From IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu  Thu May  5 20:44:38 2011
From: IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu (Ian Harvey)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 18:44:38 -0600
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent building
	evacuations on silane bottle changes...
Message-ID: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>

Dear Labnetwork,

Question:
How to prevent spurious gas/silane alarms (e.g., from cylinder change burps) from unnecessarily evacuating an entire building?  

Background:
We recently had a very brief burst/decay of silane associated with the removal of the dust cap in preparation for installing a new silane cylinder. The burst was captured by our gas alarm as a single "spike" that exceeded the level-2 alarm threshold (10 PPM) for 3 seconds and decayed back to below level 1 (5 PPM) after 12 seconds (peak was 19 PPM).  However, the fire alarm was triggered, the entire engineering building was evacuated for 20 minutes, and six fire trucks showed up.

This cylinder was 13 months old, 1 month past its expiration date.  The cylinder was chained and strapped into position inside the gas cabinet when the dust cap was removed.  At present, we feel it is best to evacuate the building, since our old lab is in a B-class occupancy area.  However, in our new facility, our silane will be behind a 2 hr firewall in a special gas room, attached to the single-story fab wing and 50 yards from (but still attached to) the multi-story research tower.  We are looking for more robust system-level solutions limiting unnecessary evacuation of the research tower in our new facility.

Approaches: Aside from procedural approaches like "Don't use expired cylinders", and "Open dust caps very slowly", has anyone attempted to use alarm logic in their HPM system, such as: "<<If>> the alarm originates in the gas box <<and>> room air sensor is below threshold...  or variations on timing between sense and decay to stage the triggering of different alarm levels??

How do others handle this situation in your respective labs?

Thank you in advance for your inputs!

--Ian

********************************************
Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Utah nanofab
College of Engineering / University of Utah

Research Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
2232 MEB

mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah   84112-9011
801/585-6162 (voicemail)
801/581-5676 (lab main number)
www.nanofab.utah.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110505/73244e42/attachment.html>

From schweig at umich.edu  Fri May  6 08:32:22 2011
From: schweig at umich.edu (Schweiger, Dennis)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 08:32:22 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent
 building	evacuations on silane bottle changes...
In-Reply-To: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
References: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <6B31843C2533474FAA7CBE906425995C4FFD9B011E@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS1.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu>

Ian,

Is your current gas cabinet located within your lab proper?

You could set your system up so that it looked at multiple criteria;


1)     Is it in an exhausted enclosure?

2)     Is the exhaust level at specification?

And have it create an alarm event based on that event criteria.  Another thing you might want to consider, is creating a "dust cap removal station" outside of your facility.  This would simply need to be a location where you can secure a cylinder for the time it takes to perform that operation.  You could then reseat the dust cap, and move the cylinder into your gas cabinet.

Here at the UofM, our toxics and pyrophorics are stored in bunkers outside of the building proper.  Our gas detection system treats this area as a separate "zone", so if we detect a leak in a gas cabinet, within this "zone", we only evacuate the lab proper, not the building.

Dennis Schweiger
Facilities Manager

Lurie Nanofabrication Facility
University of Michigan
1301 Beal Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122

734.647.2055 Ofc
877.471.6208 Fax
734.320.4474 Cell

"People can be divided into 3 groups - those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder what happened."


From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ian Harvey
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:45 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent building evacuations on silane bottle changes...

Dear Labnetwork,

Question:
How to prevent spurious gas/silane alarms (e.g., from cylinder change burps) from unnecessarily evacuating an entire building?

Background:
We recently had a very brief burst/decay of silane associated with the removal of the dust cap in preparation for installing a new silane cylinder. The burst was captured by our gas alarm as a single "spike" that exceeded the level-2 alarm threshold (10 PPM) for 3 seconds and decayed back to below level 1 (5 PPM) after 12 seconds (peak was 19 PPM).  However, the fire alarm was triggered, the entire engineering building was evacuated for 20 minutes, and six fire trucks showed up.

This cylinder was 13 months old, 1 month past its expiration date.  The cylinder was chained and strapped into position inside the gas cabinet when the dust cap was removed.  At present, we feel it is best to evacuate the building, since our old lab is in a B-class occupancy area.  However, in our new facility, our silane will be behind a 2 hr firewall in a special gas room, attached to the single-story fab wing and 50 yards from (but still attached to) the multi-story research tower.  We are looking for more robust system-level solutions limiting unnecessary evacuation of the research tower in our new facility.

Approaches: Aside from procedural approaches like "Don't use expired cylinders", and "Open dust caps very slowly", has anyone attempted to use alarm logic in their HPM system, such as: "<<If>> the alarm originates in the gas box <<and>> room air sensor is below threshold...  or variations on timing between sense and decay to stage the triggering of different alarm levels??

How do others handle this situation in your respective labs?

Thank you in advance for your inputs!

--Ian

********************************************
Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Utah nanofab
College of Engineering / University of Utah

Research Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
2232 MEB

mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah   84112-9011
801/585-6162 (voicemail)
801/581-5676 (lab main number)
www.nanofab.utah.edu<http://www.nanofab.utah.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110506/91a48743/attachment.html>

From codreanu at seas.upenn.edu  Fri May  6 08:52:45 2011
From: codreanu at seas.upenn.edu (Iulian Codreanu)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 08:52:45 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent
 building evacuations on silane bottle changes...
In-Reply-To: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
References: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <4DC3EF1D.8010809@seas.upenn.edu>

Hi Ian.

I use logic in my HGMS system provided by Honeywell. If Hi alarm is 
tripped inside of a toxic gas cabinet AND the cabinet lost its exhaust I 
push more air into the gas room to dilute anything that might escape.

iulian Codreanu, Ph.D.
Director, Penn NanoFab
200 South 33rd Street
Room 305 Moore Bldg
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314
P: 215-898-9308
F: 215-573-2068
www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab

On 5/5/2011 8:44 PM, Ian Harvey wrote:
> Dear Labnetwork,
>
> *Question:*
> How to prevent spurious gas/silane alarms (e.g., from cylinder change
> burps) from unnecessarily evacuating an entire building?
>
> *Background:*
> We recently had a very brief burst/decay of silane associated with the
> removal of the dust cap in preparation for installing a new silane
> cylinder. The burst was captured by our gas alarm as a single "spike"
> that exceeded the level-2 alarm threshold (10 PPM) for 3 seconds and
> decayed back to below level 1 (5 PPM) after 12 seconds (peak was 19
> PPM). However, the fire alarm was triggered, the entire engineering
> building was evacuated for 20 minutes, and six fire trucks showed up.
>
> This cylinder was 13 months old, 1 month past its expiration date. The
> cylinder was chained and strapped into position inside the gas cabinet
> when the dust cap was removed. At present, we feel it is best to
> evacuate the building, since our old lab is in a B-class occupancy area.
> However, in our new facility, our silane will be behind a 2 hr firewall
> in a special gas room, attached to the single-story fab wing and 50
> yards from (but still attached to) the multi-story research tower. We
> are looking for more robust system-level solutions limiting unnecessary
> evacuation of the research tower in our new facility.
>
> *Approaches:* Aside from procedural approaches like "Don't use expired
> cylinders", and "Open dust caps very slowly", has anyone attempted to
> use alarm logic in their HPM system, such as: "<<If>> the alarm
> originates in the gas box <<and>> room air sensor is below threshold...
> or variations on timing between sense and decay to stage the triggering
> of different alarm levels??
>
> How do others handle this situation in your respective labs?
>
> Thank you in advance for your inputs!
>
> --Ian
>
> ********************************************
> Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
> Associate Director, Utah nanofab
> College of Engineering / University of Utah
>
> Research Associate Professor
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> Adjunct Associate Professor
> Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
> 2232 MEB
>
> mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
> Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9011
> 801/585-6162 (voicemail)
> 801/581-5676 (lab main number)
> www.nanofab.utah.edu <http://www.nanofab.utah.edu>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork



From hughes at illinois.edu  Fri May  6 09:12:43 2011
From: hughes at illinois.edu (Hughes, John S)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 13:12:43 +0000
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent
 building	evacuations on silane bottle changes...
In-Reply-To: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
References: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <0FDC31C5-0302-4B9F-87A2-009BC7C8938D@illinois.edu>


Hello Ian,

At our facility we are able to disable the alarm "announcements" that would give audible and visual calls for evacuation of the building. The University's Public Safety group still receives all the actual alarm signals, but we let them know ahead of time that we are doing maintenance and that they should not respond (with the fire trucks, etc.) unless they receive confirmation from us that there actually is a problem. Then, of course, the work has to be very carefully monitored so that, in the case of real need, the alarms are immediately reactivated and an appropriate response is provided by Public Safety.

Public Safety is in direct contact with us whenever we do this, so we do not feel that response time will be appreciably slowed in case something unforeseen actually dose go wrong. Also, because there are literally dozens and dozens of various monitors and sensors, if any alarms are tripped other than the ones we let them know we expect to be affected, they would immediately proceed with their normal alarm response, whether or not they heard from us.

 -- John

-------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Hughes                         Office: (217) 333-4674
Associate Director                        FAX: (217) 244-6375
Laboratory Operations                     hughes at illinois.edu<mailto:hughes at illinois.edu>
Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3114 Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory
208 North Wright Street
Urbana, Illinois  61801              http://mntl.illinois.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------

On May 5, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Ian Harvey wrote:

Dear Labnetwork,

Question:
How to prevent spurious gas/silane alarms (e.g., from cylinder change burps) from unnecessarily evacuating an entire building?

Background:
We recently had a very brief burst/decay of silane associated with the removal of the dust cap in preparation for installing a new silane cylinder. The burst was captured by our gas alarm as a single "spike" that exceeded the level-2 alarm threshold (10 PPM) for 3 seconds and decayed back to below level 1 (5 PPM) after 12 seconds (peak was 19 PPM).  However, the fire alarm was triggered, the entire engineering building was evacuated for 20 minutes, and six fire trucks showed up.

This cylinder was 13 months old, 1 month past its expiration date.  The cylinder was chained and strapped into position inside the gas cabinet when the dust cap was removed.  At present, we feel it is best to evacuate the building, since our old lab is in a B-class occupancy area.  However, in our new facility, our silane will be behind a 2 hr firewall in a special gas room, attached to the single-story fab wing and 50 yards from (but still attached to) the multi-story research tower.  We are looking for more robust system-level solutions limiting unnecessary evacuation of the research tower in our new facility.

Approaches: Aside from procedural approaches like "Don't use expired cylinders", and "Open dust caps very slowly", has anyone attempted to use alarm logic in their HPM system, such as: "<<If>> the alarm originates in the gas box <<and>> room air sensor is below threshold...  or variations on timing between sense and decay to stage the triggering of different alarm levels??

How do others handle this situation in your respective labs?

Thank you in advance for your inputs!

--Ian

********************************************
Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Utah nanofab
College of Engineering / University of Utah

Research Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
2232 MEB

mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah   84112-9011
801/585-6162 (voicemail)
801/581-5676 (lab main number)
www.nanofab.utah.edu<http://www.nanofab.utah.edu/>

_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110506/9f5431be/attachment.html>

From gim021000 at utdallas.edu  Fri May  6 11:08:22 2011
From: gim021000 at utdallas.edu (Gregory I Mordi)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 10:08:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [labnetwork] Deposition of thin layer Parylene
In-Reply-To: <2068904925.857519.1304694090734.JavaMail.root@zem3.utdallas.edu>
Message-ID: <635070300.857588.1304694502525.JavaMail.root@zem3.utdallas.edu>

Dear Lab network, I am trying to deposit a very thin (~2nm or less), uniform  and conformal layer of parylene C. I would appreciate your input in regards to process as well as system capabilities and limitations and also any references.

Thanks
Greg 



From bradshaw1234 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 12:10:08 2011
From: bradshaw1234 at gmail.com (Keith Bradshaw)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:10:08 -0500
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent
 building evacuations on silane bottle changes...
In-Reply-To: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
References: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik6ZxbHzn8EgH5ERHhR66TRf=C6KQ@mail.gmail.com>

With our Honeywell system, we put the sensor into overide mode for a time we
set and do the bottle work.  If we do not reset the sensor to alarmed, it
does so automatically after a timeout and flashes a blue light tower to let
us know the sensor is back on line.

Keith Bradshaw
Garland Texas

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Ian Harvey <IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu> wrote:

> Dear Labnetwork,
>
> *Question:*
> How to prevent spurious gas/silane alarms (e.g., from cylinder change
> burps) from unnecessarily evacuating an entire building?
>
> *Background:*
> We recently had a very brief burst/decay of silane associated with the
> removal of the dust cap in preparation for installing a new silane cylinder.
> The burst was captured by our gas alarm as a single "spike" that exceeded
> the level-2 alarm threshold (10 PPM) for 3 seconds and decayed back to below
> level 1 (5 PPM) after 12 seconds (peak was 19 PPM).  However, the fire alarm
> was triggered, the entire engineering building was evacuated for 20 minutes,
> and six fire trucks showed up.
>
> This cylinder was 13 months old, 1 month past its expiration date.  The
> cylinder was chained and strapped into position inside the gas cabinet when
> the dust cap was removed.  At present, we feel it is best to evacuate the
> building, since our old lab is in a B-class occupancy area.  However, in our
> new facility, our silane will be behind a 2 hr firewall in a special gas
> room, attached to the single-story fab wing and 50 yards from (but still
> attached to) the multi-story research tower.  We are looking for more robust
> system-level solutions limiting unnecessary evacuation of the research tower
> in our new facility.
>
> *Approaches:* Aside from procedural approaches like "Don't use expired
> cylinders", and "Open dust caps very slowly", has anyone attempted to use
> alarm logic in their HPM system, such as: "<<If>> the alarm originates in
> the gas box <<and>> room air sensor is below threshold...  or variations on
> timing between sense and decay to stage the triggering of different alarm
> levels??
>
> How do others handle this situation in your respective labs?
>
> Thank you in advance for your inputs!
>
> --Ian
>
>  ********************************************
> Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
> Associate Director, Utah nanofab
> College of Engineering / University of Utah
>
> Research Associate Professor
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> Adjunct Associate Professor
> Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
> 2232 MEB
>
> mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
> Salt Lake City, Utah   84112-9011
> 801/585-6162 (voicemail)
> 801/581-5676 (lab main number)
> www.nanofab.utah.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110506/c4304c04/attachment.html>

From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu  Fri May  6 12:55:54 2011
From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:55:54 -0700
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent
 building evacuations on silane bottle changes...
In-Reply-To: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
References: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <4DC4281A.9040407@eecs.berkeley.edu>

 From UC Berkeley:

low level - email and txt alarm to staff
high level - seal gases, annunciate local alarm, evac lab
high level persistent (>60sec) - link to building fire alarm activated, 
annunciate
building fire alarm, evac entire building

Bill

Bill Flounders, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Berkeley Marvell Nanofabrication Laboratory
520 Sutardja Dai Hall  Mail Code 1754
Berkeley, CA  94720

Office:      510-809-8600
http://nanolab.berkeley.edu/




Ian Harvey wrote:
> Dear Labnetwork,
>
> *Question:*
> How to prevent spurious gas/silane alarms (e.g., from cylinder change 
> burps) from unnecessarily evacuating an entire building?
>
> *Background:*
> We recently had a very brief burst/decay of silane associated with the 
> removal of the dust cap in preparation for installing a new silane 
> cylinder. The burst was captured by our gas alarm as a single "spike" 
> that exceeded the level-2 alarm threshold (10 PPM) for 3 seconds and 
> decayed back to below level 1 (5 PPM) after 12 seconds (peak was 19 
> PPM).  However, the fire alarm was triggered, the entire engineering 
> building was evacuated for 20 minutes, and six fire trucks showed up.
>
> This cylinder was 13 months old, 1 month past its expiration date. 
>  The cylinder was chained and strapped into position inside the gas 
> cabinet when the dust cap was removed.  At present, we feel it is best 
> to evacuate the building, since our old lab is in a B-class occupancy 
> area.  However, in our new facility, our silane will be behind a 2 hr 
> firewall in a special gas room, attached to the single-story fab wing 
> and 50 yards from (but still attached to) the multi-story research 
> tower.  We are looking for more robust system-level solutions limiting 
> unnecessary evacuation of the research tower in our new facility.
>
> *Approaches:* Aside from procedural approaches like "Don't use expired 
> cylinders", and "Open dust caps very slowly", has anyone attempted to 
> use alarm logic in their HPM system, such as: "<<If>> the alarm 
> originates in the gas box <<and>> room air sensor is below 
> threshold...  or variations on timing between sense and decay to stage 
> the triggering of different alarm levels??
>
> How do others handle this situation in your respective labs?
>
> Thank you in advance for your inputs!
>
> --Ian
>
> ********************************************
> Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
> Associate Director, Utah nanofab
> College of Engineering / University of Utah
>
> Research Associate Professor
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> Adjunct Associate Professor
> Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
> 2232 MEB
>
> mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
> Salt Lake City, Utah   84112-9011
> 801/585-6162 (voicemail)
> 801/581-5676 (lab main number)
> www.nanofab.utah.edu <http://www.nanofab.utah.edu>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110506/0180f371/attachment.html>

From kpchen12 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 12:15:13 2011
From: kpchen12 at gmail.com (Chen)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 12:15:13 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Is there any website where we can get the idea of the
	cost of lab facility?
Message-ID: <BANLkTimYb0rDYt0Tc3sujnjOE7L-wWBLZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I am a new graduated PHD student.
In case to build a lab in the future, we need to know the budget.

Is there an easier way to get the idea of the cost of facility without
asking for quote from different companies?
For example, how much is for an e-beam lithography system?
or how much is for a femtosecond laser system?
It is not easy to get the idea by searching the google.

Is there any forum or website with this kind of information? (like e-bay or
amazon, but for lab facility.)
Please let me know.

thank you.

best,
Kooper
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110506/cf0e876f/attachment.html>

From daniel.woodie at cornell.edu  Fri May  6 16:39:50 2011
From: daniel.woodie at cornell.edu (Dan Woodie)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 16:39:50 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent
 building	evacuations on silane bottle changes...
In-Reply-To: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
References: <A6EB11E4-E522-4870-9BE8-97C272E77DC0@eng.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <498E625EEF447845A8C84194E97746D67AACACCEDF@MBXB.exchange.cornell.edu>

Cornell:

We only do a gas shut-off and text message on an exhausted detection. Only Ambient detections cause a building alarm therefore bottle changes have not been an issue.

Dan

Dan Woodie
Lab Use Manager
Cornell NanoScale Facility
250 Duffield Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853-2700
(607)254-4891

From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ian Harvey
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:45 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: use of gas alarm logic to prevent building evacuations on silane bottle changes...

Dear Labnetwork,

Question:
How to prevent spurious gas/silane alarms (e.g., from cylinder change burps) from unnecessarily evacuating an entire building?

Background:
We recently had a very brief burst/decay of silane associated with the removal of the dust cap in preparation for installing a new silane cylinder. The burst was captured by our gas alarm as a single "spike" that exceeded the level-2 alarm threshold (10 PPM) for 3 seconds and decayed back to below level 1 (5 PPM) after 12 seconds (peak was 19 PPM).  However, the fire alarm was triggered, the entire engineering building was evacuated for 20 minutes, and six fire trucks showed up.

This cylinder was 13 months old, 1 month past its expiration date.  The cylinder was chained and strapped into position inside the gas cabinet when the dust cap was removed.  At present, we feel it is best to evacuate the building, since our old lab is in a B-class occupancy area.  However, in our new facility, our silane will be behind a 2 hr firewall in a special gas room, attached to the single-story fab wing and 50 yards from (but still attached to) the multi-story research tower.  We are looking for more robust system-level solutions limiting unnecessary evacuation of the research tower in our new facility.

Approaches: Aside from procedural approaches like "Don't use expired cylinders", and "Open dust caps very slowly", has anyone attempted to use alarm logic in their HPM system, such as: "<<If>> the alarm originates in the gas box <<and>> room air sensor is below threshold...  or variations on timing between sense and decay to stage the triggering of different alarm levels??

How do others handle this situation in your respective labs?

Thank you in advance for your inputs!

--Ian

********************************************
Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Utah nanofab
College of Engineering / University of Utah

Research Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
2232 MEB

mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah   84112-9011
801/585-6162 (voicemail)
801/581-5676 (lab main number)
www.nanofab.utah.edu<http://www.nanofab.utah.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110506/115c8c97/attachment.html>

From vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca  Mon May  9 13:34:03 2011
From: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca (Vito Logiudice)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 17:34:03 +0000
Subject: [labnetwork] Running process gas lines out of bunkers
Message-ID: <B747A998CA0D184ABF0FFECE1C7E55960B5A7E19@connmbx5>

Dear all,

I would appreciate the community's insights  as to how to best run single or coax process gas lines out from concrete gas storage rooms (bunkers), all while satisfying building & fire codes for such enclosures. In our application, the rooms are located outside the perimeter of the cleanroom (currently under construction). One of the rooms will be dedicated to toxic/corrosive process gas cabinets and the other to flammable/pyrophoric cabinets. We require some sort of transition in the concrete walls of the bunkers which would allow for simple future expansion as to number and types (single vs coax) of lines out of each room.

Many thanks in advance for any insights.

Regards,
Vito Logiudice

Vito Logiudice  P.Eng.
Director of Operations
QNC & RAC Nanofabrication Facilities

University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, ON
Canada   N2L 3G1
Tel:  1-519-888-4567  ext. 38703
Fax: 1-519-888-7610
Cel:  1-519-500-2538
Email: vlogiudi at uwaterloo.ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110509/50f5f26a/attachment.html>

From codreanu at seas.upenn.edu  Mon May  9 14:26:06 2011
From: codreanu at seas.upenn.edu (Iulian Codreanu)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 14:26:06 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Process Engineer position at Penn
Message-ID: <4DC831BE.7000501@seas.upenn.edu>

Good Afternoon.

A Process Engineer position has been created at Penn Nanofab - please 
see job description below.  If you know someone qualified/interested 
please direct them to Jobs at Penn:
- jobs.hr.upenn.edu
- Search using Reference Number: 110430444

Thank you for your help.

Iulian
---
Iulian Codreanu, Ph.D.
Director, Penn NanoFab
200 South 33rd Street
Room 305 Moore Bldg
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314
P: 215-898-9308
F: 215-573-2068
www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab


/****************************/
Penn is making major investments in nanotechnology research and 
infrastructure. The existing Facility has been renovated in 2009 and new 
equipment (EBL, NIL, PECVD, ALD, RIE, sputtering) has been installed. 
Construction on a new nanotechnology building (that will house, among 
other things, a 12,000 sq ft class 100/1000 cleanroom) is under way.

DUTIES:
The Process Engineer will primarily provide training and support to 
existing and new users.  Major duties include:
- Teach basic nanofabrication skills to new users.
- Work closely with academic and industrial users to enable their research.
- Operate equipment and train users.
- Develop, document, and maintain nanofabrication processes.
- Maintain/troubleshoot/repair equipment and develop maintenance schedule.
- Assist with the operation of the nanofabrication facility.
- Detailed record keeping of equipment activity, user training, 
operating procedures, process flows, and maintenance work is required.

QUALIFICATIONS:
- A Master?s in Physics or Engineering with strong mechanical 
inclination and troubleshooting skills.
- At least five years experience operating/troubleshooting/maintaining 
nanofabrication equipment and developing/documenting/maintaining 
fabrication processes.
- Strong attention to detail, persistence, follow through, and the 
ability to work with minimal supervision are essential.
- High energy, self-motivated with strong communication skills and 
personal work ethic, a sense of ownership as well as the ability to 
interact with a diverse customer base are required.

The work environment requires extensive safety training, handling of 
chemicals and hazardous gases, and provides exposure to moving machinery 
and high noise levels.  The position involves the use of tools requiring 
high dexterity and requires standing, bending, crouching, stooping, and 
occasionally lifting 25-50 lbs.

Background check required.



From Jianchao.Li at unt.edu  Mon May  9 15:22:03 2011
From: Jianchao.Li at unt.edu (Li, Jianchao)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:22:03 -0500
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: is a must to have CO2 fire suppression
 system for Polypro wet benches with heating ability
Message-ID: <F590B8BAFCB93C46AF46FFA6FD9DCC10A46DA3E3D9@GABMB03.ad.unt.edu>

Hi guys,

We bought some used polypro wet benches which have heated quartz tanks. I am wondering whether it 's a must to have CO2 fire suppression system for them.

Or sprinkler system from the cleanroom will be enough.

Thanks,

J.C.


Jianchao (J.C.) Li  Ph.D.

Nanofabrication Facilities Manager

UNT Discovery Park

3940 North Elm, Suite A-101

Denton, TX 76203-5017

voice: (940) 369-5318<tel:%28940%29%20369-5318>

e-mail: jianchao.li at unt.edu<mailto:jianchao.li at unt.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110509/ec2bb5a6/attachment.html>

From schweig at umich.edu  Tue May 10 07:00:01 2011
From: schweig at umich.edu (Schweiger, Dennis)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 07:00:01 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Running process gas lines out of bunkers
In-Reply-To: <B747A998CA0D184ABF0FFECE1C7E55960B5A7E19@connmbx5>
References: <B747A998CA0D184ABF0FFECE1C7E55960B5A7E19@connmbx5>
Message-ID: <6B31843C2533474FAA7CBE906425995C4FFD9B0580@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS1.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu>

Vito,

Good morning.  Depending on your wall construction, the separation distance between your "bunkers" and your facility, and the fact that you're more than likely using ?" coaxial lines (1/2" OD on the jacket), the simplest thing we've found that works well is to use electrical conduit as your sleeve through the block wall.  If you use rigid material, it can be threaded on the ends, and the caps will provide the "fire separation" for the future passages.  You may want to consider a separation distance of about 2" between the sleeves so that a weld head will fit in to perform the operation.

If you'd like to discuss this further, give me a call.  I've installed thousands of feet of coaxial tubing in a variety of process facilities.  You're also welcome to come out and visit, and see what we've done at UofM.

Dennis Schweiger
Facilities Manager

Lurie Nanofabrication Facility
University of Michigan
1301 Beal Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122

734.647.2055 Ofc
877.471.6208 Fax
734.320.4474 Cell

"People can be divided into 3 groups - those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder what happened."


From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Vito Logiudice
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:34 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] Running process gas lines out of bunkers

Dear all,

I would appreciate the community's insights  as to how to best run single or coax process gas lines out from concrete gas storage rooms (bunkers), all while satisfying building & fire codes for such enclosures. In our application, the rooms are located outside the perimeter of the cleanroom (currently under construction). One of the rooms will be dedicated to toxic/corrosive process gas cabinets and the other to flammable/pyrophoric cabinets. We require some sort of transition in the concrete walls of the bunkers which would allow for simple future expansion as to number and types (single vs coax) of lines out of each room.

Many thanks in advance for any insights.

Regards,
Vito Logiudice

Vito Logiudice  P.Eng.
Director of Operations
QNC & RAC Nanofabrication Facilities

University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, ON
Canada   N2L 3G1
Tel:  1-519-888-4567  ext. 38703
Fax: 1-519-888-7610
Cel:  1-519-500-2538
Email: vlogiudi at uwaterloo.ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110510/a532f8d8/attachment.html>

From schweig at umich.edu  Tue May 10 07:07:35 2011
From: schweig at umich.edu (Schweiger, Dennis)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 07:07:35 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: is a must to have CO2 fire suppression
 system for Polypro wet benches with heating ability
In-Reply-To: <F590B8BAFCB93C46AF46FFA6FD9DCC10A46DA3E3D9@GABMB03.ad.unt.edu>
References: <F590B8BAFCB93C46AF46FFA6FD9DCC10A46DA3E3D9@GABMB03.ad.unt.edu>
Message-ID: <6B31843C2533474FAA7CBE906425995C4FFD9B0581@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS1.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu>

Jianchao,

Your best answer should come from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for your facility, and your insurance underwriter.  I don't believe polypropylene materials will meet the NFPA code (FM 4910) for fire resistant materials within a clean room, which is typically a PVC-C material.

At UofM, we are not using gaseous fire suppression anywhere, as we could never get it to work for our facility (you have to damper the exhaust, it requires a huge number of tanks to get the suppression volume, etc...).  We do have our wet process stations (all of which are FM 4910 compliant for the clean room) on a separate sprinkler feed, so that in the event we have an issue, once it's mitigated, we can isolate the sprinkler system, without losing protection in the rest of the fab.

Dennis Schweiger
Facilities Manager

Lurie Nanofabrication Facility
University of Michigan
1301 Beal Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122

734.647.2055 Ofc
877.471.6208 Fax
734.320.4474 Cell

"People can be divided into 3 groups - those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder what happened."


From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Li, Jianchao
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:22 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: is a must to have CO2 fire suppression system for Polypro wet benches with heating ability

Hi guys,

We bought some used polypro wet benches which have heated quartz tanks. I am wondering whether it 's a must to have CO2 fire suppression system for them.

Or sprinkler system from the cleanroom will be enough.

Thanks,

J.C.


Jianchao (J.C.) Li  Ph.D.

Nanofabrication Facilities Manager

UNT Discovery Park

3940 North Elm, Suite A-101

Denton, TX 76203-5017

voice: (940) 369-5318<tel:%28940%29%20369-5318>

e-mail: jianchao.li at unt.edu<mailto:jianchao.li at unt.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110510/a891c230/attachment.html>

From Hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu  Tue May 10 09:13:48 2011
From: Hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Mac Hathaway)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:13:48 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: is a must to have CO2 fire suppression
 system for Polypro wet benches with heating ability
In-Reply-To: <F590B8BAFCB93C46AF46FFA6FD9DCC10A46DA3E3D9@GABMB03.ad.unt.edu>
References: <F590B8BAFCB93C46AF46FFA6FD9DCC10A46DA3E3D9@GABMB03.ad.unt.edu>
Message-ID: <4DC93A0C.5050005@cns.fas.harvard.edu>

Hey there,

At Harvard CNS, we have fire-suppression on our metal (solvent + 
photoresist) benches (single big CO2 bottle on each), and no fire 
suppression on poly (acid/base/developer) benches.

Quartz heated tanks usually means RCA clean or Piranha etch, i.e. acids, 
so less fire risk.  At least here, no suppression would be required.  
Local codes may vary, of course...


Mac Hathaway
Harvard CNS



Li, Jianchao wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
>  
>
> We bought some used polypro wet benches which have heated quartz 
> tanks. I am wondering whether it ?s a must to have CO2 fire 
> suppression system for them.
>
>  
>
> Or sprinkler system from the cleanroom will be enough.
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
>  
>
> J.C.
>
>  
>
> Jianchao (J.C.) Li  Ph.D.
>
> Nanofabrication Facilities Manager
>
> UNT Discovery Park
>
> 3940 North Elm, Suite A-101
>
> Denton, TX 76203-5017
>
> voice: (940) 369-5318 <tel:%28940%29%20369-5318>
>
> e-mail: _jianchao.li at unt.edu <mailto:jianchao.li at unt.edu>_
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110510/dfb756da/attachment.html>

From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu  Tue May 10 13:10:41 2011
From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:10:41 -0700
Subject: [labnetwork] Question: is a must to have CO2 fire suppression
 system for Polypro wet benches with heating ability
In-Reply-To: <F590B8BAFCB93C46AF46FFA6FD9DCC10A46DA3E3D9@GABMB03.ad.unt.edu>
References: <F590B8BAFCB93C46AF46FFA6FD9DCC10A46DA3E3D9@GABMB03.ad.unt.edu>
Message-ID: <4DC97191.60207@eecs.berkeley.edu>

 From UC Berkeley:
- all 'plastic' benches FM 4910 approved materials (PVC-C or CP-7)
- stations with heated  acid bath have water sprinkler with high temp head
- stations with heated solvent bath have local CO2 cylinder suppression
- your AHJ is the correct party to communicate with; they make the call.

Bill Flounders
Berkeley Marvell NanoLab


Li, Jianchao wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We bought some used polypro wet benches which have heated quartz 
> tanks. I am wondering whether it 's a must to have CO2 fire 
> suppression system for them.
>
> Or sprinkler system from the cleanroom will be enough.
>
> Thanks,
>
> J.C.
>
> Jianchao (J.C.) Li Ph.D.
>
> Nanofabrication Facilities Manager
>
> UNT Discovery Park
>
> 3940 North Elm, Suite A-101
>
> Denton, TX 76203-5017
>
> voice: (940) 369-5318 <tel:%28940%29%20369-5318>
>
> e-mail: _jianchao.li at unt.edu <mailto:jianchao.li at unt.edu>_
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110510/4294be7b/attachment.html>

From codreanu at seas.upenn.edu  Tue May 10 15:26:32 2011
From: codreanu at seas.upenn.edu (Iulian Codreanu)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:26:32 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] insurance requirements for corporate users
Message-ID: <4DC99168.2050506@seas.upenn.edu>

Good Afternoon.

I am writing to ask for your input on the insurance requirements you 
have for your corporate users, small businesses in particular.
- What type of coverage and limits do you require?
- What insurance companies offer the type of coverage you require?

Your help is much appreciated.

Best regards,

Iulian
-- 
iulian Codreanu, Ph.D.
Director, Penn NanoFab
200 South 33rd Street
Room 305 Moore Bldg
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314
P: 215-898-9308
F: 215-573-2068
www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab



From conrad at princeton.edu  Tue May 10 18:02:03 2011
From: conrad at princeton.edu (Conrad Silvestre)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 18:02:03 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Two Used Myriad Mask Aligners for Sale
Message-ID: <002901cc0f5d$e5306130$af912390$@edu>

Request for Bid:

 

Princeton University is looking to dispose of two used Myriad Mask Aligners
and associated equipment.

 

The inventory is:

 

Myriad Mask Aligner Model 2100 C Serial Number 871201

 

Myriad Mask Aligner Model 2100 C Serial Number Unknown

 

Myriad Lamp Power Supply Model CA 200 Serial Number 0016

 

Illumination Industries 200 Watt UV Lamp Power Supply Model CA 200-8150-1
Serial Number 3F-5945

 

Illumination Industries 200 Watt UV Lamp Power Supply Model CA 200-8150-1
Serial Number 3B-5509

 

Kasper Instruments Logic Box Model 2001 Serial Number 7815 C-1

 

Kasper Instruments Logic Box Model 2001 Serial Number 871201

 

Spare parts.

 

 

 

The equipment is functional but may be in need of refurbishment.

 

Please email your interest to conrad at princeton.edu.

 

 

 

Conrad Silvestre
Department of Electrical Engineering
C430 EQuad, CN-5263
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey 08544-5263
Office: 609-258-6236
FAX: 609-258-1840

Business Cell: 609-356-8825

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110510/052b32aa/attachment.html>

From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu  Tue May 10 20:37:28 2011
From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:37:28 -0700
Subject: [labnetwork] insurance requirements for corporate users
In-Reply-To: <4DC99168.2050506@seas.upenn.edu>
References: <4DC99168.2050506@seas.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <4DC9DA48.80901@eecs.berkeley.edu>

Defined by University wide policy not lab management.
I will forward additional info as available.
Bill Flounders
Berkeley Marvell NanoLab

Iulian Codreanu wrote:
> Good Afternoon.
>
> I am writing to ask for your input on the insurance requirements you 
> have for your corporate users, small businesses in particular.
> - What type of coverage and limits do you require?
> - What insurance companies offer the type of coverage you require?
>
> Your help is much appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Iulian



From diadiuk at MIT.EDU  Mon May 16 15:29:20 2011
From: diadiuk at MIT.EDU (Vicky Diadiuk)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:29:20 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] Sputtering systems
Message-ID: <E8E84682-F8F4-4B94-AD8E-4312E7AA48C2@mit.edu>

HI,
  We are beginning our search fo a new sputtering system & are  
considering the following:

AJA orion8	Orion-8
AJA ATC	ATC-1800
Torr	MagSput 3G3 RF/DC
Anatech	Anatec Hummer BC-20
Semicore	Triaxis

Do you have any experience with or comments about these tools?

Much appreciated,
  Vicky




***************************************************

Dr. Vicky Diadiuk
Associate Director - Operations
Microsystems Technology Laboratories
Room 39-219
77 Mass Ave
Cambridge, MA 02139
Tel: (617) 253-0731
FAX: (617) 258-8500

http://www-mtl.mit.edu/

***************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110516/522d274c/attachment.html>

From matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca  Wed May 18 12:20:36 2011
From: matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca (Matthieu Nannini, Dr.)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 12:20:36 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH vs KOH
Message-ID: <71E97FE4-1EC5-4997-9DF7-1B8177CF974D@mcgill.ca>

Dear all,

Having only one base dedicated bench running TMAH @ 85C I have now to make a choice between TMAH and KOH since new researcher are asking for KOH. Maintaining the 2 chemicals requires resources that I don't have.
Process wise, TMAH is better with oxide masks but KOH is better with SiN masks. KOH also etches faster and nicer.
My questions are in terms of safety: could you share your experiences with KOH vs TMAH in terms of ease of use, safety, etc...

Thanks

-----------------------------------
Matthieu Nannini
McGill Nanotools Microfab
Manager
t: 514 398 3310
c: 514 758 3311
f: 514 398 8434
http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
------------------------------------




From dabunzow at lbl.gov  Wed May 18 16:26:09 2011
From: dabunzow at lbl.gov (David A. Bunzow)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 13:26:09 -0700
Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH vs KOH
In-Reply-To: <71E97FE4-1EC5-4997-9DF7-1B8177CF974D@mcgill.ca>
References: <71E97FE4-1EC5-4997-9DF7-1B8177CF974D@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <4DD42B61.8000409@lbl.gov>

Hello Mattieu,
IMHO, from a health perspective, TMAH appears far more dangerous than KOH.  We
recently prepared a lab-wide notification concerning TMAH and its known but often
overlooked dangers based on skin adsorption as opposed to ingestion as an 
identified
route of exposure.

"Materials Safety Bulletin
September 24, 2010

TMAH: New Hazard Awareness Concerning an Old Chemical
Tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) is widely used in micro- or nanofabrication
as an etchant and developer. In MSD, TMAH is typically one of several 
ingredients in
commercial etching/stripping mixtures, although it may also be used as a pure 
chemical.

While it has long been known to be very toxic if ingested, recent industrial 
experience
indicates that skin exposure may result in serious injury/illness or even death. 
Since 2007,
there have been 3 recorded fatalities from skin exposure to TMAH solutions as 
dilute as
25%. Two of the recorded fatalities occurred due to heart attack despite immediate
decontamination and prompt medical care. Thus skin, exposure to >1% TMAH over a
few percent of the body must be treated as a life-threatening event. MSDSs may 
be out of
date and not properly describe this high dermal toxicity.

When handling this material, the minimum set of personal protective equipment 
includes:
safety goggles (not glasses), disposable nitrile gloves, a buttoned lab coat, 
leg covering and
closed-toe shoes. The disposable gloves may only provide brief protection and 
must be
replaced if they become wetted. More protective gloves are the Stansolv or 
Tri-Ionic glove
models sold by MAPA.

In the event of a splash, contaminated clothing must be removed and the wetted area
thoroughly washed with soap and water, using the emergency shower if necessary.
Call 911 and summon emergency medical help.

You should not handle TMAH containing materials when working alone.
Tri-Ionic clean room gloves provide excellent protection from TMAH exposure."


David A. Bunzow
User Facilities Program Manager
The Molecular Foundry
Materials Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road        MS 67-3207
Berkeley, CA   94720

Office:  510-486-4574
FAX:  510-486-7424
Cell:  701-541-2354


On 5/18/2011 9:20 AM, Matthieu Nannini, Dr. wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Having only one base dedicated bench running TMAH @ 85C I have now to make a choice between TMAH and KOH since new researcher are asking for KOH. Maintaining the 2 chemicals requires resources that I don't have.
> Process wise, TMAH is better with oxide masks but KOH is better with SiN masks. KOH also etches faster and nicer.
> My questions are in terms of safety: could you share your experiences with KOH vs TMAH in terms of ease of use, safety, etc...
>
> Thanks
>
> -----------------------------------
> Matthieu Nannini
> McGill Nanotools Microfab
> Manager
> t: 514 398 3310
> c: 514 758 3311
> f: 514 398 8434
> http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110518/b48af1b0/attachment.html>

From bob at eecs.berkeley.edu  Wed May 18 16:43:09 2011
From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. Hamilton)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 13:43:09 -0700
Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH vs KOH
In-Reply-To: <71E97FE4-1EC5-4997-9DF7-1B8177CF974D@mcgill.ca>
References: <71E97FE4-1EC5-4997-9DF7-1B8177CF974D@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <4DD42F5D.5050703@eecs.berkeley.edu>

Matthieu Nannini,

At the Berkeley NanoLab we support both KOH and TMAH use at 
a dedicated work process station. We have not had issues 
with these processes. Having said this, we have added the 
following caution statement about TMAH exposure to our lab 
and safety manuals after our Office of Environmental Health 
& Safety shared data about fatal TMAH exposures in Taiwan:

"TMAH (Tetramethylammonium hydroxide) is widely used as a 
photoresist developer (2-3%) and for the anisotropic etching 
of silicon (10-15%). TMAH is a strong base and hazardous by 
ingestion, inhalation, skin (dermal) exposure and eye 
contact. In addition to alkalinity-related chemical burn, 
dermal exposure to TMAH may also result in respiratory 
failure and/or cardiac arrest. A 2010 study of case reports 
of Taiwan semiconductor factory injuries linked exposure of 
25% TMAH to three cases of heart failure. It is important to 
treat TMAH skin exposure by flooding the effected area with 
water for at least 15 minutes and to report all exposures."

More generally, caustic burns (KOH or TMAH) can be worse 
than acid burns. It is difficult to cleanse the orbit of an 
eye when exposure occurs and caustic quickly penetrate 
tissue. While 15 minutes may seem an inordinate amount of 
time for a topical exposure to a chemical, trauma 
specialists who we've consulted tell us such long rinses 
have definite value.

Sincerely,
Bob Hamilton

Robert M. Hamilton
Marvel NanoLab
University of CA at Berkeley
Rm 520 Sutardja Dai Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-1754
bob at eecs.berkeley.edu
(e-mail preferred)
510-809-8600
510-325-7557 (Emergencies)


On 5/18/2011 9:20 AM, Matthieu Nannini, Dr. wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Having only one base dedicated bench running TMAH @ 85C I have now to make a choice between TMAH and KOH since new researcher are asking for KOH. Maintaining the 2 chemicals requires resources that I don't have.
> Process wise, TMAH is better with oxide masks but KOH is better with SiN masks. KOH also etches faster and nicer.
> My questions are in terms of safety: could you share your experiences with KOH vs TMAH in terms of ease of use, safety, etc...
>
> Thanks
>
> -----------------------------------
> Matthieu Nannini
> McGill Nanotools Microfab
> Manager
> t: 514 398 3310
> c: 514 758 3311
> f: 514 398 8434
> http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork



From mtang at stanford.edu  Wed May 18 18:10:45 2011
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:10:45 -0700
Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH vs KOH
In-Reply-To: <71E97FE4-1EC5-4997-9DF7-1B8177CF974D@mcgill.ca>
References: <71E97FE4-1EC5-4997-9DF7-1B8177CF974D@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <4DD443E5.1020905@stanford.edu>

Hi Matthieu --

This isn't really an answer, but your question brings up a paper that a 
former SNF labmember sent to us from Clinic Toxicology, 48, p. 213 
(2010) entitled: "Tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide poisoning".  It 
describes tetramethylammonium as a well-documented, non-specific nerve 
agent (a ganglionic blocker).  As a positive ion, it doesn't normally 
pass through skin very well, but in its hydroxide form, the corrosive 
damage to the skin allows it to pass easily into the body.  The paper 
documents several clinical cases of exposure to TMAH solutions -- in two 
lethal cases, the victims were exposed to 25% TMAH covering 7% of their 
body surface area for < 1 min.  Significant health effects were observed 
in exposures to 2.38% TMAH for 10 minutes or less.

The MSDS for TMAH at first glance looks just a tad scarier than KOH but 
no mention that it is a nerve agent.  Both are listed as severe poison, 
but I'm guessing that similar exposures to KOH would not be as lethal.

We now treat TMAH with much greater respect, not only for silicon 
etching, but for resist developers as well (with typical concentrations 
of 2.3%.)

Mary



On 5/18/2011 9:20 AM, Matthieu Nannini, Dr. wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Having only one base dedicated bench running TMAH @ 85C I have now to make a choice between TMAH and KOH since new researcher are asking for KOH. Maintaining the 2 chemicals requires resources that I don't have.
> Process wise, TMAH is better with oxide masks but KOH is better with SiN masks. KOH also etches faster and nicer.
> My questions are in terms of safety: could you share your experiences with KOH vs TMAH in terms of ease of use, safety, etc...
>
> Thanks
>
> -----------------------------------
> Matthieu Nannini
> McGill Nanotools Microfab
> Manager
> t: 514 398 3310
> c: 514 758 3311
> f: 514 398 8434
> http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork




From john_sweeney at harvard.edu  Wed May 18 17:10:47 2011
From: john_sweeney at harvard.edu (Sweeney, John)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:10:47 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH
Message-ID: <E9244AACE8CE844487FF2FAB528CA7CE0E59F6@ENTWEXMB0000002.university.harvard.edu>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110518/1de9879e/attachment.html>

From matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca  Thu May 19 08:28:46 2011
From: matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca (Matthieu Nannini, Dr.)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 08:28:46 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH
In-Reply-To: <E9244AACE8CE844487FF2FAB528CA7CE0E59F6@ENTWEXMB0000002.university.harvard.edu>
References: <E9244AACE8CE844487FF2FAB528CA7CE0E59F6@ENTWEXMB0000002.university.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <8DFADC89-9465-4260-900A-111EF00ECC04@mcgill.ca>

Here's an article relating the tragic event.
http://joh.med.uoeh-u.ac.jp/pdf/E50/E50_2_01.pdf


Le 2011-05-18 ? 17:10, Sweeney, John a ?crit :


I am at a SESHA conference in AZ this week. One talk that stirred me to decide not to use concentrated(25%) tmah in the cns cleanroom at harvard was a talk by an IBM toxicologist about the toxicity of 25%TMAH. Recently a 22 year old worker had some TMAH sprayed onto his body and he immediately showered and died within 8 hours. The rat studies on TMAH showed that it only takes 0.5mls/kg to kill the rats. If you extrapolate that up to humans it only takes about 25mls to be poured onto the body and it could be lethal. Concentrated TMAH is HF without an anecdote.
If interested you can email me with questions.
Thanks

<ATT00001..txt>




From bradshaw1234 at gmail.com  Tue May 24 14:25:26 2011
From: bradshaw1234 at gmail.com (Keith Bradshaw)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:25:26 -0500
Subject: [labnetwork] Packages
Message-ID: <BANLkTin8J6-yFy=sfR3QwdXuWm9vCH4tfw@mail.gmail.com>

I am looking for 50 IC DIP packages.

We  have a 10.8 x 12.5 mm chip for a hall effect test structure.

I have 6 contacts  per device and about 50 test packages to bond for an
undergrad lab.

So the spec is a 6 pins available on a DIP and a non magnetic shielding
package substrate at least 11 mm wide.

Where can I find cheap ceramic packages....I don't need to seal them.

Keith Bradshaw

Dallas tx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110524/58974e98/attachment.html>

From pkarulkar9 at gmail.com  Wed May 25 12:12:40 2011
From: pkarulkar9 at gmail.com (Pramod C Karulkar)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 08:12:40 -0800
Subject: [labnetwork] Packages
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin8J6-yFy=sfR3QwdXuWm9vCH4tfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTin8J6-yFy=sfR3QwdXuWm9vCH4tfw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DDD2A78.6090106@gmail.com>

Check www.spectrum-semi.com  for surplus packages.
<http://www.spectrum-semi.com/>

Pramod Karulkar


On 5/24/2011 10:25 AM, Keith Bradshaw wrote:
> I am looking for 50 IC DIP packages.
>
> We  have a 10.8 x 12.5 mm chip for a hall effect test structure.
>
> I have 6 contacts  per device and about 50 test packages to bond for 
> an undergrad lab.
>
> So the spec is a 6 pins available on a DIP and a non magnetic 
> shielding package substrate at least 11 mm wide.
>
> Where can I find cheap ceramic packages....I don't need to seal them.
>
> Keith Bradshaw
>
> Dallas tx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork

-- 
Pramod C Karulkar
1470  Goshawk Lane
Fairbanks AK 99709

907 457 4123

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110525/0955c516/attachment.html>

From matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca  Fri May 27 15:47:54 2011
From: matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca (Matthieu Nannini, Dr.)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 15:47:54 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations
Message-ID: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>

Dear lab managers,

We are in the process of planning a transition to 24/7 operations for our fab. I would appreciate if some of you could share their experience and give advice on must-do's and must-not-do's regarding 24/7 operations. How do you manage staff ? any restriction in processes ? How do you re-inforce the buddy system ? Buddy system at all times or only for specific processes ? Any specific training for users willing to work overnight ?

Thanks in advance for your valuable insights.

-----------------------------------
Matthieu Nannini
McGill Nanotools Microfab
Manager
t: 514 398 3310
c: 514 758 3311
f: 514 398 8434
http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
------------------------------------




From shott at stanford.edu  Sun May 29 12:10:27 2011
From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 09:10:27 -0700
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations
In-Reply-To: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>
References: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <4DE26FF3.6080104@stanford.edu>

Matt:

I'm sure that there will be a lively and interesting discussion of this 
topic.  My guess is that we all probably have some form of "buddy rule" 
will differing approaches and degrees of success in enforcing it.

Let me get the ball rolling by telling your what we do in the Stanford 
Nanofabrication Facility.

Yes, we are open 24/7 but are only staffed 1+ shifts .... approximately 
6 a.m. to 6 p.m. M-F.  We don't limit tools or processes.

Because of our physical configuration, the sub-fab where pumps, 
chillers, scrubbers, etc live are off limits and not accessible to lab 
members.  Same for the gas bunkers and main chemical storage areas so we 
at least don't have to worry about folks in those areas trying to 
"adjust" things themselves.

Our card key system is managed as a part of the university-wide system 
so we don't have real-time access to who enters the lab.  Folks that 
tailgate when entering the lab or fail to swipe the card reader when 
they leave would make that information virtually useless in terms of 
actually knowing who is in the lab at any point in time.

We have a rotating cell phone carried by several members of the senior 
staff that is for emergency calls for anyone in the lab and is also the 
first number that the central-campus facility monitoring system calls if 
sensors relevant to our operation go into alarm.  Things like toxic gas 
sensors automatically sound the evacuation alarms in the lab and, if gas 
sensors in breathing air go into alarm, call the Fire Department as 
well.  Being in earthquake country, we also have a seismic sensor that 
shuts off all gases and sound the alarm in the event of an earthquake.

Although we don't use this particular feature, since I know that you are 
running Coral, that gives you the ability to create and use either a 
lab-wide role or an equipment-specific role of "restricted" that would 
allow you to define policies that would prevent people from reserving or 
enabling equipment outside the period when staff was available. That 
allows you to let someone get more experience with staff resources 
available before you "turn them loose" with unrestricted access.  Of 
course, the downside is that you and your staff have to manage who is 
"restricted" and then determine based on time or more rigorous means 
when someone is allowed to work at any time.  Also, while you can limit 
when people enable a tool to a certain time window, it's very hard to 
control when they quit using it.

Are there times in our facility when people violate the buddy rule?  
Probably ...  Of course, depending where people are in the lab, just 
having a second person in the lab isn't a guarantee that they'd be in a 
position to help in the event of a problem.

I'll be interested to read other offerings on this topic.

Thanks,

John






From hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu  Tue May 31 09:07:41 2011
From: hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Hathaway, Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:41 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations
In-Reply-To: <4DE26FF3.6080104@stanford.edu>
References: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>,
	<4DE26FF3.6080104@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD99BA1419DE@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv>

Hi all,

This is Mac Hathaway, at Harvard CNS.  We have protocols in place similar to those described by John, with the exception that our "toxic" gases (flammables and anything monitored with sensors, Cl2, SiH4, BCl3, etc) are only enabled from 6 AM to 8 PM.  We have had discussions about whether this restriction is still needed, given the maturity of our toxic gas monitoring, but 6 AM-8 PM is the current scheme.  Everything else in the cleanroom is physically accessible 24/7 (most notably, from a safety standpoint, wetbenches).

One thing that is a little different here is that we have an ERT (Emergency Response Team), similar to what exists in many commercial fabs, (not typical for academic sites, as I understand it).  The ERT consists of most of our cleanroom staff.  We meet monthly for training (and pizza), and we are all on call in the event of an emergency in the cleanroom.

We have the buddy rule for working with hazardous materials, with a strong emphasis on the need for a buddy for any work during "off-hours", but as John pointed out, it's not something that lends itself to absolute compliance.  With regard to "encouraging compliance", how do people feel about the use of video cameras on the wetbenches?  I understand that some locations are using them;  has wetbench user "behavior" improved when cameras are in use?  Obviously, 24-hour monitoring is not practical, but does the "someone is watching" effect yield positive results?


Mac Hathaway
Senior Process Engineer
Harvard CNS






________________________________________
From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of John Shott [shott at stanford.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:10 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Matt:

I'm sure that there will be a lively and interesting discussion of this
topic.  My guess is that we all probably have some form of "buddy rule"
will differing approaches and degrees of success in enforcing it.

Let me get the ball rolling by telling your what we do in the Stanford
Nanofabrication Facility.

Yes, we are open 24/7 but are only staffed 1+ shifts .... approximately
6 a.m. to 6 p.m. M-F.  We don't limit tools or processes.

Because of our physical configuration, the sub-fab where pumps,
chillers, scrubbers, etc live are off limits and not accessible to lab
members.  Same for the gas bunkers and main chemical storage areas so we
at least don't have to worry about folks in those areas trying to
"adjust" things themselves.

Our card key system is managed as a part of the university-wide system
so we don't have real-time access to who enters the lab.  Folks that
tailgate when entering the lab or fail to swipe the card reader when
they leave would make that information virtually useless in terms of
actually knowing who is in the lab at any point in time.

We have a rotating cell phone carried by several members of the senior
staff that is for emergency calls for anyone in the lab and is also the
first number that the central-campus facility monitoring system calls if
sensors relevant to our operation go into alarm.  Things like toxic gas
sensors automatically sound the evacuation alarms in the lab and, if gas
sensors in breathing air go into alarm, call the Fire Department as
well.  Being in earthquake country, we also have a seismic sensor that
shuts off all gases and sound the alarm in the event of an earthquake.

Although we don't use this particular feature, since I know that you are
running Coral, that gives you the ability to create and use either a
lab-wide role or an equipment-specific role of "restricted" that would
allow you to define policies that would prevent people from reserving or
enabling equipment outside the period when staff was available. That
allows you to let someone get more experience with staff resources
available before you "turn them loose" with unrestricted access.  Of
course, the downside is that you and your staff have to manage who is
"restricted" and then determine based on time or more rigorous means
when someone is allowed to work at any time.  Also, while you can limit
when people enable a tool to a certain time window, it's very hard to
control when they quit using it.

Are there times in our facility when people violate the buddy rule?
Probably ...  Of course, depending where people are in the lab, just
having a second person in the lab isn't a guarantee that they'd be in a
position to help in the event of a problem.

I'll be interested to read other offerings on this topic.

Thanks,

John




_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork



From vincent.luciani at nist.gov  Tue May 31 09:29:28 2011
From: vincent.luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:29:28 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations
Message-ID: <01F47D4EDEEC64488C10B767D15E485808E1FC9BB2@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>

Hello Matt,



Here at the CNST NanoFab (http://www.nist.gov/cnst/index.cfm), we are staffed from 7 AM to midnight,  M-F.  We use card key access control system and Coral.  All users are locked out after hours and we program their afterhours access into the system after their request for after hours access is approved.



*         Advance notification, the day before is fine.  That way we can avoid any tool repair or facilities conflicts. The advance notification also helps me help others to find a buddy if needed.

o   A loose, casual buddy agreement between users, leading to one user leaving before another or one working in their office while the other was in the lab was a common failure mode at first. So, we require verbal or email confirmation from both people that they are committed to being each other's buddy at all times.

*         Once approved, they can use all tools/processes.

*         We use deterrence to discourage cheating, because it will happen.  I randomly check Coral records and our CCTV video tapes and suspend/revoke cleanroom privileges for violators (from a 2 week suspension to full revocation depending on the degree of fraud/abuse).  Word travels fast when this happens and is a strong deterrent.

*         Some tools outside the cleanroom, like the FIB or AFM, can be used without a buddy after I confirm with whoever trained them that they have the required proficiency.

*         The NanoFab staff is notified automatically via Blackberry about any gas or fire alarm 24/7.



Let me know how it goes for you.



Vince


Vincent K. Luciani
NanoFab Manager
Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology<http://www.cnst.nist.gov/>
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA
+1-301-975-2886
[cid:image002.jpg at 01CC1F75.502F8CF0]
******************************************************************************



Dear lab managers,



We are in the process of planning a transition to 24/7 operations for our fab. I would appreciate if some of you could share their experience and give advice on must-do's and must-not-do's regarding 24/7 operations. How do you manage staff ? any restriction in processes ? How do you re-inforce the buddy system ? Buddy system at all times or only for specific processes ? Any specific training for users willing to work overnight ?



Thanks in advance for your valuable insights.



-----------------------------------

Matthieu Nannini

McGill Nanotools Microfab

Manager

t: 514 398 3310

c: 514 758 3311

f: 514 398 8434

http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/

------------------------------------



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110531/d37526cc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2876 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110531/d37526cc/attachment.jpg>

From daniel.woodie at cornell.edu  Tue May 31 10:13:06 2011
From: daniel.woodie at cornell.edu (Dan Woodie)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 10:13:06 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations
In-Reply-To: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>
References: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <498E625EEF447845A8C84194E97746D67AAE349FB4@MBXB.exchange.cornell.edu>

Matthieu,

Like the Stanford Facility, the CNF is open 24/7 with staffing only the standard work week (7 AM ~ 6 PM, M-F). Once users complete our orientation process (~ 7 hours spread over 1.5 days) they are given full 24/7 access to the facility. Note, this does not include training on tools, only general lab orientation and chemical hood training. U.S. law assigns a greater responsibility to oversee undergraduate students versus graduate students, so we restrict undergraduates to only be able to work during normal staff hours (8 AM - 6 PM, M-F). They can go through a staged process of experience in the lab and staff review to gain full lab access over time.

Unlike the Stanford model, we do have access to the card access system, and we have large screen displays posted around and in the cleanroom listing who is currently in the facility. This can help users determine if they are working alone or not. We require a 'buddy' to be present for a few tools and our high contact hazard chemical hoods, but only evenings and weekends when staff are not on duty. For the chemical hoods we have a sign in process required all the time, with the buddy needing to sign in with the user after hours. 

Similar to Stanford we restrict the users from accessing any of the building or tool utilities and severely limit what operations they can process on tools. Emergency phones are located throughout the lab which will automatically connect to the Cornell Police Dispatch if lifted, and they will investigate even if the phone is just lifted and then hung up. Additionally we have a comprehensive toxic gas monitoring and control system present to alarm and notify the campus police dispatch and staff remotely in case of any gas detections. Cornell EH&S also full 24/7 coverage for chemical spills, injuries, etc. that can respond very quickly and is somewhat knowledgeable on our hazards and safety systems. They can respond to gas detection events, typically with over the phone support from our staff.

Lastly, we have video cameras covering all tools and chemical hoods in the facility, with a digital recorder that only captures when motion is sensed. We don't use it too often, but it has been very valuable as a deterrent. Before we implemented it, a subculture of users developed who worked at night, thinking they could skirt the rules to do things faster or different. Once the cameras went up and we handed out some suspensions from observed activity, that went dramatically down. Now, we get less argument from violators when we can show them video of their transgressions.

So, after describing what we do, I reread your original request and would add these thoughts. I feel comfortable with our evening operations due to a variety of things, which all facilities might not have. First, we have a very solid hazardous gas distribution and monitoring/control system. In our older facility (pre-2003), we did not have as nice of a system and hazardous gas usage was limited to normal working hours. Secondly, we have a solid emergency response team on campus 24/7, and they are first responders for all of our emergencies. My comfort on night operations would depend on who would be first on the scene and how well they could handle the potential events the facility could have. Lastly, we have a solid culture of lab policies and enforcement of them which helps to provide a peer pressure to follow the rules. Many of the night rule violators we have caught have been turned in by other users. The video cameras help to back up anything they report. We obviously don't catch everyone, but we catch enough to keep control on evening operations.

I hope this information is helpful. Feel free to call if you want to chat more.

Dan

Dan Woodie
Lab Use Manager
Cornell NanoScale Facility
250 Duffield Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853-2700
(607)254-4891

-----Original Message-----
From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthieu Nannini, Dr.
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:48 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Dear lab managers,

We are in the process of planning a transition to 24/7 operations for our fab. I would appreciate if some of you could share their experience and give advice on must-do's and must-not-do's regarding 24/7 operations. How do you manage staff ? any restriction in processes ? How do you re-inforce the buddy system ? Buddy system at all times or only for specific processes ? Any specific training for users willing to work overnight ?

Thanks in advance for your valuable insights.

-----------------------------------
Matthieu Nannini
McGill Nanotools Microfab
Manager
t: 514 398 3310
c: 514 758 3311
f: 514 398 8434
http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork




From rmorrison at draper.com  Tue May 31 12:07:11 2011
From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:07:11 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations
In-Reply-To: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>
References: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <94CDEF5D18F0BB4A85B1D78EFBDD6FDA0411BEB4@exchbk1.draper.com>

Hi,

I am new to this forum, my name is Rick Morrison and I am the Fab
manager at Charles Stark Draper Laboratory in Cambridge. Here are Draper
we allow access 24/7, the lab has a card lock, requiring badge access
which we control. Our rules are the buddy system after regular hours
(6am to 7pm). We do not have Coral or cameras setup to keep users
honest, but I do like the discussion around video cameras. Sometimes we
have strange things happen in the evening hours.

The lab uses some toxic gases and our monitors are always on. Security
does walk through of the building every hour and any alarms are reported
to the security desk, the desk notifies the facility group and they
respond and report any issues. Draper also has an ERT, but they are only
active during work hours, otherwise the guard desk is called and they
summon the EHS director and any other needed outside personnel. 

Short of cameras I do not know how to enforce the buddy system, here at
Draper the card lock is monitored in the security office so I can track
access that way, however we do not require users to badge.

Thanks
Rick


Rick Morrison
Senior Member Technical  Staff 
Acting Group Leader Mems Fabrication
Draper Laboratory
555 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA  02139

617-258-3420







-----Original Message-----
From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu
[mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthieu Nannini,
Dr.
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:48 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Dear lab managers,

We are in the process of planning a transition to 24/7 operations for
our fab. I would appreciate if some of you could share their experience
and give advice on must-do's and must-not-do's regarding 24/7
operations. How do you manage staff ? any restriction in processes ? How
do you re-inforce the buddy system ? Buddy system at all times or only
for specific processes ? Any specific training for users willing to work
overnight ?

Thanks in advance for your valuable insights.

-----------------------------------
Matthieu Nannini
McGill Nanotools Microfab
Manager
t: 514 398 3310
c: 514 758 3311
f: 514 398 8434
http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork



From IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu  Tue May 31 13:38:06 2011
From: IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu (Ian Harvey)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:38:06 -0600
Subject: [labnetwork] More on buddy system and a labnetwork suggestion /
	Fwd: 24/7 operations
References: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD99BA1419DE@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv>
Message-ID: <236AC5CC-569E-4BD4-AA42-AE8324DED468@eng.utah.edu>

Dear lab network,

Great forum.  Thanks to all for important feedback which I have compiled in the thread below.

Here at the Utah nanofab, we run 24/7 with training aimed at proper off-shift use of tools, and we work to create an enforceable buddy system, and build systems that make it easier for labmembers to adhere to the off-shift buddy system.  Our intent is: not having a safety buddy is not an option.

Among the tools we use to make it easier to adhere to the buddy system (and to silence complaints from faculty that the buddy system requirement is too onerous!) include:
a buddy system online calendar, buddy system mailing list, and even buddies for hire (trained undergrads willing to sit in the lab (doing homework) and be a buddy, for pay.  No one has used this last tool since it was implemented a year ago, but it has helped silence the faculty critics)
http://fab.eng.utah.edu/buddy-tools

Outside the fab we have a monitor indicating who is inside (buddies are not required in the adjacent SEM/XPS lab or in the packaging lab).
http://fab.eng.utah.edu/index/about-us/Home/lab-members/userinlab

And we use the combination of card-key records (we have our own system, and so have real-time access) and video monitoring (including at wetbenches) to enforce the rule as others have indicated.  

Recently we began generating a monthly report of buddy system violations, sorted by research group, and send the relevant violations to the faculty PI along with their user fee invoice, so that he or she is aware of what is going on with their own group.  We do not necessarily associate (yet) disciplinary measures with this report, as we wish to initially just raise the visibility of the need for adherence (and the fact that we are paying attention) first.

We do not yet have a culture wherein the labmembers themselves feel a sufficient sense of ownership that they are generally willing to either confront a safety violator in the lab, or else report violations.  But it is part of our formal training, that "someone else's safety violation certainly affects you in a number of ways, including..."  Such a culture is an ideal that we are striving for: self-monitoring & self-correction among the labmember community.  In order to achieve this sense of ownership, belonging, responsibility & accountability, we have had our student representatives assist us by actually writing the policies and being involved in scheduled and weekly lab cleans.
http://fab.eng.utah.edu/uploads/pdfs/Nanofab_User_Policy%20Aug_2010.pdf

As we prepare to move into our new facility, we will be making additional improvements to the buddy system:
(1) by implementation of CORAL and interlock boxes on each of the tools (now in progress), we will be able to begin billing based on time spent on a tool, rather than time spent in the lab.  Our interest in the buddy system is a key driver for this administrative change.  We hope that by so doing, a researcher will be able to more easily find a colleague to be a buddy (or associate in the same research group, perhaps), since that buddy will not have to pay to be in the lab.

(2) our new facility includes a clean conference room attached to the fab and accessible in the bunny suit as well as from a pedestrian entrance (think of the negotiation table between N & S Korea, entered on either side with a symbolic barrier to crossing between.  Since ours is not complete yet, here is a link to the Korean table!).  
http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/asia/panmunjom2.shtml
One of the functions of our clean conference room at night will be for buddies not working on the fab tools to have a place to sit in a bunny suit and work on reports or mask designs or device simulations.

(3) Carding out of the lab, we will be implementing an annunciator to indicate if someone is about to exit, and leave someone else stranded without a buddy.  Clearly, the policies and software methods for allowing someone to enter alone (needs a buddy to also enter within a prescribed period) or exiting (and potentially stranding someone) requires special attention, and we are working on how to implement this presently.

ASIDE: As a result of the recent informative LABNETWORK thread on TMAH, we are implementing changes in our lab.  My recent question posed to the LABNETWORK on alarm response protocols was also very helpful in providing us much useful information. 

I suggest that in addition to the UGIM meetings held once per year and which describe these types of management topics, Perhaps we should also have some forum in the "off-years" to get into detail regarding the soft administrative systems, and provide a means of sharing not only best practices, but also code for the soft systems themselves.  For example we are implementing CORAL with home-designed interlock boxes with off-the-shelf components, and are quite willing to share our design and the associated CORAL software modules.  We are currently in the planning/design stage of our new prox-card entry and tool enable system with associated buddy system features.  Others have implemented add-ons to CORAL, or perhaps generated their own soft admin systems with modules that can be ported to others.  Is it worthwhile attempting something such as this?  We at Utah would be happy to host the first, unless someone else would like to do it.

Thank you all,

--Ian

********************************************
Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
Research Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
2232 MEB

Associate Director, Utah nanofab
College of Engineering / University of Utah

mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah   84112-9011
801/585-6162 (voicemail)
801/581-5676 (lab main number)
www.nanofab.utah.edu


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Hathaway, Malcolm" <hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu>
Date: May 31, 2011 7:07:41 AM MDT
To: "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" <labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Hi all,

This is Mac Hathaway, at Harvard CNS.  We have protocols in place similar to those described by John, with the exception that our "toxic" gases (flammables and anything monitored with sensors, Cl2, SiH4, BCl3, etc) are only enabled from 6 AM to 8 PM.  We have had discussions about whether this restriction is still needed, given the maturity of our toxic gas monitoring, but 6 AM-8 PM is the current scheme.  Everything else in the cleanroom is physically accessible 24/7 (most notably, from a safety standpoint, wetbenches).

One thing that is a little different here is that we have an ERT (Emergency Response Team), similar to what exists in many commercial fabs, (not typical for academic sites, as I understand it).  The ERT consists of most of our cleanroom staff.  We meet monthly for training (and pizza), and we are all on call in the event of an emergency in the cleanroom.

We have the buddy rule for working with hazardous materials, with a strong emphasis on the need for a buddy for any work during "off-hours", but as John pointed out, it's not something that lends itself to absolute compliance.  With regard to "encouraging compliance", how do people feel about the use of video cameras on the wetbenches?  I understand that some locations are using them;  has wetbench user "behavior" improved when cameras are in use?  Obviously, 24-hour monitoring is not practical, but does the "someone is watching" effect yield positive results?


Mac Hathaway
Senior Process Engineer
Harvard CNS



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Luciani, Vincent" <vincent.luciani at nist.gov>
Date: May 31, 2011 7:29:28 AM MDT
To: "'Matthieu Nannini, Dr.'" <matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca>, "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" <labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Hello Matt,
 
Here at the CNST NanoFab (http://www.nist.gov/cnst/index.cfm), we are staffed from 7 AM to midnight,  M-F.  We use card key access control system and Coral.  All users are locked out after hours and we program their afterhours access into the system after their request for after hours access is approved.
 
?         Advance notification, the day before is fine.  That way we can avoid any tool repair or facilities conflicts. The advance notification also helps me help others to find a buddy if needed.
o   A loose, casual buddy agreement between users, leading to one user leaving before another or one working in their office while the other was in the lab was a common failure mode at first. So, we require verbal or email confirmation from both people that they are committed to being each other's buddy at all times.
?         Once approved, they can use all tools/processes.
?         We use deterrence to discourage cheating, because it will happen.  I randomly check Coral records and our CCTV video tapes and suspend/revoke cleanroom privileges for violators (from a 2 week suspension to full revocation depending on the degree of fraud/abuse).  Word travels fast when this happens and is a strong deterrent.
?         Some tools outside the cleanroom, like the FIB or AFM, can be used without a buddy after I confirm with whoever trained them that they have the required proficiency.
?         The NanoFab staff is notified automatically via Blackberry about any gas or fire alarm 24/7.
 
Let me know how it goes for you.
 
Vince
 
 
Vincent K. Luciani
NanoFab Manager
Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA
+1-301-975-2886
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2876 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110531/dc68dc6d/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------

******************************************************************************


Begin forwarded message:

From: Dan Woodie <daniel.woodie at cornell.edu>
Date: May 31, 2011 8:13:06 AM MDT
To: "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" <labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Matthieu,

Like the Stanford Facility, the CNF is open 24/7 with staffing only the standard work week (7 AM ~ 6 PM, M-F). Once users complete our orientation process (~ 7 hours spread over 1.5 days) they are given full 24/7 access to the facility. Note, this does not include training on tools, only general lab orientation and chemical hood training. U.S. law assigns a greater responsibility to oversee undergraduate students versus graduate students, so we restrict undergraduates to only be able to work during normal staff hours (8 AM - 6 PM, M-F). They can go through a staged process of experience in the lab and staff review to gain full lab access over time.

Unlike the Stanford model, we do have access to the card access system, and we have large screen displays posted around and in the cleanroom listing who is currently in the facility. This can help users determine if they are working alone or not. We require a 'buddy' to be present for a few tools and our high contact hazard chemical hoods, but only evenings and weekends when staff are not on duty. For the chemical hoods we have a sign in process required all the time, with the buddy needing to sign in with the user after hours. 

Similar to Stanford we restrict the users from accessing any of the building or tool utilities and severely limit what operations they can process on tools. Emergency phones are located throughout the lab which will automatically connect to the Cornell Police Dispatch if lifted, and they will investigate even if the phone is just lifted and then hung up. Additionally we have a comprehensive toxic gas monitoring and control system present to alarm and notify the campus police dispatch and staff remotely in case of any gas detections. Cornell EH&S also full 24/7 coverage for chemical spills, injuries, etc. that can respond very quickly and is somewhat knowledgeable on our hazards and safety systems. They can respond to gas detection events, typically with over the phone support from our staff.

Lastly, we have video cameras covering all tools and chemical hoods in the facility, with a digital recorder that only captures when motion is sensed. We don't use it too often, but it has been very valuable as a deterrent. Before we implemented it, a subculture of users developed who worked at night, thinking they could skirt the rules to do things faster or different. Once the cameras went up and we handed out some suspensions from observed activity, that went dramatically down. Now, we get less argument from violators when we can show them video of their transgressions.

So, after describing what we do, I reread your original request and would add these thoughts. I feel comfortable with our evening operations due to a variety of things, which all facilities might not have. First, we have a very solid hazardous gas distribution and monitoring/control system. In our older facility (pre-2003), we did not have as nice of a system and hazardous gas usage was limited to normal working hours. Secondly, we have a solid emergency response team on campus 24/7, and they are first responders for all of our emergencies. My comfort on night operations would depend on who would be first on the scene and how well they could handle the potential events the facility could have. Lastly, we have a solid culture of lab policies and enforcement of them which helps to provide a peer pressure to follow the rules. Many of the night rule violators we have caught have been turned in by other users. The video cameras help to back up anything they report. We obviously don't catch everyone, but we catch enough to keep control on evening operations.

I hope this information is helpful. Feel free to call if you want to chat more.

Dan

Dan Woodie
Lab Use Manager
Cornell NanoScale Facility
250 Duffield Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853-2700
(607)254-4891


Begin forwarded message:

From: John Shott <shott at stanford.edu>
Date: May 29, 2011 10:10:27 AM MDT
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Matt:

I'm sure that there will be a lively and interesting discussion of this topic.  My guess is that we all probably have some form of "buddy rule" will differing approaches and degrees of success in enforcing it.

Let me get the ball rolling by telling your what we do in the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility.

Yes, we are open 24/7 but are only staffed 1+ shifts .... approximately 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. M-F.  We don't limit tools or processes.

Because of our physical configuration, the sub-fab where pumps, chillers, scrubbers, etc live are off limits and not accessible to lab members.  Same for the gas bunkers and main chemical storage areas so we at least don't have to worry about folks in those areas trying to "adjust" things themselves.

Our card key system is managed as a part of the university-wide system so we don't have real-time access to who enters the lab.  Folks that tailgate when entering the lab or fail to swipe the card reader when they leave would make that information virtually useless in terms of actually knowing who is in the lab at any point in time.

We have a rotating cell phone carried by several members of the senior staff that is for emergency calls for anyone in the lab and is also the first number that the central-campus facility monitoring system calls if sensors relevant to our operation go into alarm.  Things like toxic gas sensors automatically sound the evacuation alarms in the lab and, if gas sensors in breathing air go into alarm, call the Fire Department as well.  Being in earthquake country, we also have a seismic sensor that shuts off all gases and sound the alarm in the event of an earthquake.

Although we don't use this particular feature, since I know that you are running Coral, that gives you the ability to create and use either a lab-wide role or an equipment-specific role of "restricted" that would allow you to define policies that would prevent people from reserving or enabling equipment outside the period when staff was available. That allows you to let someone get more experience with staff resources available before you "turn them loose" with unrestricted access.  Of course, the downside is that you and your staff have to manage who is "restricted" and then determine based on time or more rigorous means when someone is allowed to work at any time.  Also, while you can limit when people enable a tool to a certain time window, it's very hard to control when they quit using it.

Are there times in our facility when people violate the buddy rule?  Probably ...  Of course, depending where people are in the lab, just having a second person in the lab isn't a guarantee that they'd be in a position to help in the event of a problem.

I'll be interested to read other offerings on this topic.

Thanks,

John



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Matthieu Nannini, Dr." <matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca>
Date: May 27, 2011 1:47:54 PM MDT
To: "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" <labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Dear lab managers,

We are in the process of planning a transition to 24/7 operations for our fab. I would appreciate if some of you could share their experience and give advice on must-do's and must-not-do's regarding 24/7 operations. How do you manage staff ? any restriction in processes ? How do you re-inforce the buddy system ? Buddy system at all times or only for specific processes ? Any specific training for users willing to work overnight ?

Thanks in advance for your valuable insights.

-----------------------------------
Matthieu Nannini
McGill Nanotools Microfab
Manager
t: 514 398 3310
c: 514 758 3311
f: 514 398 8434
http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork

From hughes at illinois.edu  Tue May 31 17:29:10 2011
From: hughes at illinois.edu (Hughes, John S)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 21:29:10 +0000
Subject: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations
In-Reply-To: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>
References: <7218B7C7-2709-4371-9EF4-745EF2DA44FD@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <66234D77-2E6F-4607-8DF3-725584013C46@illinois.edu>

Hello Matthieu,

I think you already have a lot of feedback on this, but I'll go ahead and describe what we do here at the Micro and Nanotechnology Lab.

Our 16 cleanrooms are contiguous and have a single entry point with a card reader. The cleanrooms are accessible 24/7 and we enforce a buddy policy outside of our normally staffed hours (M-F 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). We allow all activities to be conducted off-hours except equipment maintenance operations, but researchers are encouraged to do processing using hazardous gases only when staff are in the building. The hazardous gas vaults themselves are highly restricted and cannot be accessed except by a very few MNTL staff.

In order to make it a bit easier to work in the labs off-hours, we have have hired undergrads who are paid an hourly rate to act as buddies when needed. (They have other assigned tasks as well, primarily stocking supplies, cleaning, and managing the cleanroom garments.) The undergrad assistants are given safety training and they share an office area right across from the cleanroom entry. The hours they cover are 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends. At all other times, the researchers must make sure someone else is in the cleanrooms with them.

Our card entry system and some custom programming allows real-time monitoring of everyone in the cleanrooms. The computer at the entry has the cleanroom occupant list as its default home page; all the other computers throughout the lab can call up the list with a single click. We try to get everyone into the habit of checking frequently for other cleanroom occupants when they are working late.

We are strict about enforcement. The monitoring system automatically flags single occupants and sends out an e-mail to the transgressor, his/her advisor, and several MNTL staff. (There is a threshold which triggers the automated e-mails; five or ten minutes alone is tolerated.) The researchers get one warning. Upon the next offense they have an automatic two-week lab suspension. The third violation results in a one-month suspension, any more and they're banned permanently.

We also have cameras at the cleanroom entry and other locations, but they are not generally used for active monitoring. Rather, we check the video records if questions come up later about who was where, when.

Regards,
John

-------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Hughes                         Office: (217) 333-4674
Associate Director                        FAX: (217) 244-6375
Laboratory Operations                     hughes at illinois.edu<mailto:hughes at illinois.edu>
Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3114 Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory
208 North Wright Street
Urbana, Illinois  61801              http://mntl.illinois.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------

On May 27, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Matthieu Nannini, Dr. wrote:

Dear lab managers,

We are in the process of planning a transition to 24/7 operations for our fab. I would appreciate if some of you could share their experience and give advice on must-do's and must-not-do's regarding 24/7 operations. How do you manage staff ? any restriction in processes ? How do you re-inforce the buddy system ? Buddy system at all times or only for specific processes ? Any specific training for users willing to work overnight ?

Thanks in advance for your valuable insights.

-----------------------------------
Matthieu Nannini
McGill Nanotools Microfab
Manager
t: 514 398 3310
c: 514 758 3311
f: 514 398 8434
http://miam2.physics.mcgill.ca/
------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20110531/c64ef5e1/attachment.html>

From hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu  Tue May 31 18:05:16 2011
From: hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Hathaway, Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:05:16 -0400
Subject: [labnetwork] More on buddy system and a labnetwork suggestion
	/	Fwd: 24/7 operations
In-Reply-To: <236AC5CC-569E-4BD4-AA42-AE8324DED468@eng.utah.edu>
References: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD99BA1419DE@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv>,
	<236AC5CC-569E-4BD4-AA42-AE8324DED468@eng.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD99BA1419E1@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv>

Hi Ian, and all,

Certainly a forum for these discussions is very useful, and a meeting in some more inviting venue than cyberspace would be nice, too!  (Hmmm, never been to Salt Lake City...)

Since you guys have mentioned it, we have also implemented a Coral-like interlock system (CLEAN -  CNS Logbook and Equipment Access Network).  Briefly, it functions to limit access for any given machine to trained users only, via a pull-down list and login app, which opens an on-line logbook page, and is correlated with our scheduling system.  It also allows online perusal of the logbook for any given tool (inside and outside the cleanroom) without logging in, and with a login it enables said tool with a 6 channel ethernet-activated relay set (i.e. 6 tools can be controlled from on "ICP" - Interlock Control Panel).  It also logs tool use time, and downloads this to our (newly automated!) billing system.  The ICPs have been slimmed down to a single custom PC board, and (shameless plug alert) our "hardware facilitator" Jim Loach of LabmanOne would be happy to help others bring such systems on-line.

We had looked at the Coral system, but determined that we wanted CLEAN to do a few other functions that made it easier to build our own.  It has taken a while, but it's working pretty well now.  Most challenging aspect has been interlocking some more esoteric systems like TEMs.  SEMs have been done pretty easily with a software app called K2 from Sassafras software.  Most challenging software part has been automating the billing system, to automatically account for our fee caps and billing exceptions.

A little off-topic, but it is central to our "access control" efforts.


Mac
Harvard CNS




________________________________________
From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ian Harvey [IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:38 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] More on buddy system and a labnetwork suggestion /        Fwd: 24/7 operations

Dear lab network,

Great forum.  Thanks to all for important feedback which I have compiled in the thread below.

Here at the Utah nanofab, we run 24/7 with training aimed at proper off-shift use of tools, and we work to create an enforceable buddy system, and build systems that make it easier for labmembers to adhere to the off-shift buddy system.  Our intent is: not having a safety buddy is not an option.

Among the tools we use to make it easier to adhere to the buddy system (and to silence complaints from faculty that the buddy system requirement is too onerous!) include:
a buddy system online calendar, buddy system mailing list, and even buddies for hire (trained undergrads willing to sit in the lab (doing homework) and be a buddy, for pay.  No one has used this last tool since it was implemented a year ago, but it has helped silence the faculty critics)
http://fab.eng.utah.edu/buddy-tools

Outside the fab we have a monitor indicating who is inside (buddies are not required in the adjacent SEM/XPS lab or in the packaging lab).
http://fab.eng.utah.edu/index/about-us/Home/lab-members/userinlab

And we use the combination of card-key records (we have our own system, and so have real-time access) and video monitoring (including at wetbenches) to enforce the rule as others have indicated.

Recently we began generating a monthly report of buddy system violations, sorted by research group, and send the relevant violations to the faculty PI along with their user fee invoice, so that he or she is aware of what is going on with their own group.  We do not necessarily associate (yet) disciplinary measures with this report, as we wish to initially just raise the visibility of the need for adherence (and the fact that we are paying attention) first.

We do not yet have a culture wherein the labmembers themselves feel a sufficient sense of ownership that they are generally willing to either confront a safety violator in the lab, or else report violations.  But it is part of our formal training, that "someone else's safety violation certainly affects you in a number of ways, including..."  Such a culture is an ideal that we are striving for: self-monitoring & self-correction among the labmember community.  In order to achieve this sense of ownership, belonging, responsibility & accountability, we have had our student representatives assist us by actually writing the policies and being involved in scheduled and weekly lab cleans.
http://fab.eng.utah.edu/uploads/pdfs/Nanofab_User_Policy%20Aug_2010.pdf

As we prepare to move into our new facility, we will be making additional improvements to the buddy system:
(1) by implementation of CORAL and interlock boxes on each of the tools (now in progress), we will be able to begin billing based on time spent on a tool, rather than time spent in the lab.  Our interest in the buddy system is a key driver for this administrative change.  We hope that by so doing, a researcher will be able to more easily find a colleague to be a buddy (or associate in the same research group, perhaps), since that buddy will not have to pay to be in the lab.

(2) our new facility includes a clean conference room attached to the fab and accessible in the bunny suit as well as from a pedestrian entrance (think of the negotiation table between N & S Korea, entered on either side with a symbolic barrier to crossing between.  Since ours is not complete yet, here is a link to the Korean table!).
http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/asia/panmunjom2.shtml
One of the functions of our clean conference room at night will be for buddies not working on the fab tools to have a place to sit in a bunny suit and work on reports or mask designs or device simulations.

(3) Carding out of the lab, we will be implementing an annunciator to indicate if someone is about to exit, and leave someone else stranded without a buddy.  Clearly, the policies and software methods for allowing someone to enter alone (needs a buddy to also enter within a prescribed period) or exiting (and potentially stranding someone) requires special attention, and we are working on how to implement this presently.

ASIDE: As a result of the recent informative LABNETWORK thread on TMAH, we are implementing changes in our lab.  My recent question posed to the LABNETWORK on alarm response protocols was also very helpful in providing us much useful information.

I suggest that in addition to the UGIM meetings held once per year and which describe these types of management topics, Perhaps we should also have some forum in the "off-years" to get into detail regarding the soft administrative systems, and provide a means of sharing not only best practices, but also code for the soft systems themselves.  For example we are implementing CORAL with home-designed interlock boxes with off-the-shelf components, and are quite willing to share our design and the associated CORAL software modules.  We are currently in the planning/design stage of our new prox-card entry and tool enable system with associated buddy system features.  Others have implemented add-ons to CORAL, or perhaps generated their own soft admin systems with modules that can be ported to others.  Is it worthwhile attempting something such as this?  We at Utah would be happy to host the first, unless someone else would like to do it.

Thank you all,

--Ian

********************************************
Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D.
Research Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
2232 MEB

Associate Director, Utah nanofab
College of Engineering / University of Utah

mail to suite 2110 MEB, 50 S. Central Campus Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah   84112-9011
801/585-6162 (voicemail)
801/581-5676 (lab main number)
www.nanofab.utah.edu


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Hathaway, Malcolm" <hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu>
Date: May 31, 2011 7:07:41 AM MDT
To: "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" <labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Hi all,

This is Mac Hathaway, at Harvard CNS.  We have protocols in place similar to those described by John, with the exception that our "toxic" gases (flammables and anything monitored with sensors, Cl2, SiH4, BCl3, etc) are only enabled from 6 AM to 8 PM.  We have had discussions about whether this restriction is still needed, given the maturity of our toxic gas monitoring, but 6 AM-8 PM is the current scheme.  Everything else in the cleanroom is physically accessible 24/7 (most notably, from a safety standpoint, wetbenches).

One thing that is a little different here is that we have an ERT (Emergency Response Team), similar to what exists in many commercial fabs, (not typical for academic sites, as I understand it).  The ERT consists of most of our cleanroom staff.  We meet monthly for training (and pizza), and we are all on call in the event of an emergency in the cleanroom.

We have the buddy rule for working with hazardous materials, with a strong emphasis on the need for a buddy for any work during "off-hours", but as John pointed out, it's not something that lends itself to absolute compliance.  With regard to "encouraging compliance", how do people feel about the use of video cameras on the wetbenches?  I understand that some locations are using them;  has wetbench user "behavior" improved when cameras are in use?  Obviously, 24-hour monitoring is not practical, but does the "someone is watching" effect yield positive results?


Mac Hathaway
Senior Process Engineer
Harvard CNS



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Luciani, Vincent" <vincent.luciani at nist.gov>
Date: May 31, 2011 7:29:28 AM MDT
To: "'Matthieu Nannini, Dr.'" <matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca>, "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" <labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] 24/7 operations

Hello Matt,

Here at the CNST NanoFab (http://www.nist.gov/cnst/index.cfm), we are staffed from 7 AM to midnight,  M-F.  We use card key access control system and Coral.  All users are locked out after hours and we program their afterhours access into the system after their request for after hours access is approved.

?         Advance notification, the day before is fine.  That way we can avoid any tool repair or facilities conflicts. The advance notification also helps me help others to find a buddy if needed.
o   A loose, casual buddy agreement between users, leading to one user leaving before another or one working in their office while the other was in the lab was a common failure mode at first. So, we require verbal or email confirmation from both people that they are committed to being each other's buddy at all times.
?         Once approved, they can use all tools/processes.
?         We use deterrence to discourage cheating, because it will happen.  I randomly check Coral records and our CCTV video tapes and suspend/revoke cleanroom privileges for violators (from a 2 week suspension to full revocation depending on the degree of fraud/abuse).  Word travels fast when this happens and is a strong deterrent.
?         Some tools outside the cleanroom, like the FIB or AFM, can be used without a buddy after I confirm with whoever trained them that they have the required proficiency.
?         The NanoFab staff is notified automatically via Blackberry about any gas or fire alarm 24/7.

Let me know how it goes for you.

Vince


Vincent K. Luciani
NanoFab Manager
Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA
+1-301-975-2886