example of all data 10%or less).xls

AIHA EASC-IHSTAT11 (Example B of all data 10%or less).xls

(Select 1)

Not related



Karl – Layman

9-0





Assigned to:



Reason:

By/2nd: Ed Karl / Bill Petry

Disc: With regard to section 23.5.1, it was

pointed out that adding 1% assigns a value

to measure to. Instead, it was

recommended to remove the sentence (i.e.,

no chemical is released).



Comments


DNS: Naokatsu Nishiguchi DNS 1



Move to:







Disc:




4.2 Document 5000A, Delayed Revisions to SEMI S2-0310e, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Addition of Related Information to S2: Selection of Interlock Reliability






Other Returns (Intercommittee, etc.)

3



Total Votes 57



Rejects/Negatives



KLA-Tencor: Lauren Crane KTA 4

Tokyo Electron: Shigehito Ibuka TEL 1

Lam Research AG: Sean Larsen LMAG 18



AMAT

-2 Table

R1-8 Negative:

Row “e” appears to have an error in the middle cell. As proposed, the middle cell in Row “e” is essentially the same as the middle cell in Row “d”, but would have a different SIL.

Proposed New Wording or Change:

Review and correct the middle cell of Row “e”.

(Select 1)

Not related

X Not persuasive (assumes related)


Reason:

Accept change last to 10-7 to 10-8

See editorial change # 1 below.





Assigned to:


x Related & persuasive (ballot fails)

Reason:

Editorial change #1 failed.

By/2nd: Lauren Crane / Ed Karl

Disc:


Comments



KLA-Tencor: Lauren Crane KTA 3


BICSI: Jeff Silveira BCSI 32

KLA-Tencor: Alan Crockett KTB 1


Summary of Editorial Changes

# Ref. Before After Object?

(Y/N)

Motion to Approve:

(if necessary)

1 R1-

1.1 Average probability of a

dangerous failure per hour (1/h);

PFHd

10-5 to < 10-4

3*10-6 to < 10-5

10-6 to < 3*10-6

10-7 to < 10-6

10-6 to < 10-7

Average probability of a dangerous

failure per hour (1/h); PFHd

10-5 to < 10-4

3*10-6 to < 10-5

10-6 to < 3*10-6

10-7 to < 10-6

10-8 to < 10-7

By/2nd: Thomas Pilz /

Bill Petry

Disc: Lauren Crane

pointed out that this is a

technical change.

Several meeting

participants also

expressed concern that

while a ballot can

propose one set of

changes to a Related

Information section, the

Regulations does not

prohibit the committee

from making additional

technical and editorial

changes (since RIs are

informative).

Particularly, it was

pointed out that voters

who voted on the ballot

would not be aware of

(and be able to vote on)

the new set of changes if

they were not in the

meeting.

Vote: 6-9. Motion

failed


Move to:

x Return ballot to the originating task force for rework





By/2nd: Thomas Pilz / Bert Planting

Disc: None


Attachment: 13, 5000A Compiled Responses


4.3 Document # 5009A, Line Item Revisions to SEMI S8-0308E, Safety Guidelines for Ergonomics Engineering of

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Delayed revisions related to the SESC checklist

4.3.1 Line Item # 1: Modify Appendix 1, SESC checklist to expand whole body clearance criteria to include

equipment operation tasks and provide criteria for additional postures







4



Total Votes 58



Rejects/Negatives





KT-6 LI1

Part D Replac

ement

section 7.2

Negative

A note contains a “should” criterion. I suspect the task force intended the contents of this “note” to be mandatory.

Proposed Solution:

Delete “NOTE:”

(Select 1)

Not related

__Not persuasive (assumes related)


Reason:

The note was written as technical criteria

and not as informational.

Additionally as written it was determined

that we could not be clear as to where the

note ended the way it was written.

TF finds KT-6 RP (Petry/Brody)

Vote -18:0





Assigned to:



Reason:


Disc:


Comments






Move to:






By/2nd: Ron Macklin / Carl Wong

Disc: None


Attachment: 14, 5009A LI 1 Compiled Responses


4.3.2 Line Item #2: Modify Appendix 1, SESC checklist to add design criteria for hand and arm clearances which

provide guidance for clearances when a variety of hand tools are used and objects are handled

Tallies






4



Total Votes 58



Rejects/Negatives






AMAT

-13 LI2,

Table

A1-1, 7.3.15

Negative.

The max. horizontal reach distance for two hands, hand to wrist was (in Section 7.3.5) was 8 inches. The proposed Section 7.3.15 reduces the max. reach distance by over 50%.

Proposed New Wording or Change:

Propose that the maximum horizontal reach distance be 8 inches (as it has been in Section 7.3.5)

(Select 1)

Not related


X Related & persuasive

Reason:

The criteria as balloted was determined to

be unclear, and is a substantial change over

prior similar criteria. TF agreed to fail line-

item and return to TF for rework and

clarification.

Motion to find AMAT 13 RP

Crane/Hayford

Vote 14:0 Motion pass and line item 2

fails.





Assigned to:



Reason:


Disc: None


Comments






Move to:







Disc: None




4.3.3 Line Item #3: Modify Appendix 1, SESC checklist to add provisions for controls on equipment lower than 838

mm (33 in.) and placement of controls outside of recommended reach ranges for postures other standing or sitting

adopted during maintenance and service tasks

Tallies






4



Total Votes 58



Rejects/Negatives






KT-15 LI3

Part C Sectio

n 9

header

Negative

The current S8 limits the application of section 9 to operation and maintenance tasks only. This ballot proposes expanding this to service tasks also. This could require the assessment of hundreds of additional controls per evaluation as any control, anywhere in the machine (e.g., a trip pot buried on the most remote PCB) could be the object of a service task. There is no apparent nor argued benefit to the industry of expanding the scope of S8 in such a manner. It think this will simply waste time and resources.

Exception 2 does not mitigate my concern.

It is not clear that Exception 2 should not be extended to operator tasks.

Proposed Solution:

Change introductory sentence to the effect of “Hand Control Location (These criteria only apply to controls accessed from standing and seated postures for routine production operation, and maintenance and service tasks). Change Exception 2 to the effect of

Exception 2: Infrequently used or critical controls may be located outside the recommended height ranges if their location makes them more readily accessible for postures other than standing or sitting (see 9.2.1 and 9.2.2) adopted during operation service and maintenance activities anticipated by the supplier.

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:

RJM Comment: This criterion by no means

“expands” the scope of S8. Per paragraph

2.1 of S8, the third sentence brings in to

scope service activities. “The guidelines

apply to design, operation, maintenance,

and service of semiconductor

manufacturing equipment…”

I’m not sure if I see the argument on

Exception 2 – Operators don’t normally

perform service or maintenance tasks.

PAS Comment: Agree that this proposal

does not expand scope of S8. On the

contrary, better defines which types of

controls are within the scope of this

section.

Exception 2 does not apply to operation

tasks since these are generally higher

frequency tasks.

Reason to reject:

The change of scope of section 9 to include

“service” tasks was too significant of a

change (expansion of scope), and the

orientation of what seated meant (seated in

chair, seated on the floor, etc…) was

unclear.

Motion to find KT 15 RP Crane/Giles

9/0





Assigned to:



Reason:

By/2nd: Ron Macklin / Lauren Crane

Disc: None


Comments

There were no comments received for ballot 5009A, line item 3.



Move to:







Disc: None




4.4 Document # 5170, Line Item Revisions to SEMI S2-0310e, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Delayed Revisions Related to Limitations

Motion: The adjudications for the 5170 ballot where the TC vote was related, but not technically persuasive, is >=90%,

these negatives are considered as NOT SIGNIFICANT.

By / 2nd: Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor) / Chris Evanston (Salus Engineering)

Discussion: None


4.4.1 Line Item #1: Section 3.3 Revision

Tallies






4



Total Votes 58



Rejects/Negatives


Tokyo Electron: Shigehito Ibuka TEL 2

Novellus: Paul Kryska NVLS 1

Lam Research: Brian Claes LAM 3



Negatives from < Tokyo Electron (Shigehito Ibuka) >



TEL-1 3.3.2 Negative:

Delete “at least” and change “that” to “the”.

Reason/Justification:

What is less or more than the version is not clear.

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:

Proposed Editorial Change: see LMAG-2

LC RNP – “at least the previous version”

is a common idiom used in the discussion

of things that have revisions (e.g.,

software, hardware).

X Withdrawn by Subm. (Date: July

12, 2012)




Assigned to:


Related & persuasive (ballot fails)

Reason:

By/2nd:

Disc:

Vote: #-#-#. Motion passed failed

Significance finding/method: (select 1)

Not significant by agreement

Not significant by motion

Significant by % of NP vote (>10%)

Significant by agreement

Significant by motion

By/2nd:

Disc:





TEL-2 3.3.2 Negative:

Delete “and not intended to be subject to the provisions of this version.”


Redundant to 3.3

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:

LC

Bill Petry, IBM

3-1

LC – RNP – This is not explicitly

redundant. It is similar, but not exactly the

same as “not intended to be applied

retroactively”. As a subordinate paragraph,

it helps explain what “retroactively”

means.





Assigned to:

x Not persuasive (requires reason)


Reason: This is not explicitly redundant. It

is similar, but not exactly the same as “not

intended to be applied retroactively”. As a

subordinate paragraph, it helps explain

what “retroactively” means.

By/2nd: Cliff Greenberg / Lauren Crane

Disc:



x Not significant by agreement





By/2nd: < See motion above >

Disc:

Vote: #-#-#. Motion passed

Final disposition of this reject:

Valid (includes at least one significant negative)

X Not Valid (all negatives withdrawn, found not related, or found not significant)


Negatives from < Novellus (Paul Kryska) >



NVLS

-1

3.3.1 Add to the end of the sentence: "in effect at the time of that change."


Clarifies that changes made years ago do not have to re-evaluated everytime S2 is updated.

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:

LC- RNP – The effect of 3.3.2 provides

that clarification.

LC

Bill Petry

6-0





Assigned to:

X Not persuasive (requires reason)


Reason:

The effect of 3.3.2 provides that

clarification.


Disc: Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG)

pointed out that the proposed new section

3.3.1 refers to the latest version of S2, but

asked for further clarification what “latest

version” really points to. For example,

what if a product is released just after a

new version of S2 is released? Cliff

Greenberg pointed out that this judgment is

left to the equipment supplier’s discretion.

Lauren Crane added that putting such

detailed considerations/definitions in S2

gets into the business process and this

needs to be avoided.









Disc:






Negatives from < Lam Research (Brian Claes) >



LAM-1 3.3 Accept proposed revision to the first paragraph of 3.3 so it reads as revised.


I wanted to be clear the my rejection comments apply only to the new clauses 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

(Select 1)

X Not related



Reason:

NR by acclimation

LC – this is not a negative or a comment, it

is an explanation of an already submitted

response (lam2 & lam3?). No action

needed.

x Withdrawn by Subm. (Date: July

12, 2012)




Assigned to:



Reason:

By/2nd: Lauren / Bert - Withdrawn

Disc:








By/2nd:

Disc:



LAM-2 3.3.1 Delete 3.3.1 as proposed.


'The EHS Committee should not specify which edition of S2 to apply and under what circumstances. The decision as to which S2 edition to apply are business or commercial issues that are to be aligned between equpment suppliers and their customers.

It's also apparent that the industry has been ignoring the current confusing wording of 3.3.1 for years anyway. First, Clause 3.3 in all of the editions of S2 (from -0200 through -0310) specify that existing equipment should meet S2-93A; that is, unless EHS-significant design changes are made to an existing product that product [e.g., 2009-vintage design] should continue to comply with S2-93A. Second, the EHS Committe should clearly understand how S2 users are using the various editions of S2. Absent a formal survey to confirm or reject, a casual polling over the years suggests that new products have been, and are still, being designed and assessed to earlier editions of S2 (e.g., S2-0703, etc.) for reasons important to the equipment supplier. The EHS Committe should not include language that conflicts with supplier discetion.

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:

LC

Bill Petry

11-1

What is the voter’s intention for this text?

There is no indication of

negative/comment or technical/editorial

LC – RNP – The EHS committee has

historically supported the idea that S2 is a

relevant and useful guideline. This

subsection clarifies the meaning of 3.3

which is the primary message. 3.3.1 must

be read in the context of 3.3, which,

overall, is a statement of intention.

The current version of S2 represents the

state of the art thinking of the industry. I

do not believe the committee has the

position that changes in S2 since 93 add no

essential value to safety. In effect, the

committee does poll the industry with

every ballot. If the ballot is approved I

think all are nominally aware that the state

of the art has been pushed ‘forward’.

If suppliers and users agree to alternate

terms, it is not the business of the EHS

committee.

Since conformance to S2 is a contractual

issue, it is not possible for the language of

S2 to interfere with supplier discretion in

any material way. The supplier may

choose amend any contract to reference an

older version of S2.

CG: The “limitations” section provides

direction to the user but is specifically not

included in the assessment process. It does

not conflict with supplier discretion.





Assigned to:



Reason:

The EHS committee has historically

supported the idea that S2 is a relevant and

useful guideline. This subsection clarifies

the meaning of 3.3 which is the primary

message. 3.3.1 must be read in the context

of 3.3, which, overall, is a statement of

intention.

The current version of S2 represents the

state of the art thinking of the industry. It is

not believed that the committee has the

position that changes in S2 since 93 add no

essential value to safety. In effect, the

committee does poll the industry with

every ballot. If the ballot is approved, all

are nominally aware that the state of the art

has been pushed ‘forward’.

If suppliers and users agree to alternate

terms, it is not the business of the EHS

committee.

Since conformance to S2 is a contractual

issue, it is not possible for the language of

S2 to interfere with supplier discretion in

any material way. The supplier may

choose to amend any contract to reference

an older version of S2.

The “limitations” section provides

direction to the user but is specifically not

included in the assessment process. It does

not conflict with supplier discretion.


Disc: Brian Claes (Lam Research) pointed

out that equipment suppliers have been

ignoring these clauses. If this is the

industry’s behavior, then why should the

committee propose a suggestive/strong

language? Lauren Crane pointed out that

this is an acknowledgement that there are

different versions of S2. There is the

challenge of frozen designs, what users

expect on that case, and what to do with it.

However, the technical committee cannot

dive into such matters because it is a

business issue. He added that ballots to

change S2 seem to imply that such changes

are important. The current version of S2

represents the state-of-the-art thinking of

the industry. Bill Petry (IBM) stated that,


as an end user, they expect to use the latest

version at the time of the design. Brian

Claes requested to keep the proposed

section 3.3 of the ballot, but delete the

other two subsections. Cliff Greenberg

pointed that some users of S2 may not be

familiar with it and its evolution. Proposed

text by the ballot attempts to some

explanation. Ed Karl (Applied Materials)

expressed concern that product released

complies to the previous version of S2 and

not to the one that just got released. Lauren

Crane explanied that the proposal does not

bind anyone to a specific version of S2 as

this is a business decision.








By/2nd:

Disc:



LAM-3 3.3.2 'Delete 3.3.2 or revise to: "Models and subsystems that have been assessed to a previous versions of SEMI S2 should continue to meet at least that previous version and are not intended to be subject to the provisions of this version."


'Although this clause is more reasonable and consistent with our practice, the EHS Committee should not specify to the equpment supplier which edition of S2 to apply. See reasons given in comments to 3.3.1.

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:

LC

Steve Brody

12-0

What is the voter’s intention for this text?

There is no indication of

negative/comment or technical/editorial

RNP – This text is subordinate to 3.3 and

serves to provide further explanation to it,

particularly that it is clarifying the intent of

non-retroactivity. Suppliers remain free to

use any version of S2 they can in their

contracts with users.

CG: this phrase continues the language and

intent of the previous 3.3 section,

emphasizes that conformance to S2 is still

“expected.”





Assigned to:



Reason:

This text is subordinate to 3.3 and serves to

provide further explanation to it,

particularly that it is clarifying the intent of

non-retroactivity. Suppliers remain free to

use any version of S2 they can in their

contracts with users.

This phrase continues the language and

intent of the previous 3.3 section,

emphasizes that conformance to S2 is still

“expected.”


Disc: Sean Larson said that there is a built-

in assumption that you continue to meet

the previous version.









Disc:



X Valid (includes at least one significant negative)

Not Valid (all negatives withdrawn, found not related, or found not significant)


Negatives from < Lam Research AG (Sean Larsen) >



LMAG

-1 3.3.1 “Latest version” of S2 when? What is the

product release is just after a new version of SEMI S2 is released.

Suggestion / Justification

Change to “. . . should conform to the current published version of SEMI S2 when the design development is started or later versions.

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:

CG

Steve Brody

13-0

LC – RNP – Putting such detailed

considerations into S2 would poke the nose

of the committee too much into private

business affairs and decisions. The role of

this 3.3.1 text is to explain the general

mean of 3.3 with a little more detail, but

not too much.

Details of exactly when design or

production started are stopped for any

equipment model and what S2 version to

apply should be worked out with between

the supplier and user.

CG: This judgment is left to the supplier’s

discretion and negotiation. Conform to

whatever S2 version you want to try and

get away with.





Assigned to:



Reason:

Putting such detailed considerations into

S2 would poke the nose of the committee

too much into private business affairs and

decisions. The role of this 3.3.1 text is to

explain the general meaning of 3.3 with a

little more detail, but not too much.

Details of exactly when design or

production started are stopped for any

equipment model and what S2 version to

apply should be worked out with between

the supplier and user.

This judgment is left to the supplier’s

discretion and negotiation. Conform to

whatever S2 version you want to try and

get away with.


Disc:









Disc:





LMAG

-2 3.3.2 It is unclear what is intended by “at least”.

How is a greater or less version determined?

Suggestion / Justification

Delete “at least” and add “or a more recently published version” between “previous version” and “and are not”.

Delete “at least” and change “that” to “the”

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:

LC

Bill Petry

3-1

Proposed Editorial Change:

3.3.2 Models and subsystems that have

been assessed to a previous version of

SEMI S2 should continue to meet at least

the previous version, or meet a more recently published version, and are not intended to be subject to the provisions of

this version.

Approve EC

Lauren / Cliff

Vote: 15-0 in favor

Proposed change clarifies “at least” even

though CG does not think it is unclear.

Mashiro-san suggested that “at least” could

be misinterpreted as a numeric reference;

reword clarifies the intent of the phrasing

x Withdrawn by Subm. (Date: July

12, 2012)




Assigned to:



Reason:

By/2nd:

Disc:








By/2nd:

Disc:





Comments


Cymer: Byron Yakimow CYMR 1


# Ref. Comment TF Response Committee Action:

CYMR-1

Doc 5170, LI 1. Recommend adding the following note after 3.3.2 to help avoid misunderstanding between SME manufacturers and customers regarding applicable version(s) of SEMI S2:

Note: It is recommended that equipment manufacturers and their customers document agreement regarding the applicable revision(s) of SEMI S2 that the product, system or subsystem is expected to conform with.

Proposed for Committee discussion, editorial change:

Note: It is recommended that equipment supplier and user document their agreement regarding the version(s) of SEMI S2 that will be used for the assessment of the equipment.

The committee initially considered to

add the note (per voter comment) as an

editorial change.

By/2nd: Byron Yakimow / Sean Larsen

Disc: Proposed note will be added below

section 3.3.2.

Vote: 4-9. Motion failed

(Select one)

x No further action

Refer to TF for further review

New Business

Editorial Change: # in ECs below

Other:

(Select one)

x Committee agrees (no motion nec.)

Motion to act as indicated above:

Summary of Editorial Changes

# Ref. Before After Object?

(Y/N)

Motion to Approve:

(if necessary)

1 3.3.2 3.3.2 Models and subsystems that

have been assessed to a previous

version of SEMI S2 should

continue to meet at least that

previous version and are not

intended to be subject to the

provisions of this version.

3.3.2 Models and subsystems that

have been assessed to a previous

version of SEMI S2 should continue

to meet at least the previous

version, or meet a more recently

published version, and are not

intended to be subject to the

provisions of this version.

By/2nd: Lauren Crane /

Cliff Greenberg

Disc:

Vote: 15-0.

Motion passed

2 3.3.1 3.3.1 Equipment models with

redesigns that significantly affect

the EHS aspects of the equipment

should conform to the latest

current version of SEMI S2.

No vote, no motion

By/2nd:

Disc:

Vote: #-#-#. Motion

passed failed

COMMITTEE STRAW POLL:

Is the proposed change:

Technical: 6

Editorial: 7


Safety Check

Move to find that this document:

Is NOT a safety document: when all safety-related information is removed, the document is still technically

sound and complete.

X IS a safety document: when all safety-related information is removed, the document is not technically sound

and complete.

X The Safety Checklist (Regulations 13.3) for this document is complete and has accompanied the document

through the balloting process.

By/2nd: Lauren Crane / Cliff Greenberg

Disc:


Intellectual Property Check

The meeting chair asked those present in person or by electronic link, if they were aware of any patented or

copyrighted material in the Standard or Guideline.

(Note: Such material might have become known since the Standard or Safety Guideline was last reviewed, or might

become relevant due to this ballot.)

X No patented or copyrighted material is known to exist in the Standard or Guideline. (no motion needed)

Patented or copyrighted material is known to exist in the Standard or Guideline but release for such material has

been obtained or presented to the committee. (no motion needed)

Patented or copyrighted material is known to exist in the Standard or Guideline but release for some of the

material(s) has NOT been obtained or presented to the committee. The committee moves to:

Ask the ISC for special permission to publish the standard without release

Quit the activity

Wait for the release of the patented or copyrighted material.

By/2nd:

Disc:


Final Action

Move to:

Pass this document as balloted and forward to the A&R for procedural review.

X Pass this document with editorial changes and forward to the A&R for procedural review.


Disc:


Attachment: 17, 5170 LI 1 Compiled Responses


4.5 Document # 5357, Line Item Revisions to SEMI S2-0310e, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. Delayed Revisions Related to Optical Radiation

4.5.1 Line Item #1: Revision to Optical Radiation Criteria

Tallies






4



Total Votes 58



Rejects/Negatives




Lam Research: Brian Claes LAM 1



KT-1 A3-4.2 Negative

This section appears to make a very important, time-saving, realization that not all emissions need to be tallied if they are not “significant”. However, there does not appear to be guidance on how to judge significance.

There is also appears to be a grammatical error in the last sentence.

Proposed Solution:

Change the last sentence to the effect of…

“Therefore, the optical source should be evaluated to all of the limits that for which the optical energy source has significant emissions. For the purpose of this paragraph, ‘significant emissions’ can be understood as an emissions that are anticipated to be greater than 5% of the access limit provided in the referenced standard. “

(Select 1)

Not related



Reason:





Assigned to:



Reason:

By/2nd: Lauren Crane / John Visty

Disc:



Comments




Move to:







Disc: None


Attachment: 18, 5357 LI 1 Compiled Responses


5 Subcommittee & Task Force Reports

5.1 Manufacturing Equipment Safety Subcommittee (MESSC)

Cliff Greenberg reported. New Business summary:

• Electrical issues

o LOTO (lock out, tag out): remote, local, NFPA 79, OSHA, EN

o NFPA 70e: arc-flash, design, testing for LOTO

o Type 4 (energized) work and bonding/earthing

• OHT & personnel

o Safety, 300/450 discussions

• PV: include as an S2 subject?

• Fail safe/fault tolerant interest group: SNARF

Attachment: 19, MESSC Report

5.2 S13 Revision Japan Task Force

Shigehito Ibuka reported. Doc. 4976C was balloted for Cycle 4, 2012. The TF reviewed negatives and comments of

NA voters. The TF concluded all the negatives were not persuasive. A negative was also received from a Japanese

voter was believed to be non-persuasive as well. Doc. 4976C is expected to pass at the next Japan EHS Committee

meeting on September 25.

Attachment: 20, S13 Task Force Report

5.3 Fail-Safe / Fault-Tolerant Interest Group

Lauren Crane reported. Current activities:

• Renewing Effort

• Agreed “something” should be addressed in S2 along the lines of revising the definitions for terms ‘Fail-

Safe’ and ‘Fault-Tolerant’ and the sections that use them. [S2-0310 sections cited in the report: 5.2.13,

5.2.17, 6.6, 11.5, 12.2.3, and 22.4.3]

• Points from F2F meeting this week

o Standard 13849-1 has a lot of press lately, but is not necessarily needed ‘in’ S2.

o Designs based on S2 have proven generally sufficient.

o However, equipment interlock design might not always anticipate needs of service and

maintenance tasks actually performed.

o It is reasonable to anticipate that many equipment interlocks have a ‘legitimate’ reason to be

bypassed.

o ‘bypassing’ an interlock is different from ‘defeating’ an intelrock.

o Some interlocks, however, protect against such severe or fast acting hazards that bypass should

not be allowed.

o The Machinery Directive supports the concept of interlock bypass.

o If an interlock is bypassed, alerts and alternate protections should be provided.

o A general industry survey indicated most injuries arise from improper (i.e. in the wrong manner)

bypassing of safety interlocks.

o If external interlocks are bypassed, ‘sub-interlocks’ could become active to assist protection.

o Specs for routine PM testing of safety circuits (EMO and safety interlocks) appears to be a bit

lacking (POV of a chipmaker)


Lauren then presented the proposed TFOF:

• Name of Task Force: Fail-Safe / Fault-Tolerant TF

• Charter: Line item changes to S2 related to the terms ‘fail-safe’ and ‘fault-tolerant’ and the sections that use

the terms towards two high level goals

1. Provide design criteria that are less subjective than the current text, perhaps with more discussion

of best practices for circuit design.

2. Provide more guidance/criteria related to interlock bypass activities and bypass design

considerations.

Evaluate if similar changes are needed in S22, and make them as needed.

• Scope: Review and possibly propose line item revisions to SEMI S2 and normative S references. Review

and possibly propose line item revisions to SEMI S22

Motion: NA EHS TC approves the Fail-Safe / Fault Tolerant TFOF


Discussion: None


Lauren also presented a SNARF:

• SNARF for: Revisions to SEMI S2, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for Semiconductor

Manufacturing Equipment and other normative S [SEMI Safety Guideline] references and SEMI S22,

Safety Guideline for the Electrical Design of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment for fail-safe fault

tolerant.

• Rationale: The definitions and use of the terms ‘fail safe’ and ‘fault tolerant’ in SEMI S2 and other

normative S references and SEMI S22 are very subjective, which results in unnecessary expenditure of

industry resources as companies strive to make appropriate design and assessment decisions. Furthermore,

discussion in the Fail Safe Fault Tolerant interest group indicates there are other topics related to the

sections using the terms (e.g., safety interlock criteria) that would benefit from more detailed guidance such

as ensuring interlock bypass design accounts for foreseen service and maintenance tasks. Reviewing these

issues and balloting changes to S2 and other normative S references and S22 as appropriate will bring an

incremental improvement in equipment use safety, particularly regarding maintenance and service tasks.

• Scope: Safety system (e.g., interlock and EMO) related sections of S2 and other normative S references and

S22.

Motion: NA EHS TC approves the SNARF for “Revisions to SEMI S2, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment and other normative S [SEMI Safety Guideline] references and SEMI

S22, Safety Guideline for the Electrical Design of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment for fail-safe fault

tolerant.”


Discussion: None


Attachment: 21, Fail-Safe / Fault-Tolerant Task Force Report

5.4 S2 / EU Machinery Directive Mapping Task Force


• Pushing forward:

o 6 Telecons, 1 F2F


o Reviewed about 116 of 311 MD criterion (37%)

• From our review of 116 of the 311 MD assessment points, about…

o 42 are completely covered by S2

o 24 are partially covered by S2

o 27 are not covered by S2 at all

o 20 are considered moot for the industry or project


• With regard to the 20 “considered moot for the industry or project,” Brian Claes asked for an example.

Lauren Crane stated that direct lightning strike to equipment is an example. Glen Holbrook pointed out,

however, that some scrubbers get placed outside. Therefore, it should not be considered moot for such

cases. Lauren Crane invited those who are interested to attend the TF meetings (and vote on ballots).

Attachment: 22, S2 / EU Machinery Directive Mapping Task Force Report

5.5 S23 Revision Task Force


• Had been resting (conserving energy)

• At this week’s meeting agreed to begin work on:

o Temperature Control Unit RI (led by Japan co-leader)

o Exhaust ECF revision and guidance (led by North America co-leader)

• Change of Japan leadership: Shigehito Ibuka (TEL) to George Hoshi (TEL)

Attachment: 23, S23 Revision Task Force Report


John Visty and Glenn Holbrook were appointed as new TF leaders. [Eric Sklar will remain as TF co-leader]

Motion: NA EHS TC approves John Visty (Salus) and Glenn Holbrook (TUV SUD) as TF co-leaders for S6 Revision

(Eric Sklar will remain as co-leader)

By / 2nd: Cliff Greenberg (Nikon Precision) / Ron Macklin (R. Macklin & Associates)

Discussion: None



Paul Trio reported that ballot 5171 (Revision to SEMI S25-0706, Safety Guideline for Hydrogen Peroxide Storage

& Handling Systems) will be submitted for the Cycle 5 voting period and will be adjudicated by EU EHS at

SEMICON Europa 2012 (October 11).

5.8 S2 Ladders & Steps Task Force

Ron Macklin reported. Current activities:

• Effort continues to restructure 4449C ballot to place the material initially balloted as an appendix into the

Related Information format.

• These efforts are winding down and we are ready to take material back to ballot in an upcoming cycle (6).


• The plan is to issue a line item ballot, one line-item having delayed implementation, and one having

immediate effectivity (the RI).

Attachment: 24, S2 Ladders & Steps Task Force Report

5.9 Fire Protection Task Force

John Visty reported that the TF is ready to ballot, but needs to determine whether the revision should be done in S2

(§ 14) or S14 (or both).

5.10 S2 Chemical Exposure Task Force

John Visty reported. Current activities:

• Three line item ballot submitted for Cycle 4.

Future Plans / Timeline

• Reballot 4683B for next cycle

• Address in the future

o Representative Sampling

o Chemical & Equipment Surrogates

o Skin contact

Attachment: 25, S2 Chemical Exposure Task Force

5.11 EMC Task Force (under the NA Metrics Committee)

Paul Trio reported that Document 3847D (Revision to SEMI E33-94, Specification for Semiconductor

Manufacturing Facility Electromagnetic Compatibility with title change to: Guide for Semiconductor

Manufacturing) was balloted for the Cycle 4-12 voting period and was adjudicated by the NA Metrics Committee on

Wednesday, July 11 at SEMICON West 2012. The ballot passed committee review with editorial changes. Paul

Trio stated that the committee was aware that some of the editorial changes they approved may cause the document

to fail procedural review as they could be considered technical in nature. The ballot adjudication details will be

included in the Committee Express Report.

6 Old Business

6.1 Open Action Item Review

Paul Trio reviewed the old action items, where are found in the table below

Item # Assigned to Details Status

2012Apr #01 Sanjay Baliga Draft a scope of work for the EHS safety guidelines

webcasts.

Closed.

2012Apr #02 NA EHS TC

leadership

Develop PG revision proposal for clarity on line items that

have been approved

Open.

2012Apr #03 Paul Trio Provide an editable, “pre-release” draft of SEMI S2-0712 to

the MESSC chairs.

Open.

2012Apr #04 Paul Trio Put together the master subcommittee/task force activity list

and attach it (together with the latest org chart) to the

committee meeting minutes.

Closed.


Item # Assigned to Details Status

2012Apr #05 Paul Trio Paul Trio to request Catherine Chang (SEMI Taiwan) for

Taiwan PV Safety TF and LED Safety TF as well as Natalie

Shim (SEMI Korea) for Korea EHS WG updates.

See additional discussion

below.

2012Apr #06 Paul Trio, James

Amano, and

Sanjay Baliga

Determine the appropriate liaison between EHS Standards

and EHS Division.

Provide documentation/presentation of SEMI EHS Division

objectives together with needs/requests for the NA EHS

Standards Committee by mid-September 2012.

Open.

Additional Discussion on Action Item 2012Apr #05:

Paul Trio reported that both Korea EHS WG and Taiwan PV Safety TF are currently dormant. With regard to the

Taiwan LED Safety TF, Paul Trio reported that the TF has met several times since late 2011. He then showed the TF

meeting summaries which are posted on the SEMI HB-LED Google Site (https://sites.google.com/a/semi.org/hbled/).

Sunny Rai reported that third parties are already doing evaluations and identifying what applies to S2. Ron Macklin

pointed out that third parties should provide such inputs to the task force.

Action Item: 2012Jul #01, Paul Trio to distribute the HB-LED Google Site to NA EHS TC members.

7 New Business

7.1 Ballot Authorization

# When SC/TF/WG Details

4316I Cycle 6,

2012

S22 TF Line Item Revision to SEMI S2, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for

Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, and SEMI S22, Safety Guideline for the

Electrical Design of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment

Delayed Revision Related to Safe Electrical Design

4449D Cycle 6,

2012

S2 Ladders &

Steps TF

Revision to SEMI S2, Environmental, Health, and Safety Guideline for Semiconductor

Manufacturing Equipment. Revisions related to stairs, ladders, platforms, and fall

protection

4683B Cycle 6,

2012

S2 Chemical

Exposure TF



Delayed Revisions Related to Chemical Exposure

5000B Cycle 5,

2012

(or C6-12)

S2 Interlock

Reliability TF



Delayed Revisions Related to Interlock Reliability and Selection (added as Related

Information)

5009B Cycle 6,

2012

Ergonomics TF Delayed Line Items Revisions to SEMI S8, Safety Guidelines for Ergonomics

Engineering of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment

5357A Cycle 6,

2012

S2 Non-Ionizing

Radiation TF



Delayed Revisions Related to Non-Ionizing Radiation

COMMITTEE STRAW POLL:

5000B to be adjudicated at NA EHS in Fall 2012 [vs. EU EHS at SEMICON Europa 2012]

• Yes (NA will adjudicate): 12

• No (EU will adjudicate): 2

Motion: NA EHS TC approves distribution of ballots as shown above

By / 2nd: Carl Wong (AKT) / Ron Macklin (R. Macklin & Associates)

Discussion: None



7.2 Leadership Changes

Group Previous Leader New Leader

Fail-Safe / Fault-Tolerant Task Force New task force

Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)

Chris Evanston (Salus)

S6 Revision Task Force John Visty (Salus)

Glenn Holbrook (TUV SUD)

Eric Sklar (Safety Guru, LLC) remains as

TF co-leader

7.3 NA EHS Proposed Fall 2012 Meeting Schedule

October 29 – November 1, 2012

SEMI Headquarters

3081 Zanker Road

San Jose, California 95134

Monday, October 29

- S1 5-Year Review Discussion (9:00 AM to 10:00 AM)

- S22 (Electrical Safety) TF (10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon)

- EHS Process Meeting / Lunch Break (12:00 Noon to 1:00 PM)

- S2 Non-Ionizing Radiation TF (1:00 PM to 2:00 PM)

- S2 Chemical Exposure TF (2:00 PM to 3:30 PM)

- S2 Interlock Reliability (3:30 PM to 5:00 PM)

Tuesday, October 30

- S23 Revision Japan TF (9:00 AM to 10:00 AM)

- [Emerging Technologies Coordination (10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon)]

- Fail-Safe Fault-Tolerant TF (1:00 PM to 2:00 PM)

- S2 Ladders & Steps TF (2:00 PM to 3:30 PM)

- S8 Ergonomics TF (3:30 PM to 5:00 PM)

- [I&C Committee] Energy Saving Equipment Communication (3:00 PM – 6:00 PM)

Wednesday, October 31

- [ICRC (9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon)]

- EHS Leadership Meeting (12:00 Noon to 1:00 PM)

- S6 Revision TF (1:00 PM to 2:30 PM)

- Fire Protection TF (2:30 PM to 3:30 PM)

- {Open} (3:30 PM to 4:00 PM)

- MESSC (4:00 PM to 5:00 PM)

Thursday, November 1

- EHS Committee (9:00 AM to 6:00 PM)

So that meeting attendees can plan their travel schedules accordingly, the committee agreed that the last day to make

changes to the NA Standards Fall 2012 meeting schedule is October 1, 2012.


7.4 New Action Items

Item # Assigned to Details

2012Jul #01 Paul Trio Distribute the HB-LED Google Site to NA EHS TC members.

7.5 Outstanding Contributor Awards

SEMI recognizes a number of Standards members who have made significant contributions to the program in the

past year. SEMI Standards sincerely thanks them for their efforts. The NA EHS 2012 Outstanding Contributor

Award recipients are:

• Bert Planting - ASML

• Brian Claes - LAM

• Carl Wong - AKT

• Chris Evanston - Salus

• Cliff Greenberg - Nikon Precision

• Eric Sklar - Safety Guru, LLC

• John Visty - Salus

• Lauren Crane - KLA-Tencor

• Paul Schwab - Texas Instruments

• Ron Macklin - R. Macklin & Associates

• Sean Larsen - Lam Research AG

• Shigehito Ibuka - Tokyo Electron

• Supika Mashiro - Tokyo Electron

Sean Larsen also announced earlier in the meeting that Alan Crockett received the Technical Editor Appreciation

Award at the Standards Awards Ceremony & Networking Event held on Tuesday evening, July 10.

8 Next Meeting and Adjournment

The next meeting of the North America Environmental, Health, and Safety committee is scheduled for November 1

in conjunction with the NA Standards Fall 2012 meetings. Adjournment was at 5:40 PM.

Respectfully submitted by:

Paul Trio

Senior Manager, Standards Operations

SEMI North America

Phone: +1.408.943.7041

Email: [email protected]

Minutes approved by:

Chris Evanston (Salus Engineering), Co-chair

Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG), Co-chair

Eric Sklar (Safety Guru, LLC), Co-chair Not present


Table 6 Index of Available Attachments #1

# Title # Title

01 SEMI Standards Required Meeting Elements 14 5009A LI 1 Compiled Responses

02 NA EHS Spring 2012 (April 5) Meeting Minutes 15 5009A LI 2 Compiled Responses

03 Japan EHS Committee Report 16 5009A LI 3 Compiled Responses

04 Europe EHS Committee Report 17 5170 LI 1 Compiled Responses

05 Leadership Report 18 5357 LI 1 Compiled Responses

06 SEMI Staff Report 19 MESSC Report

07 PV EHS Applicability Table 1 20 S13 Revision Japan TF Report

08 PV EHS Applicability Table 2 21 Fail-Safe / Fault-Tolerant TF Report

09 450 EHS Table 22 S2 Machinery Directive Mapping TF Report

10 4683A LI 1 Compiled Responses 23 S23 Revision TF Report

11 4683A LI 2 Compiled Responses 24 S2 Ladders & Steps TF Report

12 4683A LI 3 Compiled Responses 25 S2 Chemical Exposure TF Report

13 5000A Compiled Responses

#1 Due to file size and delivery issues, attachments must be downloaded separately. A .zip file containing all attachments for these minutes is

available at www.semi.org. For additional information or to obtain individual attachments, please contact Paul Trio at the contact information

above.

North America EHS Committee Meeting Summary and...

Documents

Transcript of North America EHS Committee Meeting Summary and...