SUPPLEMENTARY The Supplementary Report of … Report of the Committee on Cleanrooms Richard M....

SUPPLEMENTARY Report of the Committee on Cleanrooms

Richard M. Lemon., Chairman Le.~ter B. Knight & A_~oc., NM

DenniJ Kir~n, Vice Chairman U. S. Department of Energy, NM

Patrick J. Robinson, &cretary Motorola Inc-Semiconductor Prod, AZ

Roger B. Bemmn, Factory Mutual Engineering Assn., CA Carl A. Caves, Dama~z:us, MD Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp., OR Dennis M. Crtn~on, Frank B. Hall & Co., CA Lawrence A. Mcl~mm, AM Tel & Tel Co., NJ Lee Nelfl, Semiconductor Industry Assoc., C~ Robert J. Pem'ce, Industrial Risk Insurers, CA RobertM. Rogers, Kemper National Insurance Co., CA Larry M. Romine, Sehirmer Engineering Corp., TX Lawrence E. Shea, ATS Products, Inc., CA Robert D. Sherman, San Leandro, CA

Alternates

Aimee Bordeaux, Semiconductor Equipment & Materials Int'l, CA (Alt. to Semi Pep.)

Louis H. Greuling, Industrial Risk Insurers, CT (Alt. to R.J. Pearce)

Dar~l E. Ives, Nat 1 Semiconductor Corp., CA (Aft. to L. Neal)

Willla~a B. Marshall, AT&T Microelectronics, FL (Alt. to L. A. McKennaJr.)

Samir Shlban, Intel Corp., OR (/fit. to D. Collins)

Staff Liaison: Mark T. Conroy

This list represents the membershi. .I~ at the. time the .C°mmittee was balloted on the text of this edmon. Since that tame, changes in the membership may have occured.

The Supplementary Report of the Committee on Cleanrooms is presented for adoption.

This Supplementary Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Cleanrooms and proposes for adoption a Supplemen- tar,/Report which documents its acuon on thepublic comments received on the proposed revision to NFPA 318, Standard for the Protection of Cleanrooms, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1991 Fall Meeting.

This Supplementary Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Cleanrooms which consists of 15 voting members; of whom 12 voted affirmatively, 1 abstained (Ms Bor- deaux), and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Caves and Collins).

Ms. Bordeaux abstained from voting stating: "Changes to section 6-4.1 (t'). This new secuon adds stringent

requirements that were not reviewed by industry as a whole and therefore may only represent those who proposed it. If this is true, clearly adopuon would not be in the spirit of consensus.

Furthermore, somewhat arbitrary changes in distances were made from the proposal in Log # 22. Log # 22 does not contain clear justification for the distances proposed."

The proposed substantive changes in Log # 22 and the subsequent amendments made at the June 11-13, 1991 meeting, need further review. Selected members of the SEMI Standards Facilities and Safety Division are currently reviewing the document."

19

N F P A 318 ~ F 9 1 T C D

(Log # 137) 318- 1 - (Title): Reject SUBMrI'rER: Eugene L. Dimond, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change the title to:

"Standard for the Protection of Electronics Industry Clean Rooms"

-or-

Change the scope statement Paragraph 1-1. SUBSTANTIATION: The two above cited "statements" are in conflict with the expectations of many members of society. Pharma- ceuticals and valve manufactures, for instance, also have clean rooms. Are surgical room areas clean rooms? My expectation is that you willprobab[y issue a pharmaceutical industry cleanroom standard; if so, what would be the rifle? The committee should recognize and allow for, society's, diversity and proliferation of clean rooms throughout all industries. COMMrr rEE ACTION. Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Title is intended to be General. Scope is appropriate for document.

(Log # 178) 318- 2 - (Title): Reject SUBMITTER: C.V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change std. rifle from:

"Standard for the Protection of Cleanrooms" to %..Protection of Semiconductor Facilities Cleanrooms." SUBSTANTIATION: The current title is misleading and not correct in regard to how the scope reads. This standard does not apply to all types of cleanrooms but only ones connected with semiconductor facilities. COMMrr rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Title is intended to be General.

(Log # 51) 318- 3 - (Entire Document): Accept SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revised text.

In the event NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water Based Extinguishing Systems, is approved by the membership at the 1991 Fall Meeting, all references to NFPA 13A in the body of NFPA 318 shall be changed to references to NFPA 25. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 25 has been written using mandatory language, whereas NFPA 13A is a recommended practice. Accord- ingly, NFPA 25 is a more appropriate reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 138) 318- 4 - (I-I): Accept in Principle $UBMITrER: Eugene L. Dimond, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

This standard applies to all portions of electronics industry research, manufacturing, production, fabrication or assembly facilities containing what ~s herein defined as a clean room or clean zone.

-or-

This standard applies to all "hazardous manufacturing" areas within a semiconductor facility containing what is herein defined as a clean room or clean zone. SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording is weak in that it has too many legitimate interpretations; i.e., if a facility has cleanrooms does that mean office support areas must also comply. How about compliance in rooms where only small areas are clean rooms? How about areas that are not "semiconductor areas" but are electronics assembly a n d / o r bonding? COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add to 1-I " . . . or clean zone or both."

COMMITrF,~ STATEMENT: This standard does not apply to unrelated occupancies. Clarification,

(LOg # 192) 318-5- (1-2): Reject SUBMrlTF_,R: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

This standard provides direction for implementing reasonable safe guards for fire protection within facilities containing clean rooms, and related support areas. SUBSTANTIATION: The standard as written presents a mixture of design specification and performance requirements. Given the dynamics of change within this industry, standards must reflect desired performance rather than design specification. Design specification standards freeze technology at a point where the last comment has been incorporated, hence, hastening obsolescence of the document. Performance standards describe the desired outcome allowing initiative to drive a practical solution. The recommended approach forces the regulator and regulated communities to understand the issues and become partners in implementing protective solutions. COMMrITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The purpose statement does not present specification or performance intent.

(Log # 186) 318-6- (1-3): Accept SUBM1TrER: C.V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Reverse unit, change 30 liters (7.9 gpm) per minute to 7.9 gpm (30 L per rain). SUBSTANTIATION: This will read the mine unit as all the others in the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 141) 318- 7- (1-3): Reject SUBMITTER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the definition of Hammable Vapors as follows;

Hammable Vapors. A concentration of flammable constituents in air which is within its flammable range. SUBSTANTIATION: The existing definition of flammable vapors includes concentrations which are outside the flammable range. This is inaccurate, misleading and will result in confusion. It also has significant impact on the design and cost of exhanst systems. Paragraph 3-4.1 of this standard requires exhaust system design with sufficient dilution to prevent flammable vapors in the air stream. It specifically references this definition. The definition in the standard should be scientifically correct. The revised text h more technically c o n ' e c t . COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Existing definition is consistent with other building codes and NFPA documents.

(Log # 107) 318- 8 - (1-5 (New)): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITrER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following definitions to Section 1- 3.

Explosive. A chemical that causes a sudden, almost instantaneous release of pressure, gas and heat when subjected to sudden shock, pressure, or high temperature; or a matenal or chemical, other that a blasting agent, that is commonly used or intended to be used for the purpose of producing an explosive effect.

Explosion. A rapid release of high pressure gas into the environment.

Pyrophoric. A chemical that will spontaneously ignite in air at or below a temperature of 130°F. (54.4°C).

Deflagration. Burning which takes place at a flame speed below the velocity of sound in the unburned medium.

Failsafe. A system that upon a complete or component failure will fail to a safe state requiring no interaction by an operator or maintenance personnel.

Third Party. A professional through training, education and experience that can perform a compliance and hazardous analyds of process equipment in accordance with this standard.

2 0

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

Compressed Gas. Any material or mixture having in the container an absolute pressure exceeding 44) PSI (Pounds per square inch) at 70°F (275.8 kPa at 21.1°C) or. regardless of the pressure at 70°F (21.1°C), having a absolute pressure exceeding 104 psi at 130"F (717 kPa at 54.4°C), or flammable material having a vapor pressure exceeding 40 psi absolute at 100°F 275.8 kPa at 37.8"C) as determined by ASTM test D-323. Hazardous Gas. Any material having a health hazard rating as defined by NFPA 325M and NFPA 49. SUBSTANTIATION.* The addition of the above stated definitions will add support to the many sections where the degree of hazardous materials needs to be assessed in the implementation of the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Add the following definitions to 1-3: Explosion is an effect produced by the sudden violent expansion

of gases, which may be accompanied by a shockwave or disruption, or both, of enclosing materials or structures. An explosion may result from: (a) chemical changes such as rapid oxidation, deflagration or detonation, decomposiuon of molecules nad runaway polymerization (usually detonations); or (b) physical changes (e.g., pressure tank ruptures).

Pyrophoric. A chemical with an autoignition temperature in air at or below 1300F (54.4°C). Third Party. A professional through training, education and

experience that can perform a compliance and hazardous analysis of process equipment in accordance wnh this standard.

Compressed Gas. Any material or mixture having in the container an absolute pressure exceeding 40 PSI (Pounds per square inch) at 70°F (275.8 kPa at 91,1°C) or regardless of the pressure at 70°F (21.1 °C), having a absolute pressure exceeding 104 psi at 130°F (717 LPa at 54.4•C), or flammable liquid having a vapor pressure exceeding 40 psi absolute at 100°F (275.8 kPa at 37.8°C) as determined by ASTM test D-323. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Only terms used in the standard were added. Definitions were editorially revised for clarification and to use common definitions.

(Log # 193) 318-9- (1-3): Reject SuBMrrrER. Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOgALNO. 318-4 RECOMMENDATION.* Revise text as follows:

"Raised Floor System. An assembly consisting of panels mounted on pedestal .... electrical, communication (or simiIar systems) or ...." SUBSTANTIATION: The term ~'aised" is already known accepted and understood for the conditions discussed. The addition of a comma and parenthesis make the sentence more understandable. C o M M r r r E E ACTION. Reject. COMMrrrgE STATEMENT.* Some floors are not raised, therefore the terminology "access floor system" is appropriate.

(Log # 194) 318-10- (1-3): Reject SUBMrrrER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Restricted Flow Orifice. A device that restricts the maximum flow rate of gas. SUBSTantIATION: The orifice described in the defnition is not ap.propriate for all applications. Its use on some systems (such as diborane) may increase risk due to orifice clogging. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITIT.E STATEMENT: The proposed definition does not state where restricted flow orifices are installed. See proposal 318- 142 (Log #53).

hazardous materials, or de-energizes open portions of equipment is desirable. See definition in SEMI EI0-90 for appropriate wording of standby definition. COMMITrF.~ AL~rION: Reject. COMMrlTF.~ STATEMENT.* The submitter's definition is too broad. The existing definition is more specific and conveys the committee's intent.

318- 12 - (1-3): Accept (Log# I) SUBMITTER: Robert]. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION.* Delete the following:

"Gas Jungles. The complex of gas piping and flow controllers within a tool." SUBSTANTIATION: There is no need to have this as a definition. It is not used anywhere else in the Standard. COM341t- t~ ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 2) 318-13 - (1-3 (New)): Reject SUBMI'rrER: RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new definition: Combustible. A material that does not meet the criteria for non-

combustible material. SUBSTANTIATION.* Combustible and non-combustible are used in many ways. Both terms need to be defined since we are combustible construction, combustible tools, and combustible residue. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed wording does not provide a definition.

(Log # 3) 318-14- (1-3): Accept SUBMrrrEl~ RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: A definition for Liquid should be added as follows: Liquid. For the purpose of this code, any material that has a

fluidity greater than that of 300 penetration asphalt when tested in accordmnce with ASTM D 5, Test for Penetration of Bituminous Materials. When not otherwise identified, the term liquid shall mean both flammable and combustible liquids.

Combustible Liquid. A liquid having a flash point at or above 100°F (87.80C). Combustible liquids shall be subdivided as follows:

Class II liquids shall include those having flash points at or above 100°F (37.8°C) and below 140°F (60°C).

Class IIIA liquids shall include those having flash points at or above 140°F (600C) and below 200°F (930C).

Class IIIB liquids shall include those having flash points at or above 200°F (93°C). Flammable Liquid. A liquid having a flash point below 100W

(37.8°C) and having a vapor pressure not exceeding 40 psia (2 068 mm Hg) at 100°F (37.8°C) shall be known as a Class I liquid.

ClassI liquids shall be subdivided as follows: Class IA shall include those havingfiash points below 73°F

(22.8°C) and having a boiling pointbelow I00°F (37.8°C). Class IB shall include those having flash points below 730F

(22.8°C) and having a boiling point at or above 100°F (37.8°C).o Class IC shall include those having flash points at or above 73 F

(22.8°C) and below 100°F (37.8°C). SUBSTANTIATION: This definition is consistent with NFPA 30 and is needed to clarify the text. COMM1TIT~ ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 195) 518- 11 - (1-3): Reject SUBMrrrER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: Standby Mode. A mode which brings the tool to a safe condition.

SUBSTANTIATION: The definition as written is more descriptive of a hard shut down rather than stand by mode. A hard shut down potentially increases risk (i.e., by trapping hazardous material within the system) and this is not desirable. A mode which stops flow of

(Log # 12) 318- 15 - (I-3 (New)): Accept SUBMI'rrF.,~ Robert]. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add to Definitions:

Non-combustible. A material which, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors when subjected to fire or heat. Materials reported as non-combustible when tested in accordance with ASTM E 136, Standard Method of Test for Non- combustibility of Elementary Materials, shall be considered as noncombustible materials.

21

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

SUBSTANTIATION: Non-combustible is used many times with no clarification. A definition is needed to pinpoint this vague term. COMMITrF~ ACTION: Accept.

(LOg # 96) 318- 16 - (1-3 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc./ Alucobond COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following definition:

Noncombustible. A material which, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors, when subjected to fire or heat. MateriaL~ which are reported as passing ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, shall be considered noncombustible. (See NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction.) SUBSTANTIATION-' Section 4-1 uses the term "noncombustible" but it is not defined within the standard. The proposed definition is the same as the wording used in NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Consu'uction - 1985 for "noncombustible material" in Section 2-6 of that standard. This will provide guidance as well as consistency with other NFPA standards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITYEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-15 (Log #12).

0.2 gpm/sq, ft.) in a round duct? Clarification desired. COMMttTJdE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Sprinklers installed in duct systen't~ shall be hydraullically designed to provide 0.5 gpm over an area derived by multiplying the distance between the spnnklers in a horizontal duct by the width of the duct. Minimum discharge shall be 20 GPM per sprinkler from the 5 hydraulically most remote sprinklers. Sprinklers shall be spaced a maximum of 20 ft. apart hoi'izontally and 12 ft apart vertically. COMMI'ITEE STATEMF2qT: Clarification.

(Log # 196) 318- 20 - (2-I.I): Reject SUBMrITER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Wet pipe automatic sprinkler protection shall be provided throughout the portions of fadlifies containing...". SUBSTANTIATION: Some facilities may contain areas that are unrelated to the clean room in which wet pipe automatic sprinkler ~)otection would be understandable.

MMFrrEE ACTION'Reject . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter is propodng a partially sprinklered facility which is unacceptable fire protection. See proposal 318-4 (Log #138).

(Log # 222) 318- 17- (1-3, 5-1.1.5.3, 5-2.2.1): Reject SUBMrrrER: Gregg Beckman, FSI International Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add to Section 1-3 Definitions:

Definition working pressure. Definition of Rated pressure. Definition of Pressurized Delivery system. 5-1.1.5.3 Exception: Automated delivery systems. 5-2.2.1 Exception: Automated delivery systems.

SUBSTANTIATION: 5-1.1.5.3 Automated delivery systems typically have electrical/pneumatic interlocks on doors preventing operation or operator shie~lds should access become necessary. Additionally leak sensors, within the cabinet, provide additionaI protection and or notification.

5-2.2.1 Automated delivery systems typically have components rated at less than 150 percent of the working pressures, i.e., Filters. Would recommend an exception if the components are within a containment system. Additionally, it probably much more appropriate to allow testing to be accomplished with N20 as it is much safer and shows leak much more readily. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMtL-tr~E STATEMENT: No definitions offered.

(Log # 177) 318- 18. (1-3): Accept 8UBMITrER: C.V.Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change "NFPA 704M" to 2qFPA 704." SUBSTANTIATION: I believe the correct number of this standard is NFPA 704. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 105) 318-19 - (2-1.2.5.1): Accept in Principle $UBMITrER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Services Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise wording to delete the 30 gpm ~rnvision.

UBSTANTIATION: The provision, as written, refers simultaneously to both a 30 gpm discharge and a design density. We leave it to the Committee to clearly restate its intent (the comment is to serve to open discuuion). Also, how does one measure sq. ft. (as in

(Log # 25) 318- 21 - (2-1.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, US Department of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Correct (~/Min)m 2 to (L/Min/m2).

Correct M 2 and m 2 to MZ and mZ, respectively. SUBSTANTIATION: These typographical errors appear a number of times. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 197) 318- 22. (2-1.2.1): Reject SUBMrrrER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Automatic sprinklers for clean rooms or clean zones shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and shall be designed for a density of 0.2 gpm/ sq. ft. [8.15 LPM/M 2] over a design area of 3000 ~ . ft. (278.8 M2)." SUBSTANTIATION: The word "hydraulically" should be removed from the description topreserve the performance aspecu of the standard. By so doing, the designee may choose to ¢lesign a pipe schedule system or one which is hydraulically calculated. As originally written [8.15 (L/Min.)M 2] implies multiplication.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMM~TI'EE STATEMENT: The m~nimum requirement is for 0.2 gpm/ft z over a design area of 3000 ft z. The authority having jurisdiction should be consulted for the acceptability of a pipe schedule system. See proposal 318-21 (Log #25 for typos).

(Log # 4) 318- 23- (2-1.2.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Robert.]. Pearce, Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

2-1.2.1 Text should be replaced with "Automatic Sprinkler Protection shall be provided throughout clean rooms and its peripheral areas" The existing 2-1.~.1 should be renumbered as an installation requirement. SUBSTANTIATION: This refers to NFPA lS but nowhere does it require sprinkler protection in clean rooms. When you reference an installation standard, you are saying, "If you do it, do it this way." First,you have to state that sprinklers must be provided. COMMFITEE ACTION: Rc~ject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Paragraph 2-1.1 contains the minimum requirements for sprinkler installation that are required in cleanrooms and clean zones.GT

2 2

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

(Log # 188) 318- 24- (2-1.2.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Terry, L. Victor, "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. of America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read:

2-1.2.1' Automatic sprinklers for cleanrooms or ... area of 3000 sq. ft. (278.8 M~). Sprinkler spacing, hose requirements and water supply durauon shall be in accordance with ordinary hazard Group II occupancy requirements of NFPA 13. SUBSTANTIATION: Additional guidance is needed to design a sprinkler system for this occupancy. Since the specified density is between the ordinary hazard Group II and extra hazard Group I curves, the additional requirements should at least be equivalent to those for ordinary hazard Group II. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrlWEE STATEMENT: The requirement to exceed ordinary hazard Group II is necessary to accomplish fire extinguishment.

(Log # 182) 318-2.5- (2-1.2.1, 2-1.2.4, 2-1.2.5.1): Reject SUBMITrE~ Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add "not less than" 0.20 gpm/sq ft.

"not less than" 3,000 sq ft. "not less than" 30 gpm.

SUBSTANTIATION.' Why restrict protection requirements to exactly (i.e., 0.20 gpm/sq ft, 3,000 sq. ft., 30 gpm, etc. State minimums, not exacts, allow for more or better. Why limit the unit when more would be. better. This same thing has been done in 6- 2.2.6(c) & (d). COMMrrrEE ACTION. Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It's understood that its "not less than" in a standard that contains minimum requirements.

(Log # 57) 318- 26- (2-1.2.3): Reject SUBMrrrER: J. 1L Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "containing flammable gases. ~ SUBSTANTIATION: In event of a fire pressurized gas cylinders can become missiles ff their temperature is allowed to increase signifi- candy. For this reason, it is recommended that all gas cabinets contain sprinklers to keep cylinders cool in event of fire. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT. The committee requires sprinklers for cabinets containing flammable gases because this presents a fire hazard (toxic gases may not).

(Log # 26) 318- 27 - (2-1.9.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITIT.,R: Dennis Kirson, US Department of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

(a) Change the phrase "plenum or interstitial space" to "plenum and/or interstitial space.

(b) Delete the words, "or both after NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. SUBSTANTIATION. The two changes bring the wording in the TCR into conformance with the text of the minutes of the Clean Room Committee.

(a) The change from "and/or" to "or" changes the meaning of the text. It is possible for there to be both a plenum and an interstitial

ace. MM13"T~ ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 2-1.2.4 to read as follows: 2-1.2.4 Automatic sprinkler protection shall be designed and

installed in the plenum and interstitial space above cleanrooms in accordance with NTPA 13, Standard for the Installations of Sprinkler Systems, for a density of 0.20 gpm/sq ft [8.15 L/Min)m 2] over a design area of 3000 sq ft (278.8 m2). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee's intent originally was to require both.

(Log # 198) 518- 98 - (9.1.2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change [8.15 (L/Min.) M 2 to [8.15 LPM/

ML~'STANTIATION. As originally written [8.15 (L/Min.) M2] implies multiplication. COMMII-rI~E ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 189) 318- 29 - (2-1.2.4): Reject SUBM1TIT, R: Terry L. Victor, "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. of America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read:

2-1.2.4 Automadc sprinkler protection shall be installed in any plenum or interstitiaI space above cleanrooms. In accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and shall be hydraulically designed for a density of 0.20 gpm/sq, ft. [8.15 (L/Min) M 2] over a design area of 3000 sq. ft. (278.8 M2). Sprinkler spacing, hose requirements and water supply duration shall be in accordance with ordinary hazard Group H occupancy requirements of NFPA 13. The water demand does not have to be added to that required by paragraph 22D1.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Additional guidance is needed to design a sprinkler system for this occupancy. Since the specified density is between the ordinary hazard group II and extra hazard group I curves, the additional requirements should be at least equivalent to ordinary hazard group II. COMMrTTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-24 (Log #188).

(Log # 172) 318- 30 - (2-1.2.5): Reject SUBMITIT, R: Rich Gottwald, The Society of the Plastics Industry COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Section 2-1.2.5 .... greater than 10 in. (25.4 cm) and shall be tested ~9 urovide corrosion resistance in its intended aunlicafion. Also, revise the exception as follows: Ducts apl3t:oved for use

without automatic sprinklers are exemut only from the snrinkler portion of this Section. " " - SUBSTANTIATION: Corrosion resistance is extremely important to provide long-term performance in exhaust ducts as well as protect- mg employees and equipment %,ainst exposure to harmfulvapors which would be allowed to seep into the cleanroom by corroded and failed ducting. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrlWKE STATEMENT: There is no acceptable method to verify or test for corrosion resistance.

(Log # 56) 318- 31 - (2-1.2.5): Reject SUBMITrER: J. 1L Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following:

"All combustible exhaust ducts CARRYAlrIAMMABLE OR COMBUSTIBLE GAS shall have interior automatic sprinklers. ~ SUBSTANTIATION: The cost to retro fit would be astronomical and would create major business interruption in our clean rooms. This will add major cost in new or renovation projects since platforms would have to be constructed from which maintenance could inspect heads on a regular basis. Plastic ducts would have to be fitted with drains and anydischarge water could not be piped to a sanitary storm drain. I also have concern for tanks containing solutions that are water reactive. COMMrI-I~E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Sprinklers are intended to protect the combustible ductwork without regard to the materials being conveyed.

23

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

(LOg # 126) 318- 32 - (2-1.2.5): Reject SUBMITYF..R: W. B. Marshall, AT&T Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Change present wording "All combustible exhaust ducts..." to "Combustible exhaust ducts containing flammable vapors above 10% of the LFL...". SUBSTANTIATION: Research has proven sprinkler discharge inside exhaust ducts impeded air flow thus causing: 1. higher risk to life safety;, 2. increased contamination to the lab; 3. increased potential of thermal reactions therefore increasing severity to personnel and property;, 4. increased water damage to equipment and lab environment; 5. increases accidental discharges from

rinklers creating unwarranted economic impact. M M r I W ~ ALTION: Reject.

COMMrI'rEE STATEMENT: Sprinklers are intended to protect the combustible ductwork without regard to the materials being conveyed.

(LOg # 13) 318- 33 - (2-1.2.5): Reject SUBMITrER: RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add an additional item between 2-1.2.5 and 2-1.2.5.1:

"2-1.2.5.2 All non metallic ducts transporting Class 2, 3 or 4 oxidizers shall be provided with interior automatic sprinklers when the cross sectional diameter is equal to or greater than 10 in. (23.4 cm)." Renumber 2-1.2.5.1 SUBSTANTIATION: No duct work is tested when transporting oxidizers. This would accelerate burning of even those ducts approved without sprinklers. This would also include lined metal ducL COMMII-tJ~g ACTION: Reject. COMMrrTEE S T A ~ : Testing and experience does not demonstrate a need to require sprinklers in a duct when transporting Class 2, 3 or 4 oxidizers when the duct material does not require sprinklers.

(Log # 161) 318- 34 - (2-1.2.5): Accept SLrBMITrER: Christopher L. Vollman, goifJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Section should be revised to indicate largest "interior" cross sectional diameter. SUBSTANTIATION: The current section does not indicate whether the cross sectional diameter of the duct requiring sprinklers is interior or exterior. The interior dimension of the duct should be established as the criteria for sprinklering combustible ducts based on previous fire testing. COMMHTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 199) 318- 35 - (2-1.2.5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

*Sprinklers installed in duct systems shall be sized for five sprinklers operating simultaneously, discharging 30 gpm (113.6 L/Min) for the five most remote heads with a density of 0.2 gpm/sq, ft. Sprinkler spacing shall be a maximum of 12 ft. (8.7 m)." SUBSTANTIATION: The word hydraulically" should be removed from the description to preserve the performance aspects of the standard. By so doing, the designee may choose to design a pipe schedule system or one which is hydraulically calculated. COMMrrI 'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrITEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-19 (Log #105.)

SUBSTANTIATION" Heads is not the appropriate terminology for automatic sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-19 (Log #105.)

(Log # 190) 318- 37 - (2-1.2.5.1, A-2-1.2.5.1): Accept in Principle in Part SUBM1TYER: Terry L. Victor, "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. of America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read:

2-1.2.5.1 Sprinklers installed in duct systems shall be calculated to provide a 0.20 gpm/sq, ft. density over the interior surface area of i.he duct. Sprir/klers shall not be spaced over 12 ft. apart, either horizontally or verticaUy. Piping shall be sized to flow the hydraulically most remote five sprinklers simultaneousiy.

A-2-1.2.5.1 Small orifice sprinklers, 3/8" or larger may be used. SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording is confusing, with both a density and a minimum discharge mentioned. In order to use a 3/ 8" sprinkler with a 30 gpm minimum discharge. The end head pressure at the most sprinkler would need to'be 114.8 psi 0/114.8 x ~.8 = 30 gpm). I believe the intent is to provide a 0.20 density on the interior of the duct. COMM1TYEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Revise A-2-1.2.5.1 to read as follows: A-2-1.2.5.1 Small orifice sprinklers, 3/8" or larger may be used.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarification of Appendix material. See proposal 318-19 (Log #105) for 2-1.2.5.1 revised text.

(Log # 11) 318- 38 - (2-1.2.5.1"): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change to:

2-1.2.5.1" Sprinklers installedin duct systems shall be hydraulically sized for fire sprinklers operating simultaneously with 30 psi on the most remote head. Sprinkler spacing shall be a maximum of 12' on center. SUBSTANTIATION: In A-2-1.2.5.1 you allow 3/8" orifice heads to reduce waterflow. 30 gpm is the same regardless of head size. The operating pressure wou~d control the gpm through a small orifice head. COMMITTEE ACTION" Accept in Principle. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-19 (Log #105.)

(Log # 183) 318- 39 - (2-1.2.5.2): Reject SUBMITIT,~ Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: S18-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add "...value shall be provided for "five (5) or more" sprinklers ..." SUBSTANTIATION: By adding a valve for each or leu than five sprinklers in ductwork, this will increase the possible risk of the waives to be shut/closed. Valves being added for each sprinkler will add to the risk of leaks developing. Therefore requiring the entire sprinkler system to be shutdown for repair. The more individual valves for 5 sprinklers will add more chance of valve gates, internal closure mechanisms, etc. becoming broken obstrucung the flow and not indicating the valve is closed/blocked. Sprinklers m cleanrooms should not require replacing frequently like spray paint booths, etc., if they do require frequent replacement something else is the problem andthat needs correcting. COMMrYTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrrTEE STATEMENT: It is not the intent of the Committee to require a separate indicating control valve for each sprinkler. The valve should be installed in the piping leading to the sprinklered ductwork.

(Log # 162) 318- 56 - (2-1.2.5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITYEIh Christopher L. Vollman, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revised text to read:

"five most remote sprinklers with ..."

(Log # 127) 318- 40. (2-1.2.5.4): Reject S u B M r I T E ~ W. B. Marshall, AT&T Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 2-1.2.5.4. SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinklers shall be required only in potentially flammable ducts and not all corrosive environments. Sprinkler discharge impedes available exhaust thus causing higher risk to life safety.

2 4

N F P A 318 - - F 9 1 T C D

COMMYITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMll-rt.~g STATEMENT: This is a subsection of 2-1.2.5 which only requires sprinklers in combustible ducts. Paragraph 2-1.2.5.4 is intended to require corrosion resistant materials or coatings in corrosive atmospheres.

Conversion of these tools to automatic suppression systems would be cost prohibitive. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee's concern is with the combustibility of the tool itself.

(Log # I01) 818. 41 - (2-1.2.6): Reject SUBMII-rI~iR: L.H. Oreuiing, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Place a period after the word "through" and delete the words "used to convey combustible chemicals." SUBSTANTIATION:.. Control over the particular chemical handled in a pass through is difficult to maintain. This provides for the protection of all pass throughs. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The committee's intent is to require protection for pass throughs that are used to convey combustiSle chemicals as a minimum. Others may be protected but are not required.

Add the following definition to Section 1-8: Pass through. An enclosure installed in a wall with a door on each

side that allows chemicals, production materials, equipment, and parts to be transferred from one side of a wall to the other.

(Log # 180) 318- 42 - (2-1.2.6): Reject SUBMrrrF.R: C.V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change "...combustible" to... "flammable." SUBSTANTIATION:: I would think "flammable* chemicals would be more of a concern than combustible chemicals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The paragraph is not intended to mean combustible and flammable liquids as defined in NFPA 30.

(Log # 168) 318- 43. (2-1.2.6): Reject SUBM1TTER: Christopher L. Vollman, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the phrase "used to convey combustible chemicals." SUBSTANTIATION: All pass throughs should be sprinklered to eliminate the enforcement problem of a pass through planned not to be used for combustible chemicals and i t actually is used for that

urpose at a later date. OMMII-I~:R Ac ' r ION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 818-41 (Log #101.)

(Log # 100) 818- 44 - (2-1.2.7): Reject SUBMHq'ER: L. H. Greuling, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change the word "tools" to "work stations".

Move paragraphs 2-1.2.7.8 and 2-1.2.7.4 and renumber as 2-1.2.5.6 and 2-1.2.5.7. SUBSTANTIATION: Change of tide to conform with other suggested changes and movement of paragraphs concerning duct work to the appropriate section. CoMMrFrEE ACTION: Reject. COI~M.II-IIkE STATEMENT: "Tool" is a more inclusive term than "work station".

Paragraph numbering is appropriate.

(Log # 128) 318- 45 - (2-1.2.7.1): Reject SUBMIT'rER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add:

"When the horizontal surface of a combustible tool containing flammable materials..." SUBSTANTIATION: Combustible tools containing acid solutions have, by design, manyhorizontal surfaces which have exhaust- directing shielding which would obstruct sprinkler discharge.

(Log # 102) 818- 46 - (2-1.2.7.1): Reject S U B ~ L. H. Greuling, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change the word "tool" to "work station". SUBSTANTIATION: Many tools contain some combustible parts. The use of combustible work stations clarifies the intent of the section. COMMITIT2g ACTION: Reject. COMMI*I-rt2E STATEMENT: See proposal 818-44 (Log #I00.)

(Log # 58) 818- 47. (2-1.2.7.1): Reject SUBMITrFJt: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add:

"When the horizontal surface of a combustible tool containing flammable materials..." SUBSTANTIATION: Combustible tools containing acid solutions have, by design, manyhorizontal surfaces which have exhaust- directing shielding which would obstruct sprinkler discharge.

Conversion of these tools to automatic suppression systems would be cost prohibitive. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent is to protect the combustible tool.

(Log # 164) 318-48- (2-1.2.7.1 Exception): Reject SUBMrlq'ER: Christopher L. VoUman, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Gaseous extinguishing systems shall be actuated by flame detectors. Detectors shall be tested in accordance with NFPA 72E." SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 72E defines IR or UV/IR optical detectors as flame detectors and requires them to be tested semiannually. Reference to NFPA 72E should be provided to define; who is responsible for testing, what type of test to be conducted, records to be kept, and for how long are records to be kept. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee intends not to allow UV alone for actuation of a gaseous EXT system. The hostile environment necessitates a testing interval in excess of that required by NFPA 72E.

(Log # 225) 318- 49 - (2-1.2.7.1 Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: Tom Dill, SIA FABS EAST Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 3184 RECOMMF2qDATION: Revise paragraph 2-1.2.7.1 to read:

Exception: An Automatic Local Surface Application Fire Suppres- sion System may be provided as an alternative to sprinklers. The system shall be activated by quick acting detectors. Detectors shall be tested monthly. SUBSTANTIATION: Specifying a gaseous agent activated by IR or UV/IR detection limits flexibility to provide fireprotection. The suggested wording allows for flexibihty to apply the appropriate suppression system for the material and eqmpment t o b e safe- guarded. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATF2VIENT: It is inappropriate to use anything other than a ]gaseous agent or water in a semiconductor cleanroom. Quickacting Is not defined or specific enough for use in this standard.

2 5

N F P A 3 1 8 m F 9 1 T C D

(Log # 122) 318- 50 - (2-1.2.7.2): Reject SUBM1TrEI~ J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add: "When the work station is of combustible construction and

flammable materiais are used, automatic..." SUBSTANTIATION: When acid solutions arc in use. the exhaust transition piece will have the highest concentration of those acids in the system. A sprinkler head at this point will require frequent maintenance (and be subject to unintentional flows), will tend to cause leakage around the entry of the head, and will cause a significant amount of expenditure for the installation. COMMrrrF_~ A c r I O N i Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Sprinkler design and manufacturing for corrosive environments may be utilized to lessen maintenance required. Frequent inspections should be performed and maintenance follow-up as needed (see 2-1.2.5.4).

(Log # 223) 318- 51 - (2-1.2.7.2 Exception): Reject SUBMITFER: Tom Dill, SIA FABS EAST Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph 2-1.2.7.2 to read:

Exception: An Automatic Interior Application Fire Suppression System may be provided as an aiternauve to sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: Specifying a gaseous system limits flexibility. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: see proposal 318-49 (Log #225.)

(Log # 142) 318- 52 - (2-1.2.7.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER" Terry Maloncy, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 2-I .2.7.2 to read as follows: 2-1.2.7.2 When the work station is of combustible construction,

automatic sprinkler protection shall be provided in the work station exhaust plenum. SUBSTANTIATION: The part of a work station referred to as "the exhaust transition piece" in the original text is more commonly known in the semiconductor industry as an "exhaust plenum." All exhausted work stations have exhaust transition pieces, but not all of them have exhaust plenums. This is an important distinction. There is normally adequate physical space m a work station's exhaust plenum to accommodate a sprinkler head. This is not the case with all transition pieces. When the transition piece is merely a flanged connection from two to eight inches in diameter, installing a sprinkler head interferes significantly with exhaust performance and Is not appropriate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add figure to appendix. (Scc following pages). Use FM Loss Prevention Data Sheet 7-7 "Semiconductor Fabrication Facilities A~.ril 1991 Page 50, Figure 7.

2-I-2,7 Tide: Example of Sprinkler Location for Combustible Tools. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The figure was added to provide an example and to clarify the Committee s intent.

(Log # 603 318- 54- (2-1.2.7.3): Reject SUBMITrER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add: "When the branch exhaust ductwork is constructed of combustible

material and may contain flammable materials, automatic..." SUBSTANTIATION: When acid solutions are in use, the exhaust transition piece will have the highest concentration of those acids in the system. A sprinkler head at this point will require frequent maintenance (and be subject to unintentional flows), will tend to cause leakage around the entry of the head, and will cause a significant amount of expc_nditure for the installation. CoMMrrrEE ACTION. Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: see proposal 318-50 (Log #122.)

(Log # 143) 318- 55 - (2-1.2.7.3): Accept in Principle SUBMrrYE~ Terry Malone,/, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 2-1.2.7.3 as follows:

2-1.2.7.3 When the branch exhaust ductwork is constructed of combustible material, automatic sprinkler protection shall be provided within the work station exhaust plenum or the branch exhaust duct. SUBSTANTIATION: The part of a work station referred to as "the work station transitionpiece" in the original text is more commonly known in the semiconductor industry as an "exhaust plenum." All exhausted work stations have exhaust transition pieces, but not all of them have exhaust plenums. This is an important distinction. There is normally adequate physical space m a work station's exhaust plenum to accommodate a sprinkler head. This is not the case with all transition pieces. When the transition piece is merely a flanged connection from two and eight inches in diameter, installing a sprinkler head interferes significantly with exhaust performance and is not appropriate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrrrEE STATEMENT: See propos,~a1318-52 (Log #142.)

(Log # 144) 318- 56 - (2-2.1 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMrrrER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following exception to Section 2- 2.1:

Exception: Facilities with supervised employee evacuation notification systems are not required to have a separate audible fire aiarm system. SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of the audible fire alarm system required in Section 2-2.1 is employee notification and evacuauon. An audible fire alarm system is one of many ways to meet this important need. The recommended exception recognizes these other methods are acceptable alternatives. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The wording of the submitter's proposed change is unclear. Therefore, the committee was unable to determine the intent.

(Log # 59) 318- 53 - (2-1.2.7.2): Reject SUBMrITER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add: "When the work station is of combustible construction and

flammable materials are used, automatic..." SUBSTANTIATION: When acid solutions are in use, the exhaust transition piece will have the highest concentration of those acids in the system. A sprinkler head at this point will require frequent maintenance (and be subject to unintentional flows), will tend to cause leakage around the entry of the head, and will cause a significant amount of expenditure for the installation. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: sec proposal 318-47 (Log #58.)

(Log # 191) 318- 57 - (2-2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Terry E. Victor, "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. of America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the text by changing the word "extinguishing" to "protection." SUBSTANTIATION: Most sprinkler systems are designed and installed to provide fire protection through control, but not necessarily extinguishment. Unless the committee has fire test data that proves that a 0.20 density will extinguish a fire in this hazard/ occupancy, the terminology should bc changed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Change "extinguishing" to "suppression". COMMrrrEE S- TATEMENT: "Protection" is too vague. It could include only detection.

26

N F P A 318 ~ F91 T C D

au 15

,~ HE'T AL OR FIRE R£'rAROANT PLYVO00 COVERE~G ~, rF ' INGE:R 'VAIL CONSTRUCTIOfl /

I .l 0-20 ~1. S£E , Fume

T 3 PI.~ST¢ OR Exhaust TEAR ~ ' '~ ' " " ~ Header

LI~4TI~ F ~ r I ~ ~ (To Scrubber) .... HEPA FILTER LOGATIONS, /

÷ ÷

i1 !i VlI]tT.IICAL LAPIIIAR FLOV (VLF) ; CORE OR CLEAN ROOM :: HOOP OPTIOll ] SERVICE CORRIDOR

(CeASe; I - 1OO,OOO) ,: Class 10 -tO00 under hoo~ I

: Re~ US~ A~r

Curtatn' ~ ' F ~ i ~:i ~ ~ ' ~ - - ~ ' I ~Furr~ E x ~ t O~t r~'ibb Link i ~ ] ~ 6-~ 2 in.

. . . . ; . _ . . " • ~Transition Piece ~EPA F ~ . . ,o"

4P

Lip £.~heust--~ S~t T

i

; ' . ~ ' ~ - ~ ' ~ Exhaust P~ jm -~ WET BENCH

0PLAST¢ OR METAL)

I I I

~)1td Floor or l~r~orated Rals~ F'loer

,jku- .k~omatlo Sprinkler Locations

~ - Flame Detector Looat~$

~i'--OaSeous Sup~'ession Syslem DL~charge Nozzles

ilynent C ~ 1

f h I ! ' i i #-i ! ,

Ii,

trio SCALE USEg)

Alternmte Fume ~-- E x l ~ t 0u~

Location

--0aseo~ S~moression Stjstem Ctj ~ e r LOo~fion

ALTERNATEMAfN FUHEEXHAUST ~ADERLOCATION (TOSCRUBSER)

Figure A-2-1.2:?(a) - Example of Sprilder Locations for Combustible Tools

27

N F P A 318 ~ F 9 1 T C D

(Log # 224) 318- 58 - (2-2.2): Accep, t in Principle SUBM1TTER: Tom Dill, SIA FABS EAST Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add to sentence 2-2.2:

"....shall be provided in rooms in which flammable vapors or gas are gresenL"

UBSTANTIATION: Not all Clean Rooms require flammable gas detectors. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrrrF_~ STATEMENT: See proposal 318-63 (Log #200.)

(Log # 139) 318- 59 - (2-2.2 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Eugene L. Dimond, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION" Add the following new text:

Exception: Those rooms that do not use flammable gases in

~ rocessing. UBSTANTIATION: This paragraph assumes that all clean rooms

under the scope paragraph (1-1) have or will have flammable gases. This is an unnecessary financial burden for those areas that will not use flammable gases. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrFrEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-63 (Log #200.)

(Log # 61) 318- 60- (2-2.2): Reject S U B M r r r E ~ J. R.Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: It is cost prohibitive to monitor all flammable gases at 20% of LFL. A properly designed distribution system prevents discharge of flammables into the air and eliminates the need for continuous monitoring. COMMITFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrr rEE STATEMENT: The system as specified protects against leaks.

(Log # 27) 318- 61 - (2-2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMI/'rI~R- Dennis Kirson, US Department of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Article 2-2.2 to read as follows:

2-2.2* Detection systems monitoring for flammable gases in excess of 20percent of the lower flammable limit, or for pyrophoric gases, shall Be provided. SUBSTANTIATION: While the term "flammable gas" includes pyrophoric gases, the concept of lower flammable limit does not truly apply to pyrophoric gases. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrrFEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-63 (Log #200.)

(Log # 179) 318- 62 - (2-2.2): Accept in Principle SUBI~tt-rt:R: C.V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add:

"...limit shall be provided "in areas that contain flammable gases." SUBSTANTIATION: Why is it necessary to install a flammable gas detection system in areas where those gases are not used. The way the current statement reads, it is too broad and needs to be more

ecific. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-63 (Log #200.)

(Log # 200) 318- 63 - (2-2.2): Accept in Principle S U B M I T r E ~ Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

*Where a potential exists for flammable gas concentrations to exceed 20%of the L.F.L. A continuous gas detection sDtem shall be

g rovided." UBSTANTIATION: As written, paragraph 2-2.2.2 requires

flammable gas monitors capable of detecung above 20 percent of

the lower flammable limit (LFL) for all flammable gases. Since there is no definition under Section 1-3 which limits "flammable ~ases" to the Department of Transportation definition, paragraph 2-

.2 reasonably applies to all gases with a flammable range. The revised text appIies the momtoring requirement to only those flammable gases likely to be present in the cleanroom above 20 percent of the LFL. Hydrogen and ammonia are flammable gases commonly found in semiconductor cleanrooms. Because of its flammable range, it is likely a hydrogen leak of any size I I ~ result in greater than 2Opercent LFL concentrations. Hydrogen should, and would be monitored with the revised text. Ammonia has a much narrower flammable range and an extremely low odor threshold to aid early detection in very low concentrations. Ammonia in concentrations above 20 percent LFL are not very likely. Ammonia should not, and would not, be monitored with the revised test. The revised wording is also consistent with the Uniform Fire Code Article 51 provisions on the subject. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 2-2.2 to read as follows: "Where a potential exists for flammable gas concentrations to

exceed 20% of the LFL, a continuous gas detection system shall be t~)ovided."

MMITrEE STATEMENT: Editorial clarification of submitter's proposed change.

318- 64- (2-2.3): Reject (Log # 145) SUBMITTER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph to read:

2-2.3 Signal transmission for alarms designed to activate signals at more than one location shall be verified at each location at least annually. SUBSTANTIATION: As originally worded, paragraph 2-2.3 reasonably applies to all alarm systems, not just the fire systems. It requires full system output testing whenever testing of any kind is done. The toxic and flammable gas monitoring systems used in cleanrooms are typically tested and serviced more frequently, often monthly, than most fire systems. The recommended text is more in line with full system testing requirements in the NFPA standards for fire detection and suppressions systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT. Any test should be thorough i.e., test all locations. Frequency of testing is to be established by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.

(Log # 28) 318- 65 - (2-2.4): Accept SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, US Department of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Article 2-2.4 to read as follows:

2-2.4 A manual notification system shall be provided to result in an audible alarm as in 2-2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The existing wording is unclear as to the coverage by the audible alarm. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 146) 318- 66 - (2-2.4 Exception): Reject S U B M I T I T ~ Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following exception to the paragra]~h:

Excep uon'. Facilities with an internal, emergency notification system, an emergency response dispatch system and an occupant evacuation system operated through a constantly attended, o-n-site location. SUBSTANTIATION: Most fire jurisdictions have done awaywith street corner manual fire alarm boxes. Telephones are now plentlful and reliable enough, fire departments rely on them for emergency reporting. Many manufacturers have taken a similar approach. They have on-site, constantly attended control stations (usually security stations), in-house emergency phone numbers which ring to that control station, the means to dispatch on-rite emergency res]~nders from that control station, and an occupant evacuation notification system activated from that control station. Providingthe manual and audible notification system described in paragraph 2-2.4 in such facilities is nei ther necessary, nor desirable because they are inconsistent with and contradict the basic emergency notification and evacuation procedures for such a facility.

2 8

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I ' r r ~ STATEMENT: The paragraph does not address corner municipal fire alarm boxes.

(Log # 165) 318- 67 - (2-'7.4): Accept in Principle SUBMrlTFJU Christopher L. Vollman, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"A manual fire alarm system shall be provided in accordance with NFPA 72." SUBSTANTIATION: The current section could be interpreted to have only one place for manual notification rather than manual fire alarm stations throughout the facility. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-65 (Log #'78.)

(Log # 29) 518- 68 - (2-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMrrrER: Dennis Kirson, US Department of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMlVIENDATION: Revise Article 2-3.1 to read as follows:

2-3.1" An air sampling or particle counter-type smoke detection system shall be provided in the cleanroom return air stream to sample for smoke. SUBSTANTIATION: The word "forced" may be confusin~ and it conve D no useful information. Deleting the word "forced is consistent with NFPA 72E, Article 2-2.2.3. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

2-3.1 A listed, self'aspirated light scattering or air sampling particle counter-type, smoke detector w~th a sensitivity of .03 - .003% per foot obscuration shall be provided in either the supply duct or return side of the cleanroom air handling system. If applied on the return side, the air shall be sampled up stream of the point where make-up air dilution occurs. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To add minimum performance requirements for available acceptahle smoke detection equipment.

(Log # 147) 318- 69 - (2-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITFER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the paragraph to read:

2-3.1 Smoke detection shall be provided in the cleanroom return air stream with detection deviceslocated up stream of the point at which make-up air dilution occurs. SUBSTANTIATION: 'The original text is not a performance standard. It limits the types of acceptable detection devices. System and facility designers should be allowed to select the detection system appropriate for their circumstances. The original text would permit placing detection devices down stream of the point at which make-up air mixes with and dilutes return air. The recommended text is a performance standard locates detection where it will be most effective. The Uniform Mechanical Code specifies locating smoke detectors in this fashion when automatic shut down is involved. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-68 (Log #29.)

(Log # 166) 318- 70 - (2-$.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Christopher L. Vollman, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. C O 1 ~ ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Forced air sampling and particle counter-type smoke detection needs to be defined. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 72E does not define these terms for smoke detection. COMMFITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-68 (Log #29.)

318- 71. (2-S.2): Reject (Log # 62) SUBMrlTER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following:

"...as weU as a local alarm signal within the cleanroom that is distinctive from both the facility evacuation alarm signal and any process equipment alarm in the cleanroom." SUBSTANTIATION: More alarm tones in the cleanroom provide confusion rather that safety. An alarm at a constantly momtored location will cause the personnel at that point to sound an evacuation or take whatever measures necessary to deal with the emergency. Confusing cleanroom personnel is not the answer. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C O I ~ STATEMENT: The existing requirement is intended to he different from evacuation. (See Appendix). Not every cleanroom facility will have a constantly monitored alarm center.

(Log # 106) 318- 72 - (2-3.2): Accept SUBMITI"ER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Services Group COM2~HCNT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: In line 4 of Section 2-3.2, change "evaluation" to "evacuation." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 148) 318- 73 - (2-3.2): Reject SUBMTrTER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the paragraph to read:

2-3.2 Smoke detection within a cleanroom air system shall result in shut down of the involved air recircuiation unit and in activation of a facility notificationsystem. SUBSTANTIATION: The original text is not a performance standard and is excessive in its requirements. The critical functions relating to smoke detection in an-air recirculation system are shut down and notification of responsible persons. The original text did not include shut down. It required notification to "a constantly attended location" which is normally interpreted as a Central Station which would result in fire de]~artment notification and response. It requires a unique alarm withm the cleanroom. Semiconductor cleanrooms typically have a toxic/flammable gas detection alarm system, a general evacuation system (which may or may not include the facility fire system alarm), and several process alarn~ associated with mostprocess tools. Notification of responsible persons can he accomplished a number of ways. The revised text is a performance standard which provides facility and system designers the flexibility to design methods suited to their circumstances. It also provides shut down on detection. COMMITFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMFrTEE STATEMENT: Paragraph 3-5.6 stipulates that automatic detection is not required. Automatic shutdown may result in greater losses.

(Log # 167) 318- 74 - (2-3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Christopher L. Vollman, Roll Jonson & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 3184 R E C O M ~ A T I O N : "Evaluation" should be "Evacuation." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 135) 318- 75 - (2-3.2 and 8-1.1): Reject SUBMFFrER: Vic D. Humm, Red Bank, TN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

2-3.3 Place of automatic detectors shall be in accordance with NFPA 72E.

8-1.1 Add NFPA 72E 1990 Edition. SUBSTANTIATION: This will provide necessary assistance to the end user, design professionals.

29

NFPA 318 - - F91 T CD

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMItAKE STATEMENT: NFPA 72E does not provide the necessary guidance for smoke detector placement in high velocity air streams.

(Log # 176) 318- 76- (2-3.1): Reject SUBMriuzaZ: George Vorsheim, Environment One Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph to read:

2-3.1 A forced air sampling and particIe monitor-type smoke detection system shall be providedin the cleanroom, return, air stream to sample for particles of overheaung and combusuon. SUBSTANTIATION: RE: ... 'forced air sampling and particle monitor"

Desire the proposed code to.accord with NFPA standards already met by forced mr sampling fire detectors and not met by stand alone particle monitors; perhaps eliminating a potential "grey area".

RE: ..."particles of overheat and combustion" Concern about whether the term "smoke" includes particles of

overheating and combustion below the wavelength o f visible light (.2 micrometer) that are generated and detectable during a fire's incipient stage. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-68 (Log #29.)

(Log # 5) 318- 77 - (3-I): Reject SUBMITTER: RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change to "Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning System" SUBSTANTIATION: Needed for clarity. The use of air supply and rccirculation systems implies any exhaust would not be covered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Exhaust is covered in 3-2.

(Log # 171) 318- 78- (3-1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Gottwald, The Society of the Plastics Industry COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 |

RECOMMENDATION: Reword as follows: ] "Supply air ducts shall have a flame spread index of not more than I 25 ~,-d o,,,,,k~ d~,~Ivwd , , ,d ,g ,~f i~c,~ . . . . . . d,ai-, 5~, when tested in

accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials. In addition, all sunolv air duc~ thall contain smoke danders." - - SUBSTANTIATION. Section 2-1 .'1 requires wet pipe automatic sprinkler protection throughout the cleanroom. This willprotect the exterior of the duct. Additionally, the low flame spread of the duct material will increase the time to ignition of the material. This, in combination with the recommendauon that all supply air ducts t contain smoke dampers to prevent the circulation of products of I combustion in the event of a fire in air supply equipment (such as fan motors), negates the need for smoke ra t ingin Section 3-1.3. COMMrlq'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Intent is to limit contamination of plenum by smoke.

(Log # 10) 318- 79 - (3-1.3): Accept in Principle SUBM1TFER: RobertJ. Pearce, Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

3-1.3 Change to "Air Supply and Recirculation ducts, connectors and appurtenances shall be constructed of non-combustible material such as aluminum steel or of Class 0 or Class 1 materials as tested in accordance with UL 181, Standard for Factory made air ducts and connectors. SUBSTANTIATION: More consistent with 90A and 90B. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add the above at the beginning of 3-1.3. COMMt|-Iv:E STATEMENT: The submitter's recommended wording is appropriate with the existing text.

(Log # 6) 318- 80 - (3-1.4): Reject SUBM1TFF_,Ra RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add:

3-1.4 The HVAC system shall be designed to provide automatic smoke exhausL SUBSTANTIATION: Contamination is the leading exposure in clean rooms. An automatic smoke removal system would prevent damage by removing smoke in the incipient stages of a fire. COMMITrEE ACTION:Reject . COMMITTEE STATEMENT. The Committee feels that manual or automatic are reasonable and acceptable methods for controlling smoke exhaust.

(Log # 14) 318- 81 - (3-1.5): Reject SUBM1TI'FARa RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add:

3-1.5 Actuation of smoke detection in the return air stream of the HVAC system shall shut down recirculating air and initiate a smoke evacuation system of 3 cfm/sq ft for each sc l ft of floor area and delete 3-5.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Needed to clarify proposed 3-1.4. An automatic S&H venting system would greatly reduce down time in a clean room. It needs to be actuated by a sampling type smoke detector to work at low concentrations. 3-5.5 is similar but falls under what appears to be the fume exhaust system. There, it is out of place. COMM1TI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT. No data submitted to support the substantiation.

(Log # 15) 318- 82 - (3-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITFER: RobertJ. Pearce, Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO'- 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: 3-2 Fume Exhaust System.

SUBSTANTIATION: The air handling needs to bc separated into HVAC and fume exhaust systems for clarity. COMMt/II~E ACTION: Accept in Principle. Change to "Local Exhaust System". in 3-5.3 add "local" before

"exhaust fans". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarification.

(Log # 149) 318- 83 - (3-2.3 Exception): Accept SUBMITrER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception under paragraph 3-2.3 to read:

Exception: Down stream of fans, scrubbers and treatment devices. SUBSTANTIATION: The original text allows positive pressure within hazardous chemical exhaust systems relative to the normally occupied spaces of a building down stream of scrubbers only. Scrubbers are not the only treatment devices used in conjunction with cleanroom hazardous chemical exhaust systems. In addition, some scrubbers and other treatment systems are designed to have fans up stream rather than down stream. The revised text extends the exception to these equivalent circumstances. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 8) 318- 84 - (3-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Needs to be changed to:

3-3 Fume Exhaust System Construction. SUBSTANTIATION: This would not apply to exhaust on the HVAC system. As worded, it appears necessary for all exhaust. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pnnciple.

Change to Local Exhaust System Construction. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarification.

3 0

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

(Log # 65) 318- 85 - (5-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBM1TrER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: Flexible connectors are a necessary method of connecting process equipment, and fibbed-type connectors provide maximum-protection from leakage and duct collapse. It is not realistic to eliminate these connectors. COMM1TFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change "conveyed material" to "hazardous chemicals". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To allow for heat exhaust which do not convey hazardous chemicals.

(Log # 201) 318- 86 - (5.5.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Ribbed flexible connectors or sections of duct should be: (a) Constructed of material compatible with the components of

the exhaust stream; (b) Fire resistive material (when possible); (c) Kept as short as practical (length should not exceed 10% of

total distance from the plenum to the branch); (d) Designed with provisions to convey collected material to the

appropnate waste treatment system. SUBSTANTIATION: Eliminating flexible connections is not ~ractical where vibration isolation is desirable. Ribs integral to the tlex connector are necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the duct and prevent collapse. Limiting the length of the run is desirable m order to reduce static loss attributed to this material. Providing a method for drain where needed will further enhance the performance of the s/stem reducing the opportunity for collected material to block air flow. C O M I ~ T r ~'-P- ACWION: Reject. COMMrITEE STATEMENT: See proposal 518-85 (Log #65.)

(Log # 202) 318- 87 - (5-3.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION. The requirement for the "exhaust duct system to be self'contained" needs clarification. By design, duct work is continuous and hence self contained. Likewise, the requirement that "no portion of the building shall be used as an integral part of the system" needs clarification. Air either from the lamanar flow systems or scavenged from surrounding areas provides make up air necessary for proper exhaust system function. As a result the building is an int/~gral part of the exhaust system. COMMITIT.,E ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: Exhaust system begins at the tool not at the recirculating air fan. Title changed in proposal 518-84 (Log #8.)

(Log # 64) 518- 88 - (S-3.3): Reject SUBMITrER: J. R.Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 5184 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph Is to non-specific. It could be construed to include virtually all-exhaust ductwork in semiconductor processing, requiring a separate exhaust for every piece of equipment. COMMITYEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITIT, E STATF2~_aNT: The intent is to prevent a chemical reaction hazard within the duct system. See proposal 51889 (Log #205).

(Log # 205) 518- 89 - (5-5.5 Exception): Reject SUBMITTEI~ Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text.

Exception: Where the exhaust system is designed such that any reaction from incompatible chemicals does not compromise the

exhaust system. SUBSTANTIATION: Chemical reactions within exhaust systems from semiconductor processes is common and some times inten- tional. Exhaust systems must be designed to contain and control any chemical reaction anticipated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. CoMMrIq'F,E STATEMENT: There is no known method to calculate or determine when a reaction will not compromise the exhaust duct system.

(Log # 140) 318- 90 - (S-3.4): Reject S U B ~ M. B. Davis, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO' 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text:

"Exhaust ducts penetrating fire resistance rated construction shall be contained in a enclosure of equivalent fire resistance construction." SUBSTANTIATION" Since section 1-3 requires a 1 hour rated separation for all clean room construction ~t would appear that section 3-3.4 is requiring all exhaust ducts to have a 1- hour rated enclosure. If feel this requirement is too broad since it would apply to all clean room construction requiring exhaust. COMMrr rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrr rEE STATEMENT: This is consistent with common building code provisions.

(Log # 150) 318- 91 - (5-5.4): Reject SUBMI'rI'ER: Terry Malone,/, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAl, NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise parag~'.aph to read:

5-5.4 Cleanroom exhaust ducts which traverse exit corridors or non-hazardous, non-mechanical occupancies shall be enclosed in a shaft of one hour fire resistive construction, or provided equivalent aT Titi°n

ON" Strictly applied, the original text requires an exhaust system serving a cleanroom and adjacent chemical storage room to be enclosed m the storage room in a fu:e resistive assembly equivalent to the one between the storage room and cleanroom. This is excessive. The recommended text provides protection between hazardous exhaust systems and the non-hazardous portions of the building. While the original text is identical to the text in Uniform Fire Code Article 51, the recommended text reflects the ~p(~MMl, i, TEElication of Article 51 in most jurisdictions.

ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT" This issue is dealt with in NFPA 101.

(Log # 175) 518- 92 - (5.S.4 and 5.S.7): Reject SUBMI'ITF,~ Rich Gottwald, The Society of the Plastics Industry COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 5-1.4 and 5-5.7 as follows:

When considerin~ materials ofconstr~ction for duct systems, the corrosion resistance of materials as well as combustibiliw shall be vroverlv evaluated to ,~revent Premature failure of duc t /due to corrosion. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed Standard contains information in various Sections relating to construction a n d / o r design rationale (Chapters 4 & 5, for example). However, it makes no reference to the corrosion resistance of materials of construction for duct

Premature failure of duct systems is a major concern due to downtime involved during replacement as well as possible health

effects on employees from being exposed to flames escaping from failed ducts and the cost of replacement. While we agree that combustibility is of great concern in these facilities, we also feel other concerns must be addressed (such as corrosivity) so that the best overall product is specified to provide the intended fire ,~otection, service life, and employee health safety. The addition of

ction 3-1.4 and 3-5.7 are intended to provide for this overall 'best roduct' concept. O M M r r r E E ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Not all corrosion issues are fire ~rotection concerns. The wording "shall be properly evaluated"

oes not contain a minimum requirement and is unenforceable.

31

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

(Log # 173) 318- 93 - (553.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Gottwald, The Society of the Plastics Industry COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as foUows:

Exhaust duct systems ihall b,: may be constructed of noncombusuble or combusuble matenais ,,, v . . . . . . . . . u. ov . . . . . . . . . . . accc,,,.: . . . . . i~, &.,.go, 2-1.2.5. | f combustible materials are used ¢•haust ducts must be nrotected with sorinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: This wording wil~ provide adequate fire protection and protection ag.ainst products of combustion as well as guarding against corrosion since each is required if the system is to perform as designed during the intended service life. COMMITI'EE ACTION: ReJect. COMMrl'TEE STATEMENT: The proposed wording is not a requirement (by changing "shail" to "may".

(Log # 128) 318- 94 - (3-3.6): Reject SUBMI'IWER: W. B. Marshail, AT&T Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Exhaust duct systems containing flammable vapors above 10 percent of the LFL shail be constructed..." SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinklers shall be required only in poten- tiailyflammable ducts and not all corrosive environments. Sprinkler discharge impedes exhaust thus causing higher risk to life safety. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The issue is the combustibility of the duct material.

(Log # 174) 318- 95 - (553.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Gottwald, The Society of the Plastics Industry COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 2-1.1 requires wet pipe automatic sprinklers throughout the cleanroom which will protect the exterior of the duct; Secuons 2-1•2.5 and 553.6 require sprinklers for the interior of the duct system. Since both areas are sprinklered, the need for Section 3-3.7 does not appear to be requtred. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMrt - r I~ STATEMENT: The interior of the duct is not aiways sprinklered. A fire on the inside,of the duct could generate smoke on the exterior of the duct.

(Log # 168) 318- 96 - (553.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Christopher L• Vollman, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add section 333.8 as follows:

The exhaust system of one lab area shall not connect to another exhaust system outside the lab area within the building. The return air system from one lab area shall not connect to any other system. SUBSTANTIATION: Currently, the Standard Building Code in Section 511.2.6.2 and Uniform Building Code in Section 911 (b)3 contains these requirements which should be included in this section of NFPA 3"18. COMMITI"EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrITEE STATEMENT: Covered in 332.1

(Log # 65) 318- 97 - (334.1): Reject SUBMITI"FJ~ J. R.Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: This is not a reaiistic expectation. 10 percent LFL is far lower than the vapors conveyed in the ductwork in most installations. If this type of specification is to be applied to be applied to combustible ductwork, it may be reaiisuc. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITIT~ STATEMENT: The requirement is consistent with the Uniform Mechanical Code. The requirement deais with vapors and not gases.

(Log # 121) 318- 98 - (334.1): Reject SUBMITrER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: This is not a realistic expectation. 20 percent LFL is far lower than the vapors conveyed in the ductwork in most installations. If this type of specification is to be applied to combustible ductwork, it may be reaiistic. C O M M 1 T ~ ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-97 (Log #65.)

(Log # 226) 318-99- (335): No Action SUBMITYER: Eugene L. Dimond, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: None. SUBSTANTIATION: The wording assumes that:

1. All areas under the scope paragraph (1-1) have toxic or flammable materials,

2. That no alternative to emergency power exists in any room covered under the scope paragraph (1-1).

This presents an unnecessary financial burden where materials used, quantities used and alternate methods of personnel protection would suffice. Granted, certain areas need emergency exhaust, but in some areas, this requirement is ridiculous. This requirement in its present form, should not be released. COMMITrEEACTION: No action. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The comment does not contain a proposed text change as required by the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

(Log # 30) 318- 100 - (555.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITYER: Dennis Kirson, US Department of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Article 335.2 to read as follows:

555.2* The emergency power shall operate the exhaust system at 100 percent of capacity. Exception: Where ahazardous situation will not be created, and it

is acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction , the emergency power may operate the exhaust system at not less than 50 percent canacxtv. SOBS'ICANTIATION: Emergency power is provided the exhaust system because the exhaust system is a system provided for personnel and environmental protection. As such, it should be a totally reliable system. The presumption, in Appendix Article A-335.2, that most production equxpment will shut down during an electrical power failure, hereby reducing the amount of hazardous fumes transported in the fume exhaust duct system, may not be valid. Therefore, allowing 50 percent exhaust capacity may create an industrial hygiene hazard. Other examples of hazards not mitigated by the loss of electric power are open containers of volatile liqmds and biological hazards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 555.2 to read as follows: 555.2* The emergency power shall operate the exhaust system at

not less than 50 percent capacity. When it is demonstrated that the level of exhaust will maintain a safe atmosphere. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Fiftypercent may not be safe under all circumstances. Adds parameter for safe operation.

(Log # 66) 318- 101 - (555.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Replace with:

"A method of shutting off the cleanroom air recirculation system in an expeditious manner shall be provided at an approved location(s)." SUBSTANTIATION: For a large cleanroom, it is not realistic to have one switch to shut offall air recirculation, nor is it desirable. To allow exhaust fans to operate, some makeup air must be introduced. The above text allows for systems which provide a controlled shutdown of the air handling system to best deal with the emergency.

3 2

NFPA 318 - - F91 T CD

CoMMrrFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. I Revise 5.5.6 to read as follows:

3-5.6 A manually operated remote switch (switches) to shut off the affected areas of the cleanroom air recirculation system(s) shall be provided at an approved location (s). COMMITTEE STATFAIENT: To allow for shutting down portions of the overall system.

(Log # 7) 318- 102 - (3-5.6): Reject SUBMITrER: RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Renumber 3-5.6 as 3-I .6. SUBSTANTIATION: 3-5.6 refers to controlling the exhaust from the HVAC system not a fume exhaust system. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Numbering is adequate.

(Log # 67) 318- 103 - (4-1): Reject SUBMrrTER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 3184 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: This is not a reMistic expectation. To maintain cleanliness characteristics, some combustible materials are recJuired. Additionally this would put a very high percentage of existing cleanrooms in the country out of compliance immediately. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject, COMMITrEE STATEMENT: There are many acceptable materials that will satisfy the requirements of the provision.

(Log # 98) 318-104 - (4-1 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMrITER: Ricl~ Thomberry, The Code Consortium, Inc./ Alucobond COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following exception:

Exception: Membranes, coverings, and facings which are components of walls or partitions are not required robe noncombustible and may be attached directly to noncombustible structural supports such as studs provided the face of the membrane, covering, or facing exposed to the room or to the concealed space within the wall or partition construction., or both, complies with all of the following conditions:

(a) shall have a flame spread index not greater than 25 and a smoke density index not greater than 50 when tested in accordance with NFPA 225, StandardMethod of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials.

(b) shall demonstrate satisfactory performance by meeting the acceptance criteria as determined in accordance w~th Uniform Building Code Standard No. 42-2, Standard Test Method for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile Wall Covering. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed exception to the requirement for using noncombustible components of bralls and partiuons in cleanrooms allows for the use of other materials whlch are available in the cleanroom marketplace and provide a very useful function in maintaining the cleanliness of the cleanroom yet do not meet the true definiuon for noncombustible. The materials so used are required to have very low flame spread and smoke density indices to minimize their involvement in a fire within the cleanroom and prevent significant quantities of smoke from being generated during such a fire which could have a very adverse effect on the contents of the cleanroom. Furthermore, the wall and partition elements arc also mandated to

meet performance criteria for a room corner test which is in the process of being evaluated and developed as an NFPA Standard through the NFPA Fire Test Committee and which has already been recognized as a standard by the International Conference of Building Officials for testing textile wall coverings as interior finishes within rooms. A copy of the UBC Standard No. 42-2 is attached. The test is intended to simulate a realistic fire exposure to a trash can size fire which grows to an upholstered chair size fire within the comer of an enclosed room to see if the wall coverings contribute to the room fire growth.

These are reasonable performance criteria which serve as an alternative for noncombustible components of interior wall and partition systems within cleanrooms without arbitrarily excluding materials that can perform effectively within the cleanroom environment. NOTE: "Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters." COMMITTEE ACTION'Reject . COMMrrTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the committee is to require noncombustible construction materials.

(Log # 227) 318- 105 - (4-2): Reject SUBMITTER: Eugene L. Dimond, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Cleanrooms shall be separated from adjacent occupancies as appropriate to the hazards therein and the anthorityhaving jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement is not appropriate or necessary for all the rooms or areas under the scope statement paragraph (1-1). How aboutportable rolling clean rooms? How about semiconductor assembly areas with neither flammables nor plastic hoods? COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: One hour fire rated construction is the minimum which may be exceeded depending on the hazards in the occupancy. The proposed wording contains no minimum criteria.

(Log # 103) 318-106 - (4-2): Accept in Part SUBMITrFAi: L. H. Greuling, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "rated noncombustible" and insert "fire rated'. Add at the end of the sentence "in accordance with NFPA 251,

Standard Methods of Fire Test of Building Construction and Materials." SUBSTANTIATION: Noncombustible and fire rated walls are not compatible terminology. Wording added for clarification and specification of aperformance criteria. COMMrlWEE ACTION. Accept in Part.

Change to "1 hour fire rated, noncombustible construction". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee intended to require both 1 hour fire rated and noncombustible.

(Log # S8} 318- 107- (4-2): Reject SUBMITrER: J. IL Harmon, Dclco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: I take great exception to the exclusion of glass from cleanroom construction. Many safety requirements are served with glass perimeter walls, and those who work in cleanrooms can veri~ the positive safety implication of glass. I would be glad to discuss the safety implications in detail if that is desired. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Glass is not excluded.

(Log # 129) 318- 108 - (4-2): Reject SUBMITrER: W. B. Marshall, ATkT Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "Cleanrooms shall be separated from adjacent occupancies by 1 hr.

rated non combustible construction." SUBSTANTIATION: Problem - not consistent with existing codes or requires additional definition and clarity of "adjacent occupancies". COMMITTEE ACTION'Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Identical to existing text.

3 3

N F P A 318 ~ F91 T CD

(Log # 31 ) 318- 109- (4-3): Accept SUBMrrTER: Dennis Kirson, US Department of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite the phrase, "...seismic zones I, 2, and 3 defined in NFPA 13..." as "...seismic zones I, 2, and 3 as depicted in NFPA 13..., Figure A-3-5.3.1." SUBSTANTIATION: Seismic zones are not defined in NFPA 13. The seismic zone map is in the Appendix of NFPA 13 and the statement is, %. have been identified in building code and insurance maps. An example of such a map is shown in Figure A-3-5.3.1." As a procedural question, can a requirement in one NFPA document, reference advisory, but not mandatory, material from another NFPA document? COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 32) 318- 110- (4-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Dennis Kirson, US Department of Energy COMMENT ON P R O P O ~ I , NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Copy NFPA 13, Figure A-5-5.3.1 into NFPA 318 and revise Article 4-3 to read as follows:

4-3 Cleanroom access floors shall be designed to resist a force of 0.5 G magnitude in seismic zones 1, 2, and 3 defined in Figure 4-3. (Where Figure 4-3 is identical to NFPA 13, Figure A-S-5.3.I.) SUBSTANTIATION: Seismic zones are not defined in NFPA 13. The seismic zone map is in the Appendix of NFPA 13 and the statement is, %. have been identified in building code and insurance maps. An example of such a map is shown in Figure A-3-5.3.1." As a procedural question, can a requirement in one NFPA

document, reference advisory, but not mandatory, material from another NFPA document? COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 169) 318- 111 - (Chapter 5): Reject SUBM1TTER: Christopher L. Vollman, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION" Return Chapter 5 to Committee for further clarification. SUBSTANTIATION: This Chapter is vague on where and when secondary containment and spill protecuon is needed as well as, how to provide. Exception to 5-2.2 permits ferrous secondary containment enclosure; How can a leak be detected until the secondary containment starts leaking? HPMpiping above exit corridors are required by Standard Building Code and Uniform Building Code to have 1-hour construction beneath and secondary containment for HPM liquids. NFPA 318 needs to address these issues. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. C O ~ STATEMENT: Reviewed and revised. See proposal 318-118 (Log #109.)

(Log # 33) 318- 112- (5-1.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following documents to the list of applicable NFPA standards in Article 5-1.1:

NFPA 497A, Classification of Class I Hazardous Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Plants.

NFPA 497B, Classification of Class II Hazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas.

NFPA 497M, Classification of Gases, Vapors and Dust, for Electrical E ~ p m e n t in Hazardous (Classified) Locations.

STANTIATION: The cited documents are applicable and should be referenced. COMMrr rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT. The documents NFPA 497A, 497B and 497M are manuals. These documents contain recommendations and cannot be referenced as requirements.

(LOg # 69) 318-113 - (5-1.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMI'ITEI~ J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Define dispensed as "dispensed (delivered into a piping sDtem) ". SUBSTANTIATION: Meaning is ambiguous without additional explanatory text. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change 5-1.1.1 to read as follows: Hazardous chemical storage and dispensing shall be separated

from the cleanroom by 1 hour fire resistance rating. CO .MIVIITrEE STATEMENT: Permit, dispensing fi'om small contmners in a cleanroom.

318- 114 - (5.1.1.1, 5-1.1.2, 5-1.1.4(a), 5.2.2.1): Reject SUBMITITa~: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the word* "at least"

5.1.1.1 ...wall of "at least" 1-hr... 5.1.1.2 ...for a period o.f "at least" 20 min. 5-1.1.4(a) ...at a rate of at least one cu ft... 5-2.2.1 ...tested to "at least" 150 percent...

SUBSTANTIATION: The current statement, restrict improving on the listed requirement. Give the flexibility to exceed if so desired and not limit to the given value. This same thing has been done in 6-2.2.6(c) and (d) COMMITIT.E ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATFaMENT: "At least" is understood in a minimum standard.

(Log # 181)

(LOg # 204) 318- 115 - (5-1.1.5.1 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITrER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

Exception: Within hazardous materials storage or dispensing rooms. SUBSTANTIATION: Cabinet, are not required in properly designed storage rooms or dispensing rooms. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 34) 318- 118 - (5-1.1.6 Exception): Accept in Principle S U B M I T r E ~ Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: S18-4 RECOMMENDATION: In the Exception, change "four liters" to "one gallon." SUBSTANTIATION: Four liters conflicts with NFPA 30, Ardcle 4- 2.~.3, which states, "glass containers of not more than one gallon capacity...* The proposed revision will bring NFPA 318 into conformance with NFPA 30. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-117 (Log #185.)

(Log # 185) 318- 117 - (5-1.1.6 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Reverse unit - change "4 L (1 gal)" to read "1 gal (4 L)" SUBSTANTIATION: This will be in the same unit as all the others in the standard. COMM1TrF~ ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 109) 318- 118- (5-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text to Section 5-2 and change the title to Solvent Delivery Systems.

5-2.1 Class I and II liquids shall not be dispensed by gravity from tanks, drums, barrels or similar containers. Dispensing dewces for

3 4

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

flammable and combustible liquids shall be of an approved type. Approved pumps taking suction from the top of the container shall be used.

Exception: When the technology does not exist to provide pumped dispensing.

5-2.2When pressurized systems are utilized all materials used in the system willbe compatible with the chemicals be dispensed.

5-2.3 The pressurizedsystem shall be equipped with the following safeguards.

(a) Automatic depressurization vents in the case of fire. Vent to a safe location.

(b) Manual vents to allow for the removal of canisters. Vent to a safe location.

(c) Manual shut offvalves at the Point of use. 5-2.4 All canisters will be ASME/DOT rated vessels equipped with

P5_ressure relief devices not to exceed 30 psi. 2.5 Pressurized delivery systems for flammable and combustible

liquids shall be constructed of a ferrous metal. 5-2.6 Delivery pressure shall not exceed 15 psi (one Bar). 5-2.7 Bulk delivery systems shall be equipped with the following

safeguards. (a) Excess flow protection. (b) Secondary containment for spills. (c) Manual shut down at point of use and dispensing. (d) Fill level monitors and shutoff.

SUBSTANTIATION, The use of pressurized canisters with flammable and combustibles is dangerous and not consistent with good practice. The preferred method is t o p u m p on demand to reduce the amount of time the system is under pressure. With the exception of a few chemicals the technology exists today to pump them. We do no twant to encourage the poor practices of the past. COMMITTEE ACTION. Accept in Principle.

1. Change the title of 5-2 to read: Flammable and Combustible Liquid Delivery Systems.

2. Change 5-2.2.1 to 5-2.4.1. 3. Delete 5-2.1, 5-2.2, 5-2.2.2, 5-2.2.3, 5-2.3 and 5-2.4. 4. Add the following new text: 5-2.1 Class I and II liquids shall not be piped to deliver by gravity

from tanks, drums, barrels or similar containers. Dispensing devices for flammable and combustible liquids shall be of an approved type.

5-2.2 When pressmq.zed systems are utilized all materials used in the system willbe compatible with the chemicals be dispensed.

5-2.3 The pressurizedsystem shall be equipped with the following safeguards.



(c) Manual shut off valves at the point of use. 5-2.4 AU canisters will be ASME/DOT rated vessels equipped with

pressure relief devices not to exceed 30 psi. 5-2.5 Pressurized delivery systems for flammable and combustible

liquids shall be constxucted of a ferrous metal. 5-2.6 Delivery pressure shall not exceed 15 psi (one Bar). 103 K

Pascals 5-2.7 Bulk delivery systems shall be equipped with the following

safeguards. (a) Excess flow protection. (b) Secondary containment for spills. (c) Manual shut down a tpo in t of use and dispensing. (d) Fill level monitors and shutoff.

COMMtr r t :E STATEMENT: Clarification of proposed text.

(Log # 108) 318-119 - (5-2.1): Accept in Principle S U B ~ r r ~ R : Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION. Delete text in sections 5-2.1, 5-2.2, exception, 5-2.2.2, ~2.2.8, 5-2.3, 5-2.4. SUBSTANTIATION: In new factories with new process tools the preferred method should be to have on demand bulk dispensing that fills small unpressured tanks at the tool. Small locals pumps will then provide material upon demand. This should be required where the technology exists and is compatible with the materials being pumped. The old coke pressurized type canisters should not be allowed. CoMMrr I 'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See proposal 318-118 (Log #109.) COMMtlTt iE STATEMENT: These paragraphs are replaced in proposal 318-118 (Log #109.)

(Log # 52) 318- 120- (5-2.1): Reject SUBMrrrER: Richard Martin, Memory Technologies, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO~ 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: In last sentence add - "normally closed automatic" i.e. "a normally closed automatic shut off valve shall be provided at each point of use." SUBST.4aNTIATION: In an emergency it may not bc prudent or possible to manually shut off the system. Heat activated valves and pneumatic valve controls are available to satisfy this requirement. COMMII ' r t :£ ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE S T A ~ : Not applicable to all operations (i.e., developer).

(Log # 205) 318- 121 - (5-2.2.1 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITIT, R: Mike May, Advanced MicroDevices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

Exception: An inert gas can be used to pressure test systems in which water or water residue would be damaging or cost restrictive. SUBSTANTIATION: Systems for delivery o f sol-vent based photo lithography chemicals are constructed of stainless steel tubing with muluple pathways, waives and sensors. Introducing water or water soluble materials into these systems for the purpo/e of a hydrostatic test may result in contamination and corrosion of the system if all traces of the test material cannot be removed. A complete purge of these systems is dimcult, if not impossible, due to the intricate

t ~ t h ~ ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 206) 318- 122 - (5-2.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMat-rz~:R: Mike May, AdvancedMicro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

"Pressurized delivery systems dispensing flammable liquids shall incorporate a deadman valve on manual systems and a preset meter for automated delivery systems." (No exceptions) SUBSTANTIATION: As originally written there was no requirement for control on automated delivery system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add to CommentS18-118 (Log #109), ,

5-2.7(e) Preset meter for automated delivery systems. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The addition to 5-2.7(e) satisfies the submitter's intent.

(Log # 35) 318- 123- (5-2.2.3): Reject SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION" Revise Article 5-2.2.3 to read as follows: 5-2.2.3 Pressurized delivery systems for hazardous chemicals shall

be provided with an overpressure device with drainage to an approved secondary containment. The relief pressure of the overpressure device shall be 150 percent or less of the working pressure of the delivery system. SUBSTANTIATION:The phrase "shall not exceed the rated pressure" is neither clearly defined nor quantitative. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-118 (Log #109).

(Log # 207) 318- 124- (5-2.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change last sentence to read:

"the relief pressure of the over pressure device shall be less than the rated pressure of the lowest rated component of the delivery system." SUBSTANTIATION: As orisj.'nally written, it would bepossible to pressurize the system to its failure limit before the relief device would operate. COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-118 (Log #109).

3 5

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

(Log # 170) 318-125 - (5-2.3, 5-4.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Christopher L. Vollman, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

q.zbeling of contents shall be in accordance with ANSI B 31.3". SUBSTANTIATION: ANSI B 31,3 is a nationally recognized Standard for labeling of piping systems, which should be referenced for consistency with the Standard Building Code. COMl~rr]s£ ACTION: Accept in Princaple. Change "shall" to "should" in proposed text and add as A-5.4.2.

COMMrrrEE STATEMENT: Labeling of contents is more appropriate as a recommendation.

(Log # 38) 318-130 - (5-3.1): Accept SUBMITTERz Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Article 5-3.1 to read as follows (See ps-revious comment concerning renumbering):

3.2 Chemical carts transporting or containing hazardous chemicals shall be designed so that the contents will be fully enclosed. They shall be capable of containing a spill from the largest single container transported, with a maximum individual container size of 5 gallons. The capacity of carts used for transportation of hazardous chemicals shall not exceed 55 gallons. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a grammatical change. The chemical carts are not hazardous, rather they transport hazardous chemicals. COMMFrrF~ ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 36) 318- 126~. (5.2.4): Accept SUBI~trl I~R: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"10 gallons equals 37.85 liters, not 38.5 liters. 15 psi does not equal 1 Bar, it equals 103.4 kPa."

SUBSTANTIATION: According to NFPA 1M, Manual 0f Style. the SI unit of pressure is thepascal, and is usually given in kPa at 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; also 1 gal = 3.785 L

Likewise, 1 atm = 14.70 psi 1 Bar = 1.013 arm

therefore, 1 Bar = 14.5 pfi, not 15 psi. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 70) 318- 131 - (5.3.2 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMYrrER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 3184 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

Exception: If cart has separate containment areas to prevent mixing of spillage, and the division of the cart is clear, incompatibles may be transported in their separate containment areas. SUBSTANTIATION: Carts specifically designed to carry small quantities of incompatible chemicals should not be excluded by the general statement in the bod)r of this paragraph. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Inappropriate to transport on same cart .

(Log # 151) 518- 127 - (5-2.4): Reject SUBMITrER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION. Revise paragraph to read:

5-2.4 Pressurized delivery systems shall be operated at the lowest ~ossible pressure.

UBSTANTIATION: Semiconductor cleanroom pressurized delivery systems commonly operate at pressures from 10 psi to 20 psi, and rarely up to about 30 psi. The original text limiting pressure to not more than 15 psi does not accommodate these needs. The recommended text does. The requirement for inert gases has been removed. A separate comment recommending the addition of a section addressing the use of inert gases has been submitted. COMMITYEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Not an enforceable requirement.

(Log # 152) 318- 128 - (5-2.5 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMrrrER: Terry Malone,/, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph to read: 5-2.5 Only inert gases shall be used for pressurized fammable or

combustible liquid delivery systems. SUBSTANTIATION: A separate comment has been submitted to revise paragraph 5-2.4 which includes removing its requirement for using mert gases in all pressurized delivery systems. This paragraph establishes a requirement for the use of only inert gases in pressurized flammable-and combustible liquid systems. - COMMrFrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following as 5-2.3(d) in Comment 318-118 (Log #109): "5-2.3(b) Only inert gas shall be used."

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The addidon to 5-2.3(d) satisfies the cubmitter's intent.

(Log # 37) 318- 129 - (5-3): Accept SUBMrrI'ER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Renumber 5-3.3 as 5-3.1. Renumber 5-3.1 as 5-3.2. Renumber 5-3.2 as 5-3.3.

SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement that there be carts should logically precede any requirements regarding the construction and use of the carts. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 39) 318- 132 - (5-4.5): Reject SLrBMII-It~R: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Article 5-4.5 to read as follows: 5-4.5 During collection of flammable licjuids or other hazardous

chemicals, the waste container shall be wlthin secondary contain- mcnt. SUBSTANTIATION-' Why should environmental protection be limited to flammable liquids? COMMrITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The concern is flammable liquids only.

(Log # 208) 318- 133 - (5-4.7): Accept SUBMrlTER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION. Revise text as follows: "Incompatible chemicals shall not be transported simultaneously

on the same hazardous chemical cart." SUBSTANTIATION: As originally written, different carts would be required for each chemical. COMMrrI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 209) 318- IS4 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMI'ITF~ Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite tide to read:

Chapter 6 Hazardous Chemical Compressed and Liquified Gas Storage and Handling. SUBSTANTIATION. Semiconductor facilities covered by this standard utilize compressed air and gases in general support functions which are not directly involved with product manufacturing. To require that all gases be subject to the requirements spelled out within Chapter 6 would be impractical and cost prohibitive. (Example: Abrasive blasting systems using compressed air.) The standard addresses storage and handling requirements appropriate for gases identified as Hazardous Chemtcalsby NFPA 49, The proposed chapter tide revision would aid the user in determining the application of the requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change the title of Chapter 6 to read: Hazardous Gas Cylinder Storage and Distribution

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial clarification.

36

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

(Log # 71) 318- 135 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMrrTER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add:

Hazardous Gas Storage and Handling. SUBSTANTIATION: T h e following paragraphs are very badly restricting to situations where nonhazardous gases (such as nitrogen or argon) are used. There is no reason to apply most of the following regulation:s to inert gases. In the absence of this change, I take exception to this entire section of the document.

General note: the numbering is messed up, distribution piping should not be a subset of transportation to the facility. COMMITTEE ACq'ION: Accept in Principle.

Change 6-2.2 to 6-3 and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly. COMMITTEE STAIT.,MENT: Editorial.

(Log # 125) 318- 136- (6-2.2.10 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electromcs G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

6-2.2.10 Non-combustible gases and gases that are not like hazards shall not occupy the same gas cabinet. SUBSTANTIATION': This was not covered in any part of the document, and should be added. It is especially important when considering the purge cylinder in the cabinet, and potential contamination of that cylinder. COMMITTEE ACTION. Accept in Principle. Add the following new text: 6-2.2.10 Incompatible process gases shall not occupy the same gas

cabinet. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarification of submitted recommendation.

(Log # 210) 318-137 - (6-1, 6.2.1): Accept in Part SUBMITrER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete all of 6.1 and 6.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: These requirements go beyond the purpose and scope of the proposed standard. D.O.T. and CGA standards adequately cover the potential hazards of compressed gas containers and transportation (these are not unique to semiconductor ~Poerations).

MMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Revise 6-1.1 to read as follows: 6.1.1 Container Data. The supplier shall accumulate and provide

upon request the fot~lowing information: (a) Cyhnder contents with description of the components. (b) Cylinder serial number, material of construction, and

standards used for construction and testing. (c) Cylinder valve with restricting orifice, when provided. Date of

manufacture, material of construction, and flow curve for the orifice. (d) Description and date of last hydrostatic test. 6-2.1 Delete "the use of self.contained breathing apparatus".

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These requirements are necessary for safety and are not necessarily covered elsewhere.

(Log # 40) 318- 138- (6-1.1(a)): Reject SUBMrrTER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM [ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 3184 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Article 6-1.1 (e) to read as follows:

(a) Cylinder contents with description of the component gases. SUBSTANTIATION: Improved clarity. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMTFTEE STATEMENT: There is a possibility of liquids.

(Log # 118) 318-139- (6-1,2): Accept SUBMITTER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following gases from section 6-1.2. Hydrogen Selenide Hydrogen Sulfide Nitrous Oxide

SUBSTANTIATION: The use of flow limiting orifices is to control the potential of explosions with Silane and the fire risk associated with the other gases. The gases noted above do not exhibit that type of fire risk. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 72) 318-140 - (6-1.2 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMrrrER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M.Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the followinlg new text:

Exception: When a system is designed with an excess flow device which shuts off gas flow within 8-in. of the cylinder valve, fiow- restricting orifices are not required. SUBSTANTIATION: If a flow-restricting orifice is placed in a system with an excess flow device the excess flow device may not shut off. This allows a leak to go unabated (albeit at the lower flow) creating a potentially hazardous situation. One or the other should be specified, not both. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add A-6-1.2 to read as follows: A-6-1.2 I ra flow restricting orifice is placed in a system with an

excess flow device, the excess flow device may not shut off. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that the exception was not appropriate but felt the substantiation was appropriate guidance.

318- 141 - (6-1.2): Reject (Log# 130) SUBMITrER: W. B. Marshall, AT&T Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Nitrogen Trifiuoride - NF 3 be added to the list of gases. SUBSTANTIATION: Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) commonly used toxic gas throughout the semiconductor industry. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that it was not a fire hazard.

The revised requirement applies to pyroforic gases. See proposal 318-142 (Log #53).

(Log # 53) 318- 142 - (6-1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Richard Martin, Memry Technologies, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text: "Normally closed automatic shut offvalve" i.e. "Normally closed

automatic shut offvalves with restricting flow orifices. Cylinders containing any of the following compressed and liquefied gases shall be equipped with normally closed automatic shut offvalves that incorporate restricted flow orifices." SUBSTANTIATION: Leaks most often occur at the cylinder valve outer connection. A remotely controUcd, normally closed cylinder valve will isolate the connection and any other plumbing upstream of a panel mounted shut offvalvc. Thcre arc at least four pneumatic cylinder valves on the market at this time. All have been subjected to considerable field testing and have been optimized. Also, consideration should be given to requiring the new CGA 630 series or equivalent oudet connections for improved leak integrity. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

1. Revise 6-1.2 to read: Cylinders containing pyroforic gases shall be equipped with

normally closed automatic shut off valves that incorporate restricting flow orifices.

2. Delete list COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Reworded for clarification and to apply to pyroforic gases only.

(Log # 232) 518-143- (6-1.2): Reject SUBMITI'ER: V. Misiewicz, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 6-1.2 Restricting flow orifices.., as follows:

"Cylinders containing highly toxic or flammable compressed or liquefied gases shall be equipped with flow restrictive orifices. The following are examples of highly toxic or flammable gases:" SUBSTANTIATION: Chemical listing of specific gases is too specific. Generic specification for gases requiring restricting flow orifices should be given with listing provided as examples only.

3 7

NFPA 318 - - F91 TCD

COMMrrFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: List was deleted. See proposal 318- 142 (Log #53.)

(Log # 9) 318- 144- (6-1.2): Accept SUBMrrTER: RobertJ. Pearce, Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change 6-1.2 Restricting Flow Orifices to "6-1.2 Restricted-Flow Orifices" with the remaining text intact. SUBSTANTIATION: Restricted flow orifice is the accepted term in the industry. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 211) 318- 145 - (6-2.2): Accept SUB/VIi t-ft.;R: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: "Distribution Piping" should be "Distribu- tion Systems" and a separate sub-chapter, not under "transportation". SUBSTANTIATION: Piping is internal to a building and not normally termed "transportation'. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 73) 318- 146- (6-2.2.1): Accept S U B M r r T E ~ J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change final sentence to read:

"20 percent over the maximum pressure available to that portion of the system but not less than 80 psi." SUBSTANTIATION: System components, such as relief valves, regulator bonnets, etc. will not allow testing at 400 psi, and there is no good reason to stress the system to that pressure level. 80 psi gives a very good margin of safety. Additionally, the "system" must be dividedinto the high pressure and loss pressure sections and tested accordingly, because of above constraints. The specification is not reasonable as it stands. COMMITTEE ACTION' Accept.

(Log # 79) 316- 147 - (6-9.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMrFrER: J. 1L Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

"Non-compatible gases and gases that are not like hazards shall not occupy the same gas cabinet." SUBSTANTIATION: This was not covered in any part of the document and should be added. It is especially important when considering the purge cylinder in the cabinet and potential contamination of that cylinder. COMMrl-rI~E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-136 (Log #125.)

(Log # 136) 318- 148 - (6-2.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEIh Vic D. Humm, Red Bank, TN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add a time element of 2 hrs with a

~ ermissible drop of 0 psi. UBSTANTIATION: Due to the extremely high hazard of process

gas listed in paragraph 62D1.2, no leakage shall be permitted. Once the strength integrity of the piping is verified by testing, a vacuum test couldverify leak. Test pressure over a period of time and acceptance parameters are common requirements in other standards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following to the end of 6-2.2.1: "For 2 hours with no discernable pressure drop."

COMMrrlT._,E STATEMENT: Clarification.

(Log # 212) 318- 149- (6-2.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite the last sentence to read "the entire

stem shall be subjected to a pressure test per ASTM methods." STANTIATION. A compressed gas "system" could include

regulators, flow limiter, checkvalves, etc. Each system should be tested considering its unique components. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No ASTM standard referenced as a minimum requirement.

(Log # 153) 318- 150 - (6-2.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite paragraph to read:

6-2.2.2 Materials for tubing, piping, and fittings used for the distribution of Hazardous ChemicaI compressed and liquefied gases shall be of noncombustible construction with welded connections and fittings throughout.

Exception: Nonwelded connections and fittings may be used when housed in an exhausted enclosure. SUBSTANTIATION: As originally written this section requires materials of noncombustible construction, or, if combustible materials are used, a noncombustible jacket for all gases including compressed air, inerts and others not within the Standard's definition of a Hazardous Chemical. This is excessive and unnecessary. Air, nitrogen and other Nonhazardous gases are commonly transported at low pressures in tubing of combustible construction in cleanrooms. The recommended text limits the noncombustible construction requirement to those gases which meet the Hazardous Chemical definition. Combustible construction within a noncom- bustiblejacket has been eliminated as it is inappropriate for Hazardous Material gases. All welded construction, or enclosing nonwelded assemblies in exhausted enclosures, has been added. The recommended text is more in line with current practices in semiconductor cleanrooms and with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 51 pertaining to them. COMMI'rrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

6-2.2.2.1 Tubing piping and fittings shall be welded. Exception: Non-welded connections and fittings may be used when

housed in an exhausted enclosure. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Combustible tubing for hazardous processes may be needed requiring an outer jacket.

(Log # 15,t) 518- 151 - (6-2.2.3): Accept in Principle SUBMrrI 'ER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite paragraph to read:

6-2.2.S Distribution piping shall be leak tested and have a helium leak rate no greater than 0.0000001 cc/hr . SUBSTANTIATION: The original text provided for leak testing without providing guidance as to wh~t constituted a "leak free" system. The recommended rate, 10- / helium, is well within the available technology. Hazardous I~as systems in state of the art semiconductor cleanrooms are bemgtested to 10 -9 helium. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 6-2.2.5 to read as follows: 6-2.2.3 Distribution piping shall be leak tested in accordance with

SEMI F1-90. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The referenced document provides the acceptable method.

(Log # 119) 318- 152 - (6-2.2.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: S18-4 RECOMMENDATION" Revise text in section 6-9.2.5 to read:

6-2.2.5 Purge panels shall be provided on all compressed hazardous gases when in use. This m~iy include a manual or automatic type panel. SUBSTANTIATION: To make clear when and on what gases purge panels are required.

38

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

COMI~Tt-~.;E ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text in section 6-2.2.5 to read as follows: 6.2.2.5 Purge panels shall be provided at the cylinders on all

compressed hazardous processgases when in use. COMM1TrEE STATEMENT: Clarification.

(Log # 213) 318- 153- (6.2.2.6): Accept in Principle SUBMiTrt:R: Mike May, AdvancedMicro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Purge panels must be constructed of materials compatible with gases coriveyed, minimize leakage potential, provide for control of excess flow and be equipped with an appropriate emergency shut off."

(Delete (a) through (k). SUBSTANTIATION: The standard must be performance oriented. Placing specification in this area inparticular freezes technology. It shouldbe noted, in addition, that the standard for qualifying an apparatus as being intrinsically safe was withdrawn in 1989. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

1. Delete 6-2.2.6 in its entirety including (a) through (k). 2. Add the following new text: 6-2.2.6 Purge panels shall be constructed of materials compatible

with gases conveyed, minimize leakage potential, provide for control of excess flow and be ,equipped with an appropriate emergency shut off.

3. Add the following new appendix material: 6.2.2.6 The basic components of purge panels should incorporate

the following features: (a) Tied diaphragm regulators should be used. (b) All piping/tubing connections should be welded or of a metal

gasket face sealfitting with zero clearance, except valve connection to cylinder.

(c) Component burst pressure should be rated to at least 50 percent over the maximum pressure available to all components.

(d) All components shouldhave a helium leak rate no greater than 0.00001 cc/hr.

(e) Regulators should be of the hand loaded type. Dome loaded regulators should not be used on hazardous gases. Remotely operated gas delivery systems may use dome loaded regulators.

(f) No check valves shouid be used as a primary control of potential cross contamination and backflow. s~e). Electrical components on purge panels should be intrinsically

(h) Excess flow control (valve or switch) should be provided on the high pressure side of the purge panel.

(i) Emergency high pressure shutoffvalves should be provided and should operate upon the activation of an emergency offbutton, gas monitoring alarm (high alarm), or electronically monitored excess flow control switch.

C~All systems should be equipped with an emergency shutoff. MMITTEE STATEMENT: The material is more appropriate as

recommendations in the appendix. The requirement forpurge panels in the committee's action provides a more reasonable minimum requirement based on performance.

(Log # 74) 318- 154 - (6-2.2.6(b)): Accept in Principle SUBM1TTER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

"All piping/tubing connections (except to cylinder valve) shall be..." SUBSTANTIATION:: As stated, the use of conventional CGA connectors, required by other codes, are preclude~. Also note that VCR is a trademark of Cajon; you should use VCR ----compatible or say (e.g., VCR ) COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. C O M M / I - I ~ STATEMENT: See proposal 318-153 (Log #213).

(Log # 55) 318- 155 - (6-2.2.6(b)): Accept SUBMrrrER: Richard Marun, Memry Technologies, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: At end of sentence, delete - (VCR) SUBSTANTIATION: There are alternate zero clearance, metal

ket, face seal fittings that exhibit equal or improved performance. M~ut-l-ttE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 234) 318- 156- (6-2.2.6(b)): Reject SUBMrlWER: Gerald A. Babuder, CAJON Company COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text'

..~.clearance (VCR®)**" VCR is a Registered Trademark of Cajon Company.

SUBSTANTIATION: VCR is a registered trademark of Cajon Company and designates face seal fittings made only by C~on.

Moreover, since the mark is registered in the form VCR, it should not be used in the possessive form. COMMrFrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-155 (LOg #55).

(LOg# 114) 318- 157 - (6-2.~.6(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrEI~ Dennis H. Collins, Intcl Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 6-2.2.6(c) as follows: (c) Components shall be rated to at least 50% (burst pressure)

over the maximum pressure available to all components. SUBSTANTIATION: The point that needed to made is components such as gauges are rated according to the range of the pressure on the gauge and not the burst pressure. However, the burst pressure is much higher than the gauge range. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Prificiple. Revise item (c) in Comment 318-153 Committee Action to read as

follows: (c) Component burst pressure should bc rated to at least 50

percent over the maximum pressure available to all components. COMMrrrEE STATEMENT: Clarification.

(Log # 113) 318- 158 - (6-2.2.6(e), (f)): Accept in Part SUBMITrF.2a Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 6.2.2.6(e) and (f) as follows:

(e) Add an exception: Remotely operated gas delivery systems. (f) All piping/tubingshall be in accordance with section 6-2.2.1.

SUBSTANTIATION: In the furore more and more gas delivery systems will be going to remotely operated automated type systems that will require some sort of dome loaded regulator system that does not present the hazards of manual systems. The change in (f) Jcust makes is consistent with 6.2.2.1 OMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Part. See proposal 318-153 (Log #213).

COMMIT'fEE STATEMENT: Clarification for move to appendix.

(Log # 231) 318- 159- (6-2.2.6(0): Reject SUBM1TrER: M. B. Davis, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: All piping/tubing shall be metallic unless the material being transported is incompatible w/such system. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 6-2.2.6 strifes that All piping and tubing within apurge panel shall be constructed of 316 L stainless steel. While 316L is the selected material for most process gas applications, . . . . . . there are applications where Hastelloy and Monel are used. It is my opinion the NFPA should not gnve specific reqmre- ments, but should allow the individual designer to specify purge piping material that is compatible with the purged gas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-158 (Log #113.)

(Log # 75) 318-160 - (6.2.2.6(f)): ReJect S L r B ~ J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

"stainless steel or Hastelloy." SUBSTANTIATION: Because of superior corrosion resistance, Hastelloy alloys are desired for some piping systems and should be allowed by this document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrrrEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-158 (Log #113.)

3 9

N F P A 318 - - F91 T CD

(Log # 76) 318- 161 - (6-2.2.6(g)): No Action SUBMrITER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: This statement is unclear. Primary control of potential cross contamination and backflow must be defined. SUBSTANTIATION: Further comment is not forthcoming because I do not understand the intent of the paragraph. COMMITFEEACTION: No Action. COMMti-rz;£ STATEMENT: No recommended text as required by 11-8 of Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

(Log # 54) 318- 162- (6-2.2.60)): Reject SUBMI'ITER: Richard Martin, Memry Technologies, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

"electronically monitored high/low pressure sensors," and "electronic or direct heat sensing devices" SUBSTANTIATION: High/low pressure indicates component problems a n d / o r leakage. Excess temperature indicates fire or ventilation problems. Either of these indications should be cause for shut off. Generally, modern purge systems (manual and automatic) incorporate these features. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE S T A ~ : The Committee was not able to understand the proposed text because it does not appear to make s e n s e .

(Log # 77) 318- 163 - (6-2.2.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION" Add the following new text:

"cylinder pressure, ff cylinder has a pressure greater than 100 psi." SUBSTANTIATION: Some liquified gases have vapor pressures well under the distribution pressure of most gases, and it serves no purpose to restrict them in this way. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 6-2.2.8 to read as follows: "Check valves shall not be exposed to cylinder pressure if a cylinder

has pressure greater than 80 psi. COMMFFFEE STATEMENT: To be consistent with 6-2.2.1 change.

(Log # 78) 318- 164- (6-2.2.9): Accept SUBMITFER: J. 1L Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

"A manual isolation valve..." SUBSTANTIATION: The isolation valve should not be an air- ~Poerated valve, but a manual valve for safety.

MMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 155) 318- 165- (6-3): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite paragraph to read:

6-3 Silane Storage and Dispensing Areas. SUBSTANTIATION: The fiaaterialpresented in section 6-3 and its subsections are dearly intended to address the particular hazards of diane and silane mixes which are common gases used in semiconductor manufacturing, The literature and recent work by committee member Mr. Dennis CoUins and his alternate and associate Mr. Samir Shiban indicate that measures such as those presented in the standard are appropriate for silane. Neither the literature nor the recent work deal with other pyrophoric materials such as phosphine or diborane, also common se-miconductor manufacturing-mate-rials. Silane has been the focus of concern and study because not only does it not always spontaneously ignite on contact with air, but also it has subsequently detonated on many occasions. This particular behavior is unique to silane and silane mixtures. The other pyrophoric gases have not been reported to have reacted in this manher. The recommended change reflects this, placing the focus on diane. It is further recommended that use of the phrase "silane and silane mixes" be substituted for "pyrophoric" in section 6-3.1 and section 6-5.1(a) for the same reasons.

C O M M t r l ~ g ACTION: Reject. COMMrI-II~E S T A ~ : Some of the requirements apply to all pyrophoric gases.

(Log # 19) 318- 166- (6-3.1 (a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Samir Shiban, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION" Revise text as follows:

(a) Pyrophoric storage and dispensing areas shall be located exterior to building. SUBSTANTIATION: The Current text allows the location of pyrophoric cylinders in separate enclosed structures which would increase the potential for a detonation and would increase its impact. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 6-3.1 (a) to read as follows: (a) Pyrophoric storage and dispensing areas shall be located

exterior to building. Exception: Where the weather conditions do not permit, the

storage shall be in an approved shelter. COMMITI'E£ STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with the submitter but added the exception for locations where the cold weather could cause problems.

(Log # 117) 318- 167 - (6-3.1 (b)): Accept in Principle SUBNIrrTER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the text in section 6-3.1 (b) as follows:

(b) When used in a manifold or dispensing rack system, pyrophoric gas cylinders shall be separated from each other by steel plate 1 /4 in. thick partition extending 3 in. beyond the foot print of the cylinder. The partition shall be no longer than 18 in. length and be mounted an equal distance above and below the normal position of the cylinder valve. SUBSTANTIATION: To make clear what the partition should be constructed of and to what its dimensions should he. Limited the size of the partition helps reduce the potential for silane to accumulate and thus reduce the potential for a detonation and resulting overpressure. COMMfl-lldg ACI'ION: Accept in Principle.

Replace 6-3.1 (b) with the following: (b) When used in a manifold or dispensing rack system, pyro-

phoric gas cylinder shall he separated from each other by a steel plate I / 4 in. thick, extending3 in. (7.6 cm) beyond the foot print of the cylinder.

The steel plate shall extend from the top of the purge panel to 12 in. below the cylinder valve. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Revised to provide a more realistic requirement.

(Log # 21) 318- 168 - (6-3.1(b)): Accept SUBMITI"ER: Samir Shiban, Intel C~8 ~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION: The partitions create partial confinement which increases the likelihood of detonation and increases its' magnitude. This would be a higher hazard than potential flame :mpmgement on piping COMMrII, 'dE ACTION: Accept.

(Log# 110) 318- 169- (6-3.1(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 R I ~ C O ~ A T I O N : Revise text in section 6-3.1 (c) as follows:

(c) Natural ventilation of storage and dispensing areas shall be provided in addition mechanical ventilation shall be provided as required in section 6-3.1 (d). SUBSTANTIATION: The change in wording makes clear that natural ventilation is the requirement with the exception of the mechanical ventilation in section 6-3.1 (d). CoMMrI ' rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The requirements in 6-3.1 (c) and (d) are separate. In other words, 6-3.1 (d) is not an exception to 6-3.1 (c) as the submitter suggests.

4 0

N F P A 318 m F 9 1 T C D

(Log # 229) 318- 170 - (6-3.1(d)): Reject SUBMITrER: Eugene L. Dimond, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the last sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: Adequate protection would ordinarily be met with automatic cylinder shutdown local and facility alarms, full compliance with provisions of 6-2, and parallel exhaust fans that would provide 50 percent of the operating system's exhaust quantity. COMMrrrF~ ACTION: Reject. COMMFrrEE STATEMENT: 100 percent is necessary.

(Log # 2O) 318- 171 - (6-3.1(d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrEIh Samir Shiban, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

(d) Cylinders located in cabinets and other enclosures shall be provided with mechanical ventilation at a minimum of 150 ft per rain (FPM).

PROPOSAL: change the "150 ft ~ . r rain" to "200 ft per min." SUBSTANTIATION: 150 LFPM ts inadequate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 6-3.1 (d) to read as follows: (d) Cylinders located in cabinets shall be provided with mechani-

cal ventilation at a minimum of 200 ft per ram. (FPM) (.762 m/S) across the cylinder neck and the purge panel. The ventilation system shall be provided with an automatic emergency hack-up source of power to operate at full capacity. COMMITTEE STATF.MENT: The Committee felt the increase is necessary but only applies to cabinets.

(Log # 120) 318- 172 - (6-3.1 (e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITFER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the text in section 6-3.1 (e) as follows:

(e) Remote manual shutdown of process gas flow shall be provided outside each gas cabinet or near each gas panel. The dispensing area shall have an emergency shutdown for all gases tha tcan be operated at a safe distance from the dispensing area. SUBSTANTIATION: The shut down of gases out side cabinets was not addressed. No emergency shutdown capability was included in the standard and should be to ensure a safe response to gas leaks can be attempted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 6-3.1 (e) to read as follows: (e) Remote manual shutdown of process gas flow shall be provided

outside each gas cabinet or near each gas panel. The dispensing area shall have an emergency shutdown for all gases that can be operated at a minimum distance of 15 ft. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Revised to provide a minimum safe distance.

(Log # 22) 318-173 - (6-3.1(0 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Samir Shiban, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text: (f) Gas cabinets and unconfined cylinders shall be provided with a

security chain link fence to prevent unauthorized entry and to reduce the impact of an explosion at the perimeter. The area shall also be separated from substantial structures "such as wails" per the following table:

Distance From Fence and Walls

Unconfmed Cylinders

Single Cylind Cabinets

Two Cylinde Cabinets

Distance to Fence In Ft

8

Distance To Structures in Ft

15

13 24

16 27

SUBSTANTIATION: I. The clear area surrounding the cylinders will provide nonconfinement and prevent accumulation of detonatable quantities.

2. The distance to the people beyond the fenced area allows the over pressure to decrease to where it is not harmful to people. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No justification for other than silane.

See proposal 318-174 (Log #133.)

(Log # 133) 318- 174 - (6-3.1 (f) (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMFFrER: Samir Shiban, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

(f) Gas cabinets and unconfined cylinders containingsilane or silane mixes shall beprovided with a security chain link fence to prevent unauthorizedentry and to reduce the impact of an explosion at the perimeter. The area shall also be separated from substantial structures "such as walh" per the following table:


Distance to Distance To Fence In Ft Structures in Ft

8 15 Unconfined Cylinders

Single Cylinder Cabinets

13 24

SUBSTANTIATION: 1. The clear area surrounding the cylinders will provide nonconfinement and prevent accumulation of detonatable quantities.

2. The distance to the people beyond the fenced area allows the over pressure to decrease to where it is not harmful to people. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add 6-3.1(0 as follows: (f) Gas cabinets and unconfined cylinders, not located in shelters

or bunkers containing Silane or Silane mixes shall be provided with a security chain link fence to prevent unauthorized entry and to reduce the impact of an explosion at the perimeter. The area shall also be separated from structures in accordance with the following table:

Distance From Fence and Wails

Unconfined Cylinders

Distance to Distance To Fence In Ft Wall in Ft

6 9

Single Cylinder 12 12 Cabinets

Gas cabinets and cylinders located in shelters containing silane or silane mixes shall comply with the table without regard to shelter wails. COMMrr rEE STATEMENT: The Committee added the above provision for security to reduce the risk of explosion and impact if an explosion occurs.

(Log # 23) 318- 175 - (6-3.1(g) (New)): Reject S U B ~ Samir Shiban, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

(g) Unconfined cylinders connected to supply piping shall be provided with mechanical ventilation at a minimum of 200 ft. per rain (FPM) across the cylinders neck and the purge panel. The ventilation system shall be provided with an automauc emergency back-up source of power to operate at full capacity. SUBSTANTIATION: Under stagnant weather conditions silane can accumulate and explode causing arm m a person close by. The ventilation prevents the accumulation of the gas. C O ~ ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is presumed that natural ventilation will take care of this.

Three Cylinder Cabinets

17 32

41

N F P A 318 - - F 9 1 T C D

(Log # 134) 318-176- (6-3.1(g) (New)): Accept $UBMITI 'E~ Samir Shiban, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NOt 3184 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

(g) When gas cabinets are used, only single cylinder cabinets shall be used for pyrophorics and pyrophoric mixes. SUBSTANTIATION: Larger cabinets increase the potential for detonation and increase its impact. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 156) 318- 177- (6-3.2): Reject SUBM1TrER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite paragraph 6-3.2 to read:

u6-4 Hazardous Chemical Gas Requirements" Renumber subsequent sections as appropriate.

SUBSTANTIATION: The original text makes this section a subset of the major heading tided ".P~t.r?.. phoric Storage and Dispensing Areas." There is no parent child relationshipbetween these materials. The information in and under this section are of equal magnitude. It should have the same heading level ofmaguitude in the outline format. The original text l lmitedthe requirements to flammable and toxic gases. Nei ther of these is defined in the definitions section of ~ e standard. "Hazardous Chemical" is defined in the standard. The recommended change uses that term and properly extends the requirements to all gases with a 3 or 4 in health, flammability or reactivity under NFPAT04M. This change is consistent with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 51 pertaining to hazardous gases in semiconductor cleanrooms. CoMMrFFF~ ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-178 (Log #116.)

(Log # 116) 318- 178 - (6-3.2, 6-3.2.1): Accept in Part S U B ~ Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 6-3.2, 6-3.2.1 as follows:

6-3.2 Flammables/Pyrophoric Mixes. 6-3.2.1 Flammables and pyrophorics with toxic mixes shall be

placed in exhausted cabinets. Toxic mixes shall be provided with gas monitoring and automatic shutdown of the gas supply upon a high level alarm. Exhaust ventilation shall be continuous or activated automatically by gas monitoring. SUBSTANTIATION: The change in thfi section reflects the true requirement that pyrophoric gases with toxic mixes and flammable are required to beplaced in exhausted cabinets. C O ~ ACTION" Accept in Part.

Revise 6-3.2.1 to read as follows: 6-3.2.1 Flammables and pyrophorics with toxic mixes shall be

placed in exhausted noncombustible cabinets and shall be provided with gas monitoring and automatic shutdown of the gas supply upon a high level alarm. Exhaus t ventilation shall be continuous and in accordance with 6-3.1 (d). COMMtIT~g STATEMENT: Clarification of submitted text.

(Log # 115) 318- 179- (6-3.2.1): Accept SUBMrrTER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 6-3.2.1 Exception:

"Exception: Lecture cylinders in ion implanters SUBSTANTIATION: There no technical reason that implanter source bottles should be exempt from any requirement in this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 80) 318- 180- (6-3.2.1): Reject SUBM1TFER: J. 1L Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318.4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "automatic shutdown of the gas supply". SUBSTANTIATION: The technology of sensors is not to the point that false positives have been eliminated. If gas shutdown occurred whenever an alarm was sounded, many dollars worth of product would be sacrificed to no avail. Human verification is needed.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTE~ STATEMENT: Experience of the industry shows that detection technology is reliable and is being used.

(LOg # 81) 318- 181 - (6-3.2.1): Accept in Principle SuBMrlq'F.J~ J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 3184 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "or activated automatically by gas detection". SUBSTANTIATION: Exhaust must be continuous to assure proper gas detection and to provide a safe environment around hazardous cylinders. Without exhaust flow, sensor capability would be too dependent on someone knowing where to place the sensor. If the sensor were placed low (for chlorine, for example), the alarm would clear when the exhaust came on even though the leak was still

esent` MMITTEE ACTION. Accept in Principle.

COMMITrEE STATEMENT. See proposal 318-178 (Log #116.)

(Log # 157) 318- 182- (6-3.2.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Terry Malone),, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite paragraph as two separate sections that read:

6-3.2.1 Hazardous chemical gases in use shall be contained in exhausted gas cabinets constructed of not less than 14 gage steel. Cabinets shall have self-closing doors which latch. Doors shall have self-closing, latching access port or windows.

Exception: Hazardous chemical gases may be installed in tools such as Ion Implanters which have gasboxes or enclosures built into them.

6-3.2.2 When hazardous chemical gases havinga health hazard rating of 3 or 4 are used or dispensed and the physiological ~ . ~ properties of the gas are higher than the Threshold Limit Value , continuous, gas mmltorin, tg.shall be. provided. Flammable gases shall be momtored as prov~dedm secuon 2-2.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The original text provides no guidance as to what constitutes an acceptable gas cabinet. The recommended text provides guidance reflecting the minimum currently in use in the semiconductor industry. The exception has been reworded to accommodate tools other than Ion Implanters which house gas cylinders. The option to have exhaust activated on gas detection has been deleted. The original text required monitoring of all flammable and toxic gases which is excessive. Monitoring the most hazardous materials is appropriate. Exhaust is a necessary and appropriate control for aU hazardous chemical gases. Finally, the monitoring requirement has been placed in its own

section. Wording has been changed to address the toxics which need monitoring and exclude those that do not. These changes are consistent with the provision of Uniform Fire Code Article 51 pertaining to the same material. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

Refer to proposal 318-178 (Log #116) which calls for a noncombustible construction of cabinet. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the cabinet is to prevent toxic release and control concentrations of flammable or toxic releases. This standard does not intend to provide structural design requirements for cabinets other than being noncombustible. An explosion as a result of pyrophoric or flammable concentrations could not be contained within an ordinary practical cabinet, therefore design criteria for cabinets has little bearing on explosion containment. -Other features of cabinets such as self closing-access are called for in other regional codes as you pointed out.

(Log # 82) 318- 183. (6-$.2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "and shut down the gas supply". SUBSTANTIATION: The technology of sensors is not to the point that false positives have been eliminated. If gas shutdown occurred whenever an alarm was sounded, many dollars worth of product would be sacrificed to no avail. Human verification is needed. COMMFrTFAg ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Experience of the industry shows that detection technology is reliable and is being used.

4 2

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

(Log # 158) 318- 184 - (6-8.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITrE~ Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite paragraph to read:

6-S.2.2 Hazardous chemical gas cabinets shall be operated at a negative pressure relative to the surrounding area. The average velocity of the air flow when measured at the face of the cabinet access port shall be 200 feet per minute (fpm) with a minimum of 150 fpmat any point of the access port. SUBSTANTIATION: The original text combines several require- menus together. The proposedtext provides a performance standard for the gas c/tbinet exhaust- A separate comment has been submitted for Section 6-2.2.2 which addresses providing exhausted enclosures for nonwelded fitting and components in the gas system. Separate comments have also been submitted to address gas monitoring concerns; one for Section 2-2.2 re~ardin~ flammable gas monitoring, and one for Section 6-3.2.1 covenng tome gas monitor- in~. This is consistent with Uniform Fire Code Article 51 on this suoject- COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle,

See proposal 318-178 (Log #I16.) COMMITTEE STATEMENT. 1. Proposed for wrong paragraph.

2. Concern is flammable gases and not toxics. 3. Must specify at neck of bottle and not at access port.

(Log # 160) 818-187 - (6-8.6): Accept in Principle SUBM1TYEIh Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite paragraph to read:

6-8.8 Low pressure bulk gas systems shall not be used as the purge source for hazardous chemical gas cylinder purge panels, or for other high pressure gas manifolds or assemblies. Low pressure bulk gas systems may be used as the purge source for low pressure jungles m tools. Low pressure bulk gas systems may be used as source to operate a venmri valve in hazardous chermcal gas cylinder purge panels. SUBSTANTIATION: The clear intent of the original text is to ensure house gas systems are not used as the purge source for cylinder purge panels. As worded it prohibits usfng the house system for low pressure tooljungies and for driving venturi valves in cylinderpurge panels. These are both current safe practices in semiconductor cieanrooms, the new text accomplishes the original intent and accommodates existing safe practices. COMMrrIT, EACTION: Acceptin Principle. Add the following as 6-2.2.11: 6-2.2.11 Low pressure bulk gas systems shall not be used as the

purge source for hazardous gas cylinder purge panels. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Limits the potential cross contamination.

(LOg # 8~) 318- 185 - (6-3.2.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITIT, R: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "continuous monitoring in the area for the lower explosive limit and" SUBSTANTIATION: It is not reasonable to expect to have sufficient monitors in place to monitor all gases which may be explosive. A fire watch and good ventilation should suffice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 6-8.2.4 to read as follows: 6-3.2.4 Welding and other activities that may produce ignition shall

be minimized in areas where there is potential ~lammahle gas release. It shall be allowed only through a special internal permit procedure that calls for monitoring in the area for 20 percent of the lower explosive limit and a fire watch and ventilation to reduce the potential of explosive concentrations. COMbt tT t t~ STATEMENT: Clarification.

( L o g # 84) 318- 188- (64): Accept in Principle SUBMrrTER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Replace with "Hazardous Gases - Miscella- neous ~ SUBSTANTIATION: The previous name is not indicative of what this section contains. COMM1TI'EEACTION: Accept in Principle.

6~tplace 6-4 and 64.1 with the following: Training. Operators working with hazardous gases and

handling hazardous compressed and liquified gas containers shall be trained for that function. Training shall be provided annually.

Delete 64.2. COMMITFF£ STATEMENT: Clarification.

(LOg # 159) 318-186 - (6-8.5): Accept in Part in Principle SUBMrrrER: Terry Maloney, Advanced Micro Devices COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite text to read:

6-8.5 Hazardous chemical gas cylinder purge panels shall be provided with dedicated purge gas cylinders. Only purge panels serving gases ofidenrical species may share a purge cylinder. Unless required to maintain process purity, only inert gases shall he used as pur£e' R a ~ L e s. ~;Lrl]ST'ANTIATION • The intent of the original text is tO prevent harmful dangerous reactions which could occur from a purge source contaminated through back flow or diffusion if the sourc- e were used for incompatible gases. It is also clearly directed at high pressure sources, the gas cylinder purge panels. As worded it would aLso apply to tooljlungles which is neither necessary, nor appropriate. The recommended text places the focus on the cylinder purge panels and provides a clearer description of the degree of compatibility necessary to share a pur~e cylinder. A great number of gases are storage comparible, but mixing incompatible. Potential for confusion is diminished with the recommended text. The recommended text also provides guidance on suitable gases for purging. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part in Principle. Add the following as a new 6-2.2.10: 6-2.2.10 Hazardous gas cylinder purge panels shall be provided

with dedicated purge gas cylinders. Only purge panels serving compatible gases shall=be permitted to share a purge cylinder. Also delete existing 6-8.5.

COMMITIT.,E STATEMENT: The proposed text was editorially revised and relocated to 6-2.2.10.

(Log # 41) 318- 189 - (64): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: The rifle, *Heat Energy Sources" does not

.p~ear to be related to the two requirements in Articles 64.1 and 6-

SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITIT.,E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-188 (LOg #84.)

(Log # 85) 318- 190 - (6-4.1): Accept in Principle S U B ~ J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

"...trained for that function." Refresher training must be provided twice per year.

SUBSTANTIATION: A general statement regarding training is too nonspecific to assure that the training is both up to date and pertinent to current situations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-188 (Log #84.)

(Log # 214) 318-191. (6.4.1, 6-4.2): Accept in Prindple SUBMITrFAt: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION. Should not be under *Heat Energy Sources." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. C O ~ STATEMENT: See proposal 318-188 (Log #84.)

4 3

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

(Log # 42) 318- 192 - (6-4.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM C O ~ ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Reword Article 6-4.2. The intent of this requirement is unclear. S ~ A N T I A T I O N : The relationship between hazardous gases and NFPA 70 is unclear. There is a reIationship, however, between flammable gases and NTPA 70, Article 500. Was the word ~am- rouble" intended in lieu of "hazardous" or was the Committee thinking about electrical heating, as possibly conveyed by the Section fl0e, "Heat Energy Sources?" COMMrrrEE ACTIONz Reject. COMMITrEg STATEMENT: See proposal 818-188 (LOg #84.)

(Log # 184) 318- 193. (7-1): Accept SUBMITrEI~a CarronV. Loveth Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise ...section 7-2 through 7-9. To read with section %2 through 7-8. SUBSTANTIATION: T h e r e is no 7-9 listed after 7-8 in the standard. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 132) 818-194. (7-1): Accept in Principle SUBMrITER: W. R. Gartman, SEMATECH COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revised paragraph to read:

General. Production and Support Equipment shall be designed to comply with SEMI Standard $2-91 Product Safety Guideline and designed and installed in accordance with Section 72D2 through 7-9. SUBSTANTIATION: The SEMI Standard $2-91 is a complementary standard to 318. There are several sections in Chapter 7 which are the same as the SEMI Standard. The SEMI Standard was designed to provide the minimum safety to all equipment installed in cleanrooms. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following text as a new A-7-1: A-7-1 Production and Support Equipment may be designed to

comply with SEMI Standard S2-91Product Safety Guideline and designed and installed in accordance with Section 7-2 through 7-9. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The material is appropriate as guidance and is therefore provided as appendix text.

(Log # 87) 318-197 - (7-2.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITYER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows:

"A fault signal from the monitoring equipment shall automatically bring the tool to a standby mode." SUBSTANTIATION: The technology of sensors is not to the point that false positives have been eliminated. If gas shutdown occurred whenever an alarm was sounded, many dollars worth of product would be sacrificed to no avail. Human verification is needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 7-2.4 to read as follows: 7-2.4 Tools utilizing hazardous chemicals shall be designed to

accept inputs from monitoring equipment. A alarm signal from the monitoring equipment shall automatically stop flow ofbazardous chemicals to the tool. COMMrlWEE STATEMENT: Clarification.

(Log # 216) 318-198 - (7-2.4): Reject SUBM1TIT.R: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete. SUBSTANTIATION: The concept of monitoring for hazardous chemicals is too complex to be covered by this one requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The provision does not require monitoring. The Committee agrees that the problems are complex, however, the committee wishes to encourage tool vendors to examine their equipment in light of achieving the objective of paragraph 7-2.4. I f some such statement is not made there is nothing to motivate vendors to do a better job.

(Log # 217) 318- 199 - (7-2.5): Accept in Principle SUBM1TrER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "or permit restart" from this requirement. SUBSTANTIATION: Automatic restart is not desirable. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change *or" to "and". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Changing "or" to *and" would not permit automatic restart.

(Log # 215) 318-195- (7-2.1): Reject SUBMrrfER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION: As written, 7-2.1 affects ALL production and support equl. pnlent yet . . . . does not sasay what is interlocked (doors, panes, swRches, momtors, etc.). This reqmrement needs qualifiers to cle _arly define under what conditions are interlocks to be provided and where they are to be placed. COMMITTEE ACTION: -Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is much variability in tool design and one cannot be specific. The obvious intent as to where interlocks would be required is contained in Section 1.2. If any portion of a specific tool would create a hazard because of the absence of an interlock at a specific point, then an interlock should be provided at that location.

(Log # 86) 818- 196 - (7-2.2): Reject SUBMrITER~ J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "and audible". SUBSTANTIATION: Audible alarms are common in a cleanroom and proliferation of alarm tones creates confusion and ultimately to a less safe environment. CoMMrrYF.E ACTION: Reject. C O ~ STATEMENT: The Committee agrees that there may be too many alarms in cleanrooms, but it s felt necessary to alert personal as much as possible if an interlock is breached.

(Log # 88) S18- 200 - (7-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMrrrER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change "50 volts" to "200 volts'. SUBSTANTIATION: It would be ludicrous to expect every microscope in the cleanroom to carry a warning label. COMMITTEE ALTFION: Accept in Principle. Delete 7-3.1 and renumber accordingly.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Labeling is not a fire protection issue in this standard.

(Log # 124) 318- 201 - (7-3.5): Reject SUBMrITER: J. IL Harmon, Delco Electronic G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following text:

~New work stations shall not be capable of being energized without adequate exhaust ventilation." SUBSTANTIATION: The cost of equipping all existing systems to this level would be prohibitive. COMMrIWEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA 318 is not intended to be retroactive.

4 4

N F P A 318 - - F 9 1 T C D

(LOg # 89) 318- 202 - (7-3.8): Reject SUBMITTER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows:

"Work stations shall not be capable of being energized without adequate exhaust ventilation." SUBSTANTIATION: The cost of equipping all existing systems to this level would be prohibitive. COMMITTEE ACTION'Reject. COMMrrrEE STATEMENT. See proposal 318-207 (LOg #24.)

(Log # 218) 318- 208 - (7-8.8): Accept in Principle SUBMI'rrE~ Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 818-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete last sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement as written affects all work stations regardless of the level of hazard or lack of hazard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Make last sentence into 7-S.3.L Insert "using flammable chemicals" after "stations"

COMMrrrF_~ STATEMENT: The definition of work station includes hazardous chemicals.

Limited requirement to flammable chemicals.

(Log # 112) 318- 204- (7-4.1): Reject SUBMrrTER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Section 7-4.1:

7-4.1 Electric immersion heaters that are U.L. listed and equipped with the safeguards listed in 7-4.1.2 may be used. Delete the exception.

SUBSTANTIATrON: As a manufacturer of electric immersion heaters, and of importance to the Committee on Cleanrooms, not a current supplier to the wet bench manufacturers, we feel that NFPA 318, Stand-ai-d for the Protection of Cleanrooms is overly restrictive in selectively prohibiting the use of electric immersion heaters paragraph 7-4.1.

We are acutely aware of the fire hazard associated with the misapplication of electric immersion heaters. We are involved in numerous lawsuits limiting our liability in connection with f res allegedly started by electric immersionheaters.

We are one of the few electric immersion heater manufacturers that have secured U.L. listing and CSA approval. We have mounted a campaign at our own expense to provide heater safety data to our customers through a safety video tape, Matches Don't Start Fires. We have contributed to the development of safety standards, such as the proposed SEMI Standard, Guideline for Heated Chemical Bath Safety, document 1505C. We have spent development dollars to provide a new, failsafe, U.L.

listed, thermal liquid level cut-off switch to overcome many of the deficiencies of exasting level sensing devices and provide p.ositive shut-offin the event of low liquid leveh (or instrument failure) - Exhibit 1. We are spending additional R & D dollars to develop an industrial line of PTCR heaters which, by their nature, have serf limiting, auto stabilizing temperatures which can be set below the ignition point of many flammable materials. (Abstract or our research project included, exhibit 2)

We feel that these efforts prove that a conscientious supplier to industry can and does self Police it's products without punitive or needlessly restrictive standards.

While rewording NFPA 318 to permit properly selected, installed and maintained electric immersion heaters will not benefit Process Technology directly', it will benefit the science of electric heating and industry at large by providing superior products for the future.

Plastic and plastic-linedtanks are used extensively in manufacture of circuit boards and in general metal finishing. Most of the treatment chemistry contained in these tanks must be heated to promote chemical activity. If equipped with electric immersion heaters, the heater can become an ignition source under low liquid level conditions. From 1980 through 1984, 34 losses occurred involving plastic tanks of which 65 percent involved the electric immersion heater.

We are a manufacturer of industrial electric immersion heaters for the electroplating and chemical industry. Most of our heaters use electrical resistance wire to produce heat energy. They very nature of electric resistance wire results in the generation of ever increasing temperatures as the heaters heat dissipating properties are reduced

as in the event of dirt build-up or change of heated media...liquid to air. The over temperatures generated cause fire and resultant property losses causing many customers to seek alternatives to electric heat.

We manufacture an electric immersion heater using a PTC (Positive Resistance Coefficient Ferroelectric) device instead of resistance wire. This device is commercially available and is used in glue guns, small room heaters ( 'ceramic heaters ') and in automo- tive products. The self limiting temperature characteristics of this device are extremely attractive since the limiting temperature can be designed below the ignition temperature of most materials contacting the heater. Unfortunately, a major disadvantage of this device is the high electrical inrush current that occurs when the device is energized.

This inrush effectively limits the useful power of PTC heaters to less than 2,000 watts. While this is adequate for glue guns, small space heaters, etc., it is totally inadequate for industrial applications which typically begin at 3,000 watts and usually peak at 25,000 to S0,000 watts. Which brings us to the purpose of our Ohio Edision Research Fund request.

It is our intention to pursue synthesis n f a custom PTC formulation that will limit or eliminate the apparent inrush current. This will be done by investigating composition of PTC ceramics with regard to grain size, impurity content and dopants. Using available studies and materials, new formulations will be projected and synthesized. Laboratory samples will be evaluated in pilot plant simulations at our facility. Successful synthesized materials will be evaluated with regard to "cost of manufacture" and overall cost of finished heater assemblies.

The success of this project will have a direct effect on the continued viability of electric hea t in the chemical process industry. Compa- nies such as Bendix Aerospace, NationaI Semiconductor and others who have abandoned electric immersion heating because of fire losses can reconsider these heaters in light of the self temperature limiting aspects of PTC heaters.

References: Section II Market Information - Page IV-4 C & D Case Western Reserve Proposal - Page iii, 2 thru 19 Loss Prevention Data Sheet - 7-6 Factory Mutual Corp. US Patent #4,972,067 Manufacturer's Data - Various (Exhibit I on following page.)

COMMIIIJ~E ACTION.* ~Re]ect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT. There is a fire hazard in combustible tools and the paragraph has been modified in proposal 818-206 (Log #16) to change the restriction to these tools as a minimum.

(Log # 4S) 318- 205 - (7-4.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: The term "bonded heater," in the Exception, needs to be clarified. SUBSTANTIATION: The term ~onded heater" is nowhere defined in the document. COMMrrrEE ACTION" Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT. See proposal 318-206 (Log #16).

(Log # 16) 318- 206. (7-4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITrEI~ RobertJ. Pearce,Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO. 318-4 RECOMMENDATION. Delete entire paragraph and substitute "7- 4.1 Electrical hot pots and electrical immersion heater shall not be used at combustible work stations or work stadons using combustible or flammable liquids in clean rooms." SUBSTANTIATION: Combustible work stations using electrical immersion heaters has been the primary cause of fires in clean rooms. It is appropriate to prohibit the use of heaters where in contact with combustible wet stations or handling combustible or flammable liquids. This would allow the use for water solutions at non-combusuble work stations where there hasn' t been a history of losses. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Delete 7-4.2 and change 7-4.1 to: "Electric immersion heaters and hot plates shall not be used in

combustible tools or tools using combustible or flammable liquids." Exception: Stand-alone elecmc water heaters external to combustible wet stations, or bonded heaters shall be permitted.

4 5

TC

cor ros ion b0, r r ler

PROBE

ALARM (OUTPUT) SVITCHING IO ALARMS, INTERLOCKS, e.tc iI +

POWER MONITOR

G ) o v e r / u n d e r vot~age

b ) o v e r / u n d e r curren.t

c)con.trot toss

8E~JFj RE3_k

o)ro.te oF rlse b)over tlml.t c)open T/C d)reverse T/C

INPUT POVER

TRF3]~EU~.R

THERMAL LEVEL CONTROL = LOGIC DIAGRAM (. pa.ten.t # 4.s~s, s30) The Thermot Lever Con.trot monl.tors sotu.tlon revers u.til, lzlng 0 |ow wG.t~ densr ty sheo.thed IMMersion hea. te r as G p robe wrth a senso r dei:ec.tlng e r t h e r .the ra . te o~' su r?ace . teMpero ' ture r i se o r opera.t ins s u r f a c e . teMpera ' ture. The Thermal. Level. Con' t roUer Is equipped Wl'th redundan.t sa~ee.ty devices which p rov ide maximum s e c u r r t y ~'or "those des i rous o~ e "the ut.tlmo.te In |ow tevet de.tec.tlon. The PFA sheo'l:h perMll.ts Ins.taU, O,.tlon In OI.MoS.t any CheMllS.try. The con.trot logic Moni.torsn

Incoming power Car < lOP VAC & > 140 MAC heo±er power revers be.tween 0.1;~ ~ 0.1G aMpS ±empero±ure sensor open (broken) or shor.ted Lr,~=,d [ . . . . ±emperoture over prese± tlml.t I-+- -'t~'a~--- . . . . . . I ,~,t temperolure ro±e o¢ rise over prese± (ImI.t ~-PR~cF~sS TECHNOLOGY, INC con±rot Caiture 17010 LINDSAY DRIVE MENTOI~ nHIO____~ h e o + . t e r F o + l t u r e ~__~_-__~DJR + [o ,o I~- i-]~i~--v/i :

Any Monitored ~eunc±ion ±ho± f'oUs ou± o~ e prese. t levers ~."_~.~ t 1/90 I '*~_ . . . . | |= '~ _L_ .. r e s u t ± s In on o|orr~ condl±lon. ~ STANDARD A eu±ec±ic ?use moun±ed on ±he p r o b e su r?ece p rovdes l THERMAL LEVEL Ci]NTROL e ?ell se?e ?eo~cure In ±he even± o~ con±ro& £oiture. i LDGIC nlAGRAN

ba

Oo

I

(3

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

COMMYFFEE STATEMENT: Hot pots are not immersion heaters and don't have the extensive track record of fires that immersion heaters do.

(Log # 24) 318- 207 - (7-4.1): Reject SUBMYFrER: Tom Richards, Process Technology Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text.

7-4.1 Electric immersion heaters shall be selected and installed in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electric Code and UL 499, Electric Heating Appliances; Immersion Type Liquid Heaters, Industrial (KQGV). SUBSTANTIATION: Apparently poor selection, installation and maintenance practices have necessltated the summary exclusion of electric immersion heaters from cleanrooms. We feel that this exclusion is not in the best interests of the industry.

See Comment 318-204 (LOg #I 12) for additional substantiation. COMMITIT, E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is a fire hazard in combustible tools and the paragraph has been modified in proposal 318-206 (Log #16) to change the restriction to these tools as a minimum.

(Log # 90) 318- 208 - (7-4.1.4): Reject SUBMITTER: J. 17,. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: It is unrealistic to expect that liquid level sensors be checked on a weekly basis. Not all systems have sensors which are readily removed from the bath as indicated. COMMITrEE ACTION: See proposal 318-209 (Log #219.)

(Log # 219) 318- 209. (7.4.1.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITIT, R: Mike May, AdvancedMicro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change "weekly" to "per Manufacturer's recommendations'. SUBSTANTIATION: Performance vs design. COMMrI-t~;E ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 74.1.4 to read as follows: 7-4.1.4* Liquid level sensors shall be tested after maintenance but

at least monthly. COMMITIT_.E STATEMF, NT: Monthly (or after maintenance) seemed more reasonable.

(Log # 230) 318- 210 - (7.4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Eugene L. Dimond, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION:: This statement is vague and ina]?propriate. The author appears to be referencing a particular eqmpment type and its proximity to flammables. COMMYFFEE ACTION: Reject. COM3~i-t ~.R STATEMENT: 1. The provision is not vague.

2. The provision is not inappropriate. S. The Committee is concernedabout proximity. 4. The provision has nothing to do with flammables.

(Log # 91) 318- 211 - (7-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G.M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph would eliminate processing capabilities in virtually all universities in the country, i'~ot realistic. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 18) S18- 212 - (7-4.2): Reject SUBM1TrER: Dean Heinz, University of Florida COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Hot plates shall not be used in deanrooms unless manufactured to be explosion proof and hardware safety devices that prevent operation above 100°C." SUBSTANTIATION: Sample preparation and substate mounting using molecular beam epitaxy, requires indium or gallium bonding between the sample andsample holder, in some cases. It is necessary to heat the sample holder on a hot plate, in a cleanroom environment, to allow the indium or gallium metal to flow for proper bonding. Elimination of hot plates completelywouid not allow for specific applications as noted. COMMYFrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMYrTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-206 (Log #16.)

(Log # 104) 318- 213 - (7-5): Reject SUBMFFrER: L H. Greuling, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change the word "tool" to "work station'. SUBSTANTIATION: Many tools contain some combustible parts. The use of combustible work stations clarifies the intent of the section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Tool is appropriate (See definition of Tool).

(Log # 92) 318- 214 - (7-5): Reject SUBMrFrER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following text:

~I'oois which use flammable materials shall be of noncombustible construction." SUBSTANTIATION: When dealing with acids, any portion of a tool which is constructed with ferrous materials will not last very long, and virtually all quality semiconductor acid process stations are made completely of plastics. This paragraph as it stands is neither realistic nor desirable. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMFFFEE STATEMENT: The concern is the combustibility of the tool.

(Log # 93) 318- 215 - (7-6.2.1): Accept in Principle $UBMI1WER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add "discharge into combustible exhaust ~uBtem ductwork."

STANTIATION: It is neither realistic nor desirable to require burn boxes for all facility designs. Some facilities have adequate and safe methods of dealing with flammable and pyrophoric gases without the use of burn boxes. The use of noncombustible ductwork in these applications is realistic. COMMrrlT, EACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 7-6.2.1 to read as follows: 7-6.2.1" Vacuum pumps that handle flammable gases in excess of

20 percent of LFL shall discharge into a control device to treat the flammable gases from the air stream prior to discharge into exhaust system ductwork. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: New wording requires discharge into control devices. Only when there is a flammable mixture.

(Log # 94) 318- 216- (7-6.2.2): Accept SUBMHTER: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Change "oxygen shall not use combustible pump oils" and eliminate the excepuon. SUBSTANTIATION: Excessive and restrictive wording. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

4 7

N F P A 318 ~ F91 T CD

(LOg # 233) 518- 217 - (7-6.2.2 Exception No. 2 (New)): Reject SUBMITI3ER: W. E. Hemp, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 2: Inert-ballasted vacuum pumps. SUBSTANTIATION: Some vacuum pumps handling flammable gases also handle corrosives that chemically react with noncombustible pump oils. A continuous nitrogen purge or other inert ballast can ensure a nonflammable atmosphere in me vacuum pump exhaust. COMMITrF~ ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Ballast only covers oil reservoirs underneath, not compressor section, so still an exposure 0 2 and oil.

(Log # 95) 318- 218 - (7-7.1): Accept in Principle SUBMI'FrFaR: J. R. Harmon, Delco Electronics G. M. Hughes COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION" Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: Serves no added value beyond what is specified in 6-3.1 (d), and creates a calculation nightmare (is this vertical cross section or horizontal cross section, etc). If it must stay, base it on volume not area; at least that makes some sense. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise %7.1 to read as follows: %7.1 Hazardous gas piping, controls, and valves that are internal to

tools using hazardous gases shall be contained within a noncombustible enclosure that is exhausted at a minimum airflow of 100 CFM per sq ft (.047 m3/S PER.09 m 2 of average transverse cross-sectional area of the enclosure. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial correction and clarification.

In support of the systems approach the committee define what the historical problems have been in clean rooms. This provided the substance for the detection and protection that would be required by this standard. The 910 committee used to their advantage what is called the L Curve. This is a graphic yet analytical way to illustrate the probability of detectin]g and extinguishing a fire in a library. Meaning if you have to walt for a fireman to use a fire hose the probability of loosing your books is 98%. What we learned from this was in a semiconductor clean room we want to ensure a 98% probability the fire. will. be limited, to one p.rocess tool ffyou detect and control (exunguxsh) a fire m the first minute.

What is gained from this is that the traditional approach of sprinklers and fire rated construction do not protect against a catastrophic f re . Catastrophic being defined as the loss of product, process tools that now have values in excess of $1,000,000, in addition to the clean being contaminated with smoke. This standard attempted to provide direction that will maJaa~e the fire at the place or origin and the facility as a lost resort. Looking at the leading edge air flow configurations mow being used in clean rooms, it makes even more sense to address the potential for fire at the equipment (hazard) level, not at the facility level alone.

The committee reviewed all of the available fire loss data that was provided by insurance companies, NFPA, and semiconductor manufactures. The three areas that appeared to be problematic were as follows:

43% of fires involved fiammable/pyrophoric gases. 33% of fires involved electrical related issues

• 15% of fires involve immersion heaters /hot plates SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of this material in the appendix will give the reader of this standard both an historical prospective as well as an understanding of the methodology the committee used in writing the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMFrFEE STATEMENT: Existing is adequate. Editorially change "was attempted" in lieu of "issued".

(Log # 220) 318- 219 - (7-7.1): Reject SUBMrrTEI~ Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite to define performance desired. SUBSTANTIATION: As written the requirement will freeze technology and may not control all hazards presented by all gases. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M r I - I ~ STATEMENT: The provision does provide a performance requirement. The concensus of the committee is that this flow rate provides adequate control of ail known exposures, exhausted sut~cient to control the hazard at point of generation.

(Log # 221) 318- 220 - (7-8): Accept in Principle SUBMI'ITER: Mike May, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete. SUBSTANTIATION: The only exhaust requirement under Chapter 5 is for room exhaust (1CFM/ftz). COMMITrKE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 7-8 to read as follows: 7-8 All tools using flammable or combustible chemicals shall be

provided with exhaust to reduce the concentration of flammable gases and vapors to less than 20 percent of the LFL. COMMrl- t£E STATEMENT: Chapter 5 did not address the issue and therefore the committee corrected omission of criteria.

(Log # 44) 318- 2 2 2 - (A-3-5.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Article ,4.-3-5.2 to read as follows:

A-3-5.2 Emergency power systems are not intended to keep production equipment operating except in limited cases. When electrical utility power in a facility fails, production equipment may likely shut down, thereby reducing the amount of hazardous fumes transported in the fume exhaust duct system. SUBSTANTIATION: The original text, written as an absolutely positive statement, may not always be true, and, therefore, is incorrect.

Refer also to comment submitted on Article 3-5.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Current wording is not absolute.

(Log # 187) 318- 223 - (A-5-1.1 and 5-1.1): Accept SUBMrITER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "A-5-1.1" and "*" after 5-1.1. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 329 is already listed under 5-1.1, why is this one standard singled out that it should be seen for additional info? COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 111) 318- 221 - (A-l-2): Reject SUBMITrER: Dennis H. Collins, Intel Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Replace Appendix Section A-1-2 with the following information:

The committee is trying to define the f r e related risks to clean rooms, their occupants and equipment (product), NFPA 910, Recommended Practices for the Protection of Library Collections was used as a model. A systems approach was used to develop the appropriate detection and control methods for clean rooms. NFPA 550, Fire Safety Concepts Tree was the analytical systems approach used in this case.

(Log # 228) 318. 224 - (A-6.3.1 (d)): Accept in Principle SUBMrITER: Eugene L. Dimond, AT&T Bell Laboratories COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION, Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph appears to be addressing a very particular gas cabinet s,,e, comlguration, and contained material. As written, it even applies to- lecture bottles and for instance, 5% pho.sphine mixes. The author 's view is too narrow and would impose mlssapplications and unnecessary costs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Replace A-6-3.1 (d) with the following: "Exhaust air flow should be calculated by multiplying 200 FPM by

the cross sectional volume of the cabinet.

4 8


COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Provides the methodology for determining the flow rate,

(Log # 45) 318- 225 - (A-6-3.5): Accept in Principle SUBM1TrER: Dennis Ki/~on, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add Article A-6-3.5 to read as follows: A-6-3.5 Except where several process gas cylinders are manifolded,

it is recommended that a separate purge gas cylinder be provided for each hazardous gas cylinder. SUBSTANTIATION: Improved safety. COMMrlTEEACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See proposal 318-186 (Log #159.)

(Log # 46) 318- 226- (A-7-1): Accept SUBMITFER: Dennis Kir~n, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: $18-4 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the second paragraph under Article A-7-1, Administration, to read as follows:

"Owners should perform physical inspection of tools on receipt to insure that the tool is in conformance with their design/revlew documents." SUBSTANTIATION: It is ambiguous from the original text whose requirements are referred to. COMMITrF.~ ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 47) 318- 227 - (A-7-1): Reject SUBM1TTER: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 318-4 RECOMMENDATION: Is "facilitizing" (3rd paragraph under Administration) a real word? SUBSTANTIATION: Self-apparent. COMMI'ITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term is appropriate.

(Log#4S) 318-228- (A-7-1): Acceptin Principle SUBMITIT.R: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 518-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the paragraph which reads:

"Plans and specifications for tools, prior to their fabrication or use or both should be reviewed and signed by a trained employee or independent third party using the requirements in this chapter." SUBSTANTIATION: The paragraph recommended for deletion b essentially the same as an earlierparagraph which reads: Design documents for custom made tool-s prior to their fabrication or use or both should be submitted for review and signed by a qualified employee or independent third party using the guidelines in this chapter and its appendix. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete the foilowingparagraph from A-7-'I: "Design documents for custom made tools prior to their fabrication

or use or both should be submitted for review and sigt~ed by a qualified employee or independent third party using the guidelines in this chapter and its appendix. COMMrrIT, E STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with the submitter but felt it was more appropriate to delete the first paragraph.

(Log # 49) $18- 229 - (Ao7-6.1): Reject SUBMtvrr.;R: Dennis Kirson, Albuquerque, NM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO" $18-4 RECOMMENDATION. Revise Article A-7-6.1 to read as follows: A-7-6.1 Such devices may be traps, condev.~rs, dembters, or

coalescing Fdters. However, it i~ preferable to use noncombustible oils or dry type pumps not requiring lubricant& SUBSTANTIATION: The revised wording is more assertive and a more positive recommendation. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I ' r ~ E STATEMENT: The submitter proposed an editorial correction that the committee felt did not clarify the paragraph.

49

N F P A 318 ~ F91 T C D

The following draft of NFPA 318-1001 incorporates the Committee Actions on the Public Comments which make up the Technical committee Documentation and which appear on the preceding pages. The draft is presented only as an aid to the reviewer.

NFPA 818

Standard for the Protection of Cleanroon~

1991 Edition

NOTICE: An asterisk (*) following the number or letter designat- ing a paragraph indicates explanatory material for that paragraph in Appendix A.

Information on referenced publications can be found in Chapter 8 and Appendix C.

Chapter I General

1.1 Scope. This standard applies to all semiconductor facilities containing what is herein defined as a cleanroom or dean zone or both.

1-2" Purpose. This standard is intended to provide reasonable safeguards for the protection of facilities containing cleanrooms from fire and related hazards. These safeguards are intended to provide protection against injury, life loss, and property damage.

1-3 Definitions.

Aece~ Floor System. An assembly consisting of panels mounted on pedestah . . . . . . to provide an under-floor space for the mstaUations of mechanical, electrical commurncauon, or s~mllar systems or to serve as an air-supply or return-air plenum.

Approved. Acceptable to the "authority having jurisdiction."

NOTE: The National Fire Protection Association does not approve, inspect, or certify any installations, procedures, equipment or materials; nor does it approve or evaluate testing laboratories. In determining the acceptability of installations or procedures, equipment, or materials, the authority having jurisdiction may base acceptance on compliance with NFPA or other appropriate standards. In the absence of such standards, said authority may require evidence of proper installation, procedure, or use. The authority having jurisdiction may also refer to the listings or labeling practices of an organization concerned with product evaluations which is in a position to determine compliance with appropriate standards for the current production of listed items.

Authority Having Jurisdiction. The "authority having jurisdiction" is the organization, office, or individual responsible for "approving" equipment, an installations, or a procedure.

NOTE: The phrase "authority having jurisdiction" is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner since jurisdictions and "approval" agencies vary as do their responsibilities. Where public safety is primary, the "authority having jurisdiction" may be federal, state, local or other regional department or individual such as a fire chief, fire marshal, chief o f a fire prevention bureau, labor department, health department, building official, electrical inspector, or others having statutory authority. For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representauve may be the ~authority having jurisdiction." In many circumstances, the property owner or his designated agent assumes the role of the "authority having jurisdiction ; at government installations, the commanding officer or departmental official may be the "authority havingjurisdic- uon.--

C J e ~ o o m . A room in which the concentration of airborne particles is controlled to specified limits.

Clean Zone. A defined space in which the concentration of airborne particles is controlled to specified limits.

Compressed Gas. Any material or mixture having in the container an absolute pressure exceeding 40 PSI (Pounds per square inch) at 70°F (275.8 kPa at 21.1°C) or, regardless of the pressure at 70°F (21.10C), having an absolute pressure exceeding 104 psi at 130°F (717 kPa at 54.4°C), or flammable liquid having a vapor pressure exceeding 40 psi absolute at 100°F (~75.8 kPa at 37.8°C) as determined by ASTM test D-323.

Explosion. An effect produced by the sudden violent expansion of gases, which may be accompanied by a shockwave or disruption, or both, of enclosing materials or structures. An explosion may result from: (a) chemical changes such as rapid oxidauon, deflagration or detonation, decomposition of molecules and runaway polymerization (usually detonations); or (b) physical changes (e.g., pressure tank ruptures).

Flammable Vapors. A concentration of flammable constituents in air that exceeds ten percent (10%) of its lower flammable limit (LFL).

Hazardous Chemical. Any solid, liquid, or gas that has a degree-of- hazard rating in health, flammability, or reactivity of Class 3 or 4 as ranked by NFPA 704, ldenafication of the Fire Hazards of Materials.

Interface. That place at which independent systems meet and act on or communicate with each other.

Interlock. An arrangement in which the operation of one part or mechanism automatically brings about or prevents the operation of another.

Liquid. For the purpose of this code, any material that has a fluidity greater than that of 300 penetration asphalt when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5, Test for Penetration of Bituminous Materials. When not otherwise identified, the term liquid shall mean both flammable and combustible liquids.

Combustible Liquid. A liquid having a flash point at or above lO0°F (37.80C). Combustible liquids shall be subdivided as follows:

Class II liquids shall include those having flash points at or above 100°F (37.8~C) and below 140°F (60°C).

Class IIIA liquids shall include those having flash points at or above 140°F (60°C) and below 200°F (93°C).

Class IIIB liquids shall include those having flash points at or above 200°F (g3°C). Flammable L ~ i d . A liquid having a flash point below 100°F

(37.80C) and having a vapor pressure not exceeding 40 psia (2 068 mm Hg) at 100°F (~7.8°C) shall be known as a Class I liquid.

Class I liquids shall be subdivided as follows: Class IA shall include those having flash points below 73°F

(22.80C) and having a boiling point below 100W (57.8°C)g Class IB shall include those having flash points below 73 F

(22.80C) and having a boiling point at or above 100°F (37.8°C). Class IC shall include those having flash points at or above 7SOF

(22.80C) and below 100°F (37.8°C).

Non-combustible. A material which, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors when subjected to fire or heat. Materials reported as non-combustible when tested in accordance with ASTM E 136, Standard Method of Test for Non- oombgstibility of Elementary Materials, shall be considered as noncombustible materials.

Pus Through. An enclosure installed in a wall with a door on each side that allows chemicals, production materials, equipment, and parts to be transferred from one side of a wall to the other.

o r l • l P h O r i C . A chemical with an autoignition temperature in air at ow 130°F (54.4°C).

Restricted Flow Orifice. A device located in the gas cylinder valve body that restricts the maximum flow rate to 1.06 cu ft /min (30 L/ min).

Standby Mode. A mode wherein all flow of flammable gas or liquid ceases and heaters have power removed.

Third Party. A professional through training, education and experience that can perform a compliance and hazardous analysis of process equipment in accordance with this standard.

Tool. Any device, storage container, work station, or process machine used in the cleanroom.

Work Station. A defined space or an independent principal piece of equipment using hazardous chemicals within a cleanroom or clean zone, where h specific function, a laboratory procedure, or a research activity occurs. The work station may include connected cabinets, and contain ventilation equipment, fire protection devices, sensors for gas and other hazards, electrical device-s, and other processing and scientific equipment.

50

N F P A 318 - - F 9 1 T C D

Chapter 2 Fire Protection

2-I Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems.

2-1.1 General. Wet pipe automatic sprinkler protection shall be provided throughout facilities containing cleanrooms and clean zones.

2-1.2 Automatic Sprinkler Systems.

2-1.2.1" Automatic sprinklers for cleanrooms or clean zones shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation Spr/nk/er Sysrt~r ] and shall be hyde1 ulically designed for a densi~ ~ff 0.20 gpm/ f t [8.15 ( L / M i n ) / m ] over a design area of 3000 ft (278.8 mZ).

2-1.2.2" Approved quick response sprinklers shall be utilized for sprinkler installations within downflow air streams in cleanrooms and clean zones.

2-1.2.3" Sprinklers shall be installed in gas cylinder cabinets containing flammable gases.

2-1.2.4 Automatic sprinkler protection shall be designed and installed in the plenum and interstitial space above cleanrooms in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installations oL Sprinkler Systems, for a density okf 0.20 gpnk/ft2rJ[8.15 (L/Min)/m#Z--] over a design area of 3000 ftz (278.8mZ).

2-1.2.5 All combustible exhaust ducts shall have interior automatic sprinklers when the largest interior cross sectional diameter is equal to or greater than 10 in. (25.4 cm).

Exception: Ducts approved for use without automatic sprinkler&

2-1.2.5.1" Sprinklers installed in duct systems shall be hydraulically designed to provide 0.5 ~[pm over an area derived by multiplying the distance between the sprinklers in a horizontal duct by the width of the duct. Minimum discharge shall be 20 gpm per sprinkler from the 5 hydraulically most remote sprinklers. Sprinklers shall be spaced a maximum of 20 ft aparthorizontally and 12 ft apart vertically.

2-1.2.5.2 A separate indicatingcontrol valve shall be provided for sprinklers installed in ductwork.

2-1.2.5.3" Drainage shall be provided to remove all sprinkler water discharged in ductwork.

2-1.2.5.4 Where corrosive atmospheres exist, duct sprinklers and pipe fittings shall be manufactured of corrosion resxstant materials or coated with approved materials.

2-1.2.5.5 The sprinklers shall be accessible for periodic inspection and maintenance.

2-1.2.6" Automatic sprinklers shall be provided in pass throughs used to convey combustible chemicals.

2-1.2.7" Combustible Tools.

2-1.2.7.1 When the horizontal surface of a combustible tool is obstructed from ceiling sprinkler discharge, automatic sprinkler protection shall be provided that will cover the horizontal surface of the tool.

Exception: An automatic gasants fire suppression local surface application system may be prottided as an alternative to sprinklers. Gaseous extinguishing systems shall be actuated by IR or UV/IR optical detectors. Detectors shall be tested monthly.

2-1.2.7.2 When the work station is of combustible construction, automatic sprinkler protection shall be provided in the exhaust transluon p~ece.

Exception: An automatic gasaras fire suppression interior application system may be provided as an alternative to spriiaklers.

2-1.2.7.3" When the branch exhaust ductwork is constructed of combustible material, automatic sprinkler protection shall be provided within the work station transition piece or the branch exhaust duct.

2-1.2.7.4 When the branch exhaust ductwork is subject to combustible residue build-up, regardless of the material of construction, automatic sprinkler protection shall be provided. 2-2 Alarm Systems.

2-2.1 The discharge of an automatic fire suppression system shall activate an audible fire alarm system on the premises and an audible or visual alarm at a constantly attended location.

2-2.2" Where a potential exists for flammable gas concentrations to exceed 20% of the LFL, a continuous gas detection system shall be provided.

2-2.$ Signal transmission for alarms designed to activate signals at more than one location shall be verified at each location during each test of the alarm system.

2-2.4 A manual notification system shall be provided to result in an audible alarm as in 2-2.1.

2-5 Smoke Detection.

2-5.1 A listed, self aspirated light scatterinjg or air sampling particle counter-type, smoke detector with a sensiuvity of .03-.003% per foot obscuration shall be provided in either the supply duct or return side of the cleanroom air handling system. If applied on the return side, the air shall be sampled up stream of the point where make-up air dilution occurs.

2-3.2* Smoke detection within a cleanroom air system shall result in an alarm transmission to a constantly attended location as well as a local alarm signal within the deanroom that is distinctive from both the facility evacuation alarm signal and any process equipment alarm signals in the cleanroom.

Chapter 3 Ventilation and Exhaust Systems

3-1 Air Supply and Reclreulatlon Systems.

3-1.1 The location of outside air intakes shall be chosen to avoid drawing in hazardous chemicals or products of combustion coming either from the building itself or from other structures and devices.

3-1.2 High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) and Ultra Low Penetrauon Air (ULPA) filter modules shall meet the combustibility requirements outlined in UL 586, High-Efliden~y, Particulate, AirFilter Unit&

3-1,$ Air supply and recirculation ducts, connectors and appurtenances shallbe constructed of noncombustible material such as aluminum steel or of Class 0 or Class 1 materials as tested in accordance with UL 181, Standard for Factory made air ducts and connectors.

3-1.4 Supply air ducts shall have a flame spread index of not more than 25 and a smoke-developed rating of not more than 50, when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials.

3-2 Local Exhaust System.

3-2,1 Exhaust air discharged from cleanrooms shall not be recirculated. Ducts shall lead to the outside as directly as practicable and shall discharge above the roof at a location, height, and velocity sufficient to prevent reentry of hazardous chemicals.

3-2.2 Energy conservation devices that create a risk of returning contaminants to the cleanroom air supply shall not be used in fume exhaust systems.

3-2.3 Air containing hazardous chemicals shall be conveyed through duct systems maintained at a negative pressure relative to the pressure of normally occupied areas o f the building.

Exception: Downstream of fans, scrubbers, and treatment devices.

3-2.4 Work station exhaust ventilation shall be designed to capture and exhaust contaminants generated in the station.

3-3 Local l~.~haust System Construction.

3-3.1" Ribbed flexible connectors or sections of duct in which hazardous chemicals may collect shall not be used in exhaust ductwork.

51

N F P A 318 m F91 T C D

$-$.2 The entire exhaust duct system shall be self-contained. No portions of the building shall be used as an integral part of the system.

$.&$ Two or more operations shall not be connected to the same exhaust system when the combination of the substances removed may create a fire, explosion, or chemical reaction hazard within the duct system.

$.&4 Exhaust ducts penetrating fire resistance rated construction shall be contained in an enclosure of equivalent fire-resistive construction.

$.5.5 Fire dampers shall not be installed in exhaust ducts.

$.3.6" Exhaust duct systems shall be constructed of noncombustible materials or protected with sprinklers in accordance with 2-1.2.5.

Exception: Ducts appm, ai for use without automatic rprinklers.

$-$.7 The exterior surface of nonmetallic exhaust ducts shall have a smoke developed rating of 25 or less when either the interior or exterior of the duct is exposed to fire, when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Teat of Surface Burning Characteris- tics of Building Materials,

$.4 Duct Velocities.

5.4.1 Airflow in cleanroom exhaust systems shall be designed to ensure dilution such that flammable vapors are not conveyed in the ducts, (See definition of flammable vapors.)

$-5 C~nurols.

$-5.1 The exhaust ventilation system shall have an automatic emergency back-up source of power. The emergency power shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 70, National Eba~iad Cod~.

$.5.2* The emergency power shall operate the exhaust system at not less than 50 ~ercent capacity when it is demonstrated that the level of exhaust will maintain a safe atmosphere.

$-5.$ Fire detection and alarm systems shall not be interlocked to shut down local exhaust fans automatically.

$-5.4 Dampers, where required for balancing or control of the exhaust system, shall be of a locking type.

$-5.5 The air handling system shall be designed to provide smoke exhaust, or a dedicated smoke control system shall be provided.

Exception No. 1: Where contamination within the deanroom is limited and recirculation will not affect adjoining areas, the above is not required. Exception No. 2: Where the cleanroom is not Class 1000 or cleaner as defined in Federal Standard 209D, Cleanroom and Wont Station Require morn, Controlled Environment, the above is not required. Exception No. 3: Where the fume exhaust system is capable of smohe removal or preventing smohe migration, the above is not required.

$-5.6 A manually operated remote switch (switches) to shut off the affected areas of the cleanroom air recircuiation system(s) shall be provided at an approved location (s).

Chapter 4 Construction

4-1" Cleanrooms rated Class 100 in accordance with Federal Standard 209D, Cleanroom and Work Station Requirements, Controlled Environmen~ or cleaner or cleanrooms having clean zones rated Class 100 or cleaner, shall have approved, noncombustible components for walls, floors, ceilings, and partitions.

4-2 Cleanrooms shall be separated from adjacent occupancies by 1- hr fire rated, noncombustible construction.

Cleanroom access floors shall be designed to resist a force of 0.5 G magnitude in seismic zones 1, 2, and 3 depicted in Figure 4-3.

~lJrce--Insur~lce Services ofr~lB

EARTHQUAKE ZONES

l - - M a x i m u m potential for earthquake damage 3--Slight potential 2--Reasonable potential 4 and 5--Earthquake protection not required

Figure 4-3 Sefiemle Map.

5 2


Chapter 50aemical Storage and Handling

5-1 Hazardous Chemicals.

5-1.1 Storage and handling of hazardous chemicals shall comply with applicable NFPA standards, including the following:

NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 1990 edition. NFPA 33, Spray Application Using Flammable and Combustible Liquids,

1989 edition. NFPA 43A, Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers, 1990 edition. NFPA 43B, Storage of O~gani¢ Peroxide Formulations, 1986 edition. NFPA 68, Guide for Venting of Deflagrations, 1988 edition. NFPA 70, NationalElectncal Code, 1990 edition. NFPA 329, Handling Underground Leakage of Flammable and C.ombus-

tible Liquids, 1987 ethtion. NFPA 385, Tank Vehides for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 1990

edition. NFPA 386, Portable S~iipping Tanks for Flammable and Combustible

Liquids, 1990 edition.

5-1.1.1 Hazardous chemicals storage and dispensing shall be separated from the cleanroom by 1-hr fire resistance rating.

5-1.1.2 Hazardous chemical storage and dispensing rooms shall have a drainage system to an approved locauon, or the room shall serve as secondary corttainment for a hazardous chemical spill and fire protection water for a period of 20 rain.

5-1.1.3 Hazardous chemicals stored in the cleanroom shall be limited to those needed for operations and maintenance. Quantities of hazardous chemicals shall be limited to those within the tool or the dally supply of chemicals needed.

5-1.1.4 Hazardous chemical storage and dispensing rooms shall have mechanical exhaust ventilation as follows:

(a) Mechanical ventilation shall be at the rate of one cuft per min (CFM) per sq ft of floor area.

(b) Exhaust and inlet openings shall be arranged to prevent accumulation of vapo~rs.

(c) For dispensing rooms, the mechanical ventilation system shall be connected to an automatic emergency back-up source of power.

5-1.1.5 Accidental Mixing.

5-1.1.5.1 Hazardous chemicals shall be stored within enclosed storage cabinets or work stations.

Exception: Within hazardous materials storage or dispensing rooms.

5-1.1.5.2 Incompatible chemicals shall not be stored in the same cabinet.

5-1.1.5.$ Storage cabinets shall be constructed of not less than 18 gauge steel. Doors shall be self-closing and be provided with a latching device.

5-I.1.6 Approved safety containers shall be used to store flammable liquids.

Exception: Where needed for pu~ity, glass or plastic containers shall be permitted for quantities of l gal (4 L) or less per individual container.

5-1.1.7 Chemical containers shall be labeled as to their contents.

5-2 Flammable and Combustible Liquid Delivery Systems.

5-2.1 Class I and II liquids shall not be piped to deliver by gravity from tanks, drums, bmrrels or similar containers. Dispensing devices for flammable and combustible liquids shall be of an approved type.

5-2.2 When pressurized systems are utilized, all materials used in the system will he compatible with the chemicals being dispensed.

5-2.3 The pressurized system shall be equipped with the following safeguards.



(c) Manual shut offvalves at the point of use.

(d) Only inert gas shall be used.

5-2.4 ALl canisters will be ASME/DOT rated vessels equipped with pressure relief devices not to exceed 30 psi.

5-2.4.1 Pressurized delivery systems for flammable or combustible liquids shall be hydrostatically tested to 150 percent of the working pressure for 2-hrs with no visible leakage or loss of pressure.

Exception: An inert gas can be used to pressure test systems in which water or water residue would be dama~ng or cost restrictive.

5-2.5 Pressurized delivery systems for flammable and combustible liquids shall be constructed of a ferrous metal.

5-2.8 Delivery pressure shall not exceed 15 psi (one Bar) 103 K Pascals.

5-2.7 Bulk delivery systems shall he equipped with the following safeguards.

(a) Excess flow protection.

(b) Secondary containment for spills.

(c) Manual shut down at point of use and dispensing.

(d) Fill level monitors and shutoff.

(e) Preset meter for automated delivery systems.

5-3 C~emieal Carts.

5-3.1" In new buildings, hazardous chemicals shall not be permitted within an exit corridor. In existingbuildings hazardous chemicals shall be transported in approved chemical carts.

5-3.2". Chemical carts . trans porting or containin g.hazardous chemxcals shall be designed so that the contents wall be fully enclosed. They shall be capable of containing a spill from the largest single container transported, with a maximum individual container size of 5 gallons. The capacity of carts used for transportation of hazardous chemicals shall not exceed 55 gallons.

5-3.3 Incompatible chemicals shall not be transported simultaneously on the same hazardous chemical cart.

5-4 Waste Disposal.

5-4.1 Separate drainage systems shall be provided for incompatible materials.

5-4.2* Drainage systems shall be labeled as to their intended contents in an approved manner.

5-4.3 Collection of chemicals shall be directed to containers compatible with the material being coUected.

5-4.4 Flammable liquids shall be collected in approved containers.

54.5 Durin[~ collection of flammable liquids the waste container shall be within secondary containment.

54.6 Chemical containers shall be labeled as to their contents in an approved manner.

54.7 Incompatible chemicals shall not be transported simultaneously on the same hazardous chemical cart.

5-5 Spill Protection.

5-5.1 Spill protection for flammable liquids shall he provided where leakage from a fitting or tool will terminate in an unoccupied or below-grade area.

5-5.2 Spill protection shall include secondary containment and a me thodof detecting a spill.

53

N F P A 318 m F91 T C D

Chapter 6 Hazardous Gas Cylinder Storage and Distribution

6-1 Packaging.

6-1.1 Container Data. The supplier shall accumulate and provide upon request the following information:

(a) Cylinder contents with description of the components.

(b) Cylinder serial number, material of construction, and standards used for construction and testing.

(c) Cylinder valve with restricting orifice, when provided. Date of manufacture, material of construction, and flow curve for the orifice.

(d) Description and date of last hydrostatic test.

6-1.2" Cylinders containing pyrophoric gases shall be equipped with normally closed automatic shut off valves that incorporate restricted flow orifices.

6-2 Trm~port to the Semiconductor Facility.

6-2.1 The operator of a vehicle transporting hazardous compressed and liqulfledgases shall be trained in the handling of containers, use of portable fire extinguisher, and shall be familiar with the site gas delivery procedures.

6-2.1.1 Aleak check shall be performed on all gas cylinders prior to unloading from the transport vehicle.

6-2.1.2" An emergency response program shall be developed to handle accidents connectedwith the delivery of gases.

6-5 Distribution Sylnems.

6-3.1 Material for tubing, piping, and fittings used for distribution of compressed and liquefied gases shall be compatible with those gases. The entire system shall be subjected to a pressure test at a minimum pressure of 20 percent over the maximum pressure available to the system but not less than 80 psi (552 kpa) for 2 hours with no discernable pressure drop.

6-3.2 Materials for tubing, piping, and fittings used for the distribution of compressed and liquefied gases shall be of noncombustible construction or contained in a noncombustible outer jacket.

6-$.2.1 Tubing piping and fitting shall be welded.

Exception: Non-welded connections and fittings may be used when housed in an exhausted enclosure.

6-3.3 Distribution piping shall be leak tested in accordance with SEMI F1-90 Specification for Leak Testing Toxic Gas Piping Systemx

6-$.4* Welders and pipefitters shall be trained and qualified for the specific function they are performing.

,$ 6-5.5 Purge panels shall be provided at the cylinders on all compressed hazardous process gases when in use.

6-3.6* Purge panels shall be constructed of materials compatible with gases conveyed, minimize leakage potential, provide for control of excess flow and be equipped with an appropriate emergency shut off.

6-3.7 Purge panels shall be designed to prevent back_flow and cross contamination of purge gas or other process gases.

6-$.8 Check valves shall not be exposed to cylinder pressure i fa cylinder has a pressure greater than 80 psi.

6-3.9 A manual isolation valve shall be provided on the process delivery line to permit removal of the purge panel for repair and maintenance.

6-3.10 Incompatible process gases shall not occupy the same gas cabinet.

6-3,11 Hazardous gas cylinder purge panels shall be provided with dedicated purge gas cylinders. Only purge panels serving compatible gases shall be permitted to share a purge cylinder.

6-3.12 Low pressure bulk gas systems shall not be used as the purge source for h~.ardous gas cylinder purge panels.

6-4 Pyrophoric Storage and Dispensing Areu .

6-4.1 Pyrophoric gas cylinders in storage or dispensing shall be provided with the following safeguards:

(a) l~/rophoric storage and dispensing areas shall be located exterior to building.

Exception: Where the weather conditions do not permit, the storage shall be in an approved shelter.

(b) When used in a manifold or dispensing rack system, pyro- phoricgas cylinders shall be separated from each other by a steel plate 1 /4 in. thick, extending 3in. (7.6 cm)beyond the foot print of the cylinder. The steel plate shall extend from the top of the purge panel to 12" below the cylinder valve.

(c) Mechanical or natural ventilation at a minimum of 1CFM/FT2 (.00047 m3/S PER .09 m2) of storage and dispensing area shall be provided.

(d) * Cylinders located in cabinets shall be provided with mechanical ventilation at a minimum of 200 ft per rain (FPM) (.762 m/S) across the cylinder neck and the purge panel. The ventilation system shall be provided with an automatic emergency back-up source of power to operate at full capacity.

(e) Remote manual shutdown of process gas flow shall be provided outside each gas cabinet or near each gas pane l The dispensing area shall have an emergency shutdown for all gases that can be operated at a minimum distance of 15 ft from the dispensing area.

(f) Gas cabinets and cylinders not located in shelters or bunkers containing Silane or Silane mixes shall be provided with a security chain link fence to prevent unauthorized entry and to reduce the impact of an explosion at the perimeter. The area shall also be separated from structures in accordance with the following table:


Distance to Distance to Fence in Ft Wall in Ft

Unconfined 6 9 Cylinders

Single Cylinder 12 12 Cabinets

Gas cabinets and cylinders located in shelters containing silane or silane mixes shall comply with the table without regard to shelter walls.

(g) When gas cabinets are used, only single cylinder cabinets shall be used for pyrophorics and pyrophoric mixes.

6-4.2 Flammable or Toxic Concentrationg.

6-4.2.1 Flammables and p~ophorics with toxic mixes shall be placed in exhausted noncombusuble cabinets and shall be provided with gas monitoring and automatic shutdown of the gas supply upon a high level alarm, Exhaust ventilation shall be continuous and in accordance with 6-3.1 (d).

6-4.2.2 Exhaust ventilation shall be provided where there is potential for gas release and for the area containing valves, fittings or connections, transfer stations, or vacuum pumps. Detection of toxic or flammable gases shall activate a local alarm and shut down the gas supply. Alarms shall be continuously monitored.

6-4.2.3 Exhaust ventilation, detection, and shutdown systems shall be provided with an automatic emergency source of back-up power.

6-4.2.4 Welding and other activities that may produce ignition shall be minimized in areas where there is potential flammable gas release. It shall be allowed only through a special internal permit procedure that calls for monitoring in the area for 20% of the lower explosive limit and a fire watch and ventilation to reduce the potential of explosive concentrations.

6-4.3 "No Smoking" signs shall be provided in the flammable gas storage area, in areas where there is a potential for flammable gas release, and within 25 ft (7.6 m) of those areas.

5 4

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

6-4.4 Open flames shall not be used in the flammable gas storage or dispensing areas. All sources of electrical heat shall comply with NFPA 70, NationalElearical Code. Compressed and liquefied gases in storage or dispensing shall be protected from uncontrolled heat sources.

6-4.5 Low pressure bulk gas systems shall not be used as a purge source for hazardous gases.

6-4.6 Vent Headers.

6-4.6.1 Purge panel vent line headers, when used, shall be designed to prevent the mixing of incompatible gases and Silane with air.

6-4.6.2 Silane vent headers or individual purge panel vent lines shall have a continuous flow of nitrogen.

6-4.6.$ Vents shall terminate at a safe location or in treatment systems.

6-4.7 Process delivery lines used for hazardous gases shall be dedicated to those gases.

6-5 Training. Operators working with hazardous gases and handling hazardous compresse.d and liquifled gas containers shall be trained for that function. Training shall be provided annually.

Chapter 7 Production and Support Equipment

7-1 General. Production and support equipment shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section 7-2 through 7-8.

7-2 Interlocks.

7-2.1" Hardware interlocks that will automatically bring the tool to standby mode shall be interfaced with the tool's operating system.

7-2.2 A local visual and audible alarm shall be provided to indicate activation of any interlock.

Exception: Panel interlocks.

7-2.3 Each interlock and its operation shall be described in both the operations and maintenance manuals for the tool.

%2.4 Tools utilizing hazardous chemicals shall be designed to accept inputs from monitoring equipment. An alarm s~gnal from the monitoring equipment shall automatically stop flow of hazardous chemicals to the tool.

7-2.5 Interlocks shall be designed to require manual reset and permit restart only after fault correction.

7-3 Electrical Design.

7-3.1 Electrical components and wirlng shall be in accordance with NFPA 70, NationalElectrical Code and NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery.

7-3.2 Electrical equipment and devices within 5 ft (1.5 re)of work stations in which flammable liquids or 8a~es are used shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 70, NattonalElectrical Code, for Class I, Division 2 locations.

7-3.2.1 Work stations using flammable chemicals shall not be capable of being energizedwithout adequate exhaust ventilation.

Exception: The requirements for Class I, Division 2 locations shall not apply when the air removal from the work station or dilution will assure nonflam- raable atmospheres on a continuous basis.

7-4 Process Liquid Heating Equipment.

7-4.1 Electric immersion heaters and hot plates shall not be used in combustible tools or tools using combustible or flammable liquids.

Exception: Stand.abne electric water heaters external to combustible wet stations, or bonded heaters shall be permitted.

7-4.1.1 Where stand.alone electric water heaters are used, they shall include:

(a) Ground fault interrupters. (b) Overcurrent protection. (c) Power interrupts.

(d) Manual resets. (e) Temperature controllers.

Redundant liquid level sen.~ors. I~) Redundant over-temperature protection.

7-4.1.2 Electrically heated baths shall have the following interlocks to activate both shutdown and alarms:

(a) Ground fault interrupters. (b) Overcurrent protecuon. (c) Power interrupts. (d) Manual resets. (e) Temperature controllers. (f) Reduhdant liquid level sensors. (g) Redundant over-temperature protection.

7-4.1.3" Those baths heating flammable or combustible liquids shall have high-temperature limit switches.

7-4.1.4" Liquid level sensors shall be tested after maintenance but at least monthly.

7-5 Materials of Construction. Tools shall be of noncombustible construction.

Exception: That part of the work station that comes into contact with corrosive mattria~s.

7-6 Vacuum Pmnps.

7-6.1" Vacuum pumps using combustible oils shall use a control device to remove oils prior to their discharge into the exhaust duct system,

7-6.2 Exhamt Conditioning.

7-6.2.1" Vacuum pumps that handle fammable gases in excess of 20% of LFL shall discharge into a control device to treat the flammable gases from the air stream prior to discharge into exhaust system ductwork.

7-6.2.2 Vacuum pumps handling flammable or pyrophoric chemicals or high concentration oxygen shall not use combustible pump oils.

7-6.2.3 Vacuum pumps that handle flammable orpyrophoric shall be equippedwith a nitrogen purge and interlocked with gasethe s process tool operating system.

7-7 Hazardous Gas Delivery Systems.

7-7.1 Hazardous gas piping, controls, and valves that are internal to tools using hazardous gases shall be contained within a noncombustible enclosure that is exhausted at a minimum airflow of 100 CFM per sq ft (.047 m3/S PEg .09 m 2 of average transverse cross-sectional area of the enclosure.

7-8" All tools using flammable or combustible chemicals shall be provided with exhaust to reduce the concentration of flammable gases and vapors to less than 20% of the LFL.

Chapter 8 Referenced Publications

8-I The following documents or portions thereof are referenced within this standard and shall be considered part of the requirements of this document. The edition indicated for each rel'erence is the current edition as of the date of the NFPA issuance of this document.

8-1.1 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101.

NFPA lS, InstaUation of Sprinkl~ Systems, 1989 edition NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 1990 edition NFPA 33, Spray Application Using Flamraable and Combustible Materials,

1989 edition NFPA 45A, Storage of Liquid and So/u/Ox/d/zers, 1990 edition NFPA 43B, Storage of Organic Peroxide Formulation~ 1986 edition NFPA 68, Deflagration Venting, 1988 edition NFPA 70, NationalElectdcal Code, 1990 edition NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Induatrial Machinery, 1987 edition NFPA 255, Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building

Materials, 1990 edition

5 5

N F P A 318 - - F91 T CD

NFPA 385, Tank Vehicles for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 1990 edition

NF'PA 386, Portable Shipping Tanks for Flaramable and Combustible L~ui,~, 1990 editi°n

704M, Identification of the Fire Hazards of Materials, 1990 edition.

8-1.2 Other Publication.

8-1.2.1 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Rd., Northbrook, IL 60062.

UL 586-1988, High-Efficiency, Particulate, Air Filter Units

8-1.2.2 FED STD PubUcatiorm. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

FED STD 209D, 1988, Cleanroom and Work Station Requirements, Controlled Environment.

8-1.2.3 SEMI Publications. Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 805 East Middlefield goad, Mountain View, CA 94043-4080.

SEMI F1-90, Specification for Leak Testing Toxic Gas Piping System~.

Appendix A

This Appendix is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document, but is included for information purposes only.

A-I-2 A systems approach to risk management is used throughout this standard. These firesafety objectives are achieved through the proper management of fire prevention and fire response activities.

A-2-1.2.1 Typical configurations of cleanrooms and their chases and plenums create numerous areas that may be sheltered from sprinklerprotection. These areas may include air-mixing boxes, catwalks, hooch, protruding lighting, open waffle slabs, equipment, piping, ducting, and cable trays. CAre should be taken to relocate or supplement sprinkler protection to ensure sprinkler discharge will cover all parts of the occupancy. Care should also be taken to ensure sprinklers are located where heat will be satisfactorily collectedfor reliable operation of the sprinkler.

Gaseous fire suppression systems are not substitutes for automatic s rinkler protection. The. la.rge number, of air. changes in Sc~eXanrooms may cause diluuon or strauficauon of the gaseous agent.

It is recommended that sprinkler systems be inspected at least semiannually, by a qualified inspecuon service. (See NFPA 13A, Recomraended Practice for the ln.~aion, Testing and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems.) The length of time between such inspections may be decreased due to ambient atmosphere, water supply, or local requirements of the authority having jurisdiction.

Prior to takin[g a sprinkler system out of service, one should be certain to recewe permission from all authorities having jurisdiction, and notify all personnel who may be affected during system shutdown. A fire watch during maintenance periods is a recommended precaution. Any sprinkler system taken out of service for any reason should be returned to service as promptly as possible.

A sprinkler system that has been activated should be thoroughly inspected for damage and components replaced or repaired promptly. Sprinklers that did not operate but were subjected to corrosive elements of combustion or elevated temperatures should be inspected, and replaced ff necessary, in accordance with the minimum replacement requirements of the authority having jurisdiction. Such sprinklers should be destroyed to prevent their r e ~ .

A-2-1.2.2 The use of quick response sprinklers, while still delayed in opening by the downward airflow, would respond to a smaller size fire quicker than conventional sprinklers. (Glass bulb-type quick response sprinklers may be preferable to other types of quick response sprinklers).

A-2-1.2.3 It is recommended that an approved 135"F (57°C) 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) orifice sprinkler be used. It is recommended that a sprinkler be installed in all gas cylinder cabinets.

A-2-1.2.5.1 Small orifice sprinklers, 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) or larger may be used.

A-2-1.2.5.S Drainage and placement of sprinklers should be designed to prevent water from flowing back into process equipment or the ductwork collapsing under the weight of the water or both. Since water discharged into exhaust ductwork will most likely be contaminated, outflow from the drain lines should be piped in accordance with local environmental regulations.

A-2-1.2.6 It is recommended that an approved 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) orifice sprinkler be used. Drainage should be provided to remove all sprinkler water discharged in the pass through.

A-2-1-2.7 Figure A-2-1.2.7 from FM Loss Prevention Data Sheet 7-7 "Semiconductor Fabrication Facilities" Aug 1991 illustrates various arrangements of a wet bench work station, the associated fume exhaust duct-work and possible locations of fire protection devices. (See Figure on following page.)

A-2-1.2.7.3 To minimize the effect of automatic sprinkler water discharge on air flow in exhaust ducts, it is preferable to locate the sprinkler head in the work station transition piece. It is also acceptable to use a 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) orifice sprinkler.

A-2-2.2 Cleanroom hydrogen monitoring should use parts per million detectors to provide alarm and detection for hydrogen leaks.

A-2-3.1 The detectors may also he used to shut down the recirculating fans or activate a dedicated smoke controls/stem, or both. See NFPA 90A, Installation of Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systern~.

A-2-3.2 Smoke detection need not result in an automatic facility evacuation alarm signal.

A-3-3.1 Ribbed flex duct is frequently used to connect a piece of equipment to the exhaust duct system. Trapped sections occur where ducts are routed under structural members or other mechanical ducts or piping. Transport velocities that are adequate in straight sections of duct work may not be adequate in the above sections due to turbulence and as a result, hazardous chemicals may deposit in the duct work.

Ribbed flex duct also has the undesirable property of very rapid burn through or collapse in the event of internal fire exposure.

.4,-$-3. .6 Considerin. g fire protection issues only, duct materials listed m descending order of preference are:

(a) Metallic.

(b) Approved coated metallic or nonmetallic not requiring fire sprinklers, fire dampen, or interrupters of any kind.

(c) Combustible with internal automatic sprinkler protection.

A-S-5.2 Emergency power systems are not intended to k e e p production equipment operating except in limited cases. When electrical utility power in a facility fails, most production equipment will shut down, thereby reducing the hazardous fumes transported in the fume exhaust duct system.

A-4-1 Buildings housing these cleanrooms should be of noncombustible or fire resistive construction.

A-5-$.1 New buildings are designed to provide chemical handling corridors.

A-~3.2 Breakable individual chemical containers should be separated to avoid breakage.

A-5-4.2 Labeling of contents should be in accordance with ANSI B 31.3.

A4]-1.2 Ira flow restricting orifice is placed in a system with an excess flow device, the excess flow device may not shutoff.

A-6-2.1.2 This program should be coordinated with the fire department, the pIant emergency response team, and gas supply organization. A response time for all parties concerned should be a part of the procedure. Periodic drills should be performed with all parties involved to handle simulated accidents.

A-6-3.4 Training should be as outlined in SEMI FS-90 S~dfications for Leak Testing Toxic Gas Piping Systeras guideline for we~ding stainless steel tubing for semiconductor manufacturing applications.

56

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

l S

_ ,F" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . emer V~LL CONS~tOI~

TEAR I)ROP LIOHI"INO FOCrUR£

CLEAN ROOM ( C I . A ~ I - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 )

USE IzS"F

Fus'~le Lk_. '~ '~

Iqextg~rs Curta/n ;

' I l i a FILTER LOCATIONS

I ~ 2 " : " , . : ' : . ' , ; ' : ' ; . : " ~ : . : ' : ' : ' : ' : " . 1 " : . : . ' . . ; .

14

vERTICAL LAPI~IAIE FLO~ (VLF) OPTION

C1~ss 10 -1000 urid~r' ho~d

i i

. I0-20 IN. m s m Fume

Pt, AST£ OR EXhaUSt Heat ler

(To ScruDber)

i i ) ~o

COItE OR $EIL"IflCE CORRIDOR !

e~u At- *..Fume ~ I ~ t g ~ 6 - 1 2 ~ .

! ( p l ~ ar mo~O 'Z . . . " • --Traeeritton I~e~e

4)

L~ Extort-, Slot £ x t u . ~ i

hemk:a l I ~ | I

~ Exhaust Plenum .A WET BENCH

O~ASTIC OR i ' L r l ~

arai a.-~ L,O

S~)id Floor or Pertorat~ Retsea Floor

12

] i i ! : | ; f | z V • | i I |

I ' l l terrmte Fume 1 . - [ xhamt Duct

i

;--Oaseous S . w . m ~ Sqstm ~ l ~ l t r t.oe~tkm

TI !

. L . A,..tomatio Spe-inkler Loeatims

~ - Flam~ Dttocter Le~f lms

" l l ' -Oaseo~ Sul~eSs'ion System D is~ar~ NaczIBs

I~mfic or

mo scAu~ u s ~ )

ALTERI~TE r ~ I N FUME EXHAUST

If.AOER LOCATION

(TO SCRUBBER)

Figure A-2-1.2.7 Example of sprink]er locations for combuadble tools.

57

N F P A 318 - - F91 T CD

A-6-3.5 Automated purge panels are recommended because they reduce the potential for human error.

A-6-3.6 The basic components of purge panels should incorporate the following features:

(a) Tied diaphragm regulators should be used.

(b) All piping/ tubing connections should be welded or of a metal gasket face seal fitting with zero clearance, except valve connection to cylinder.

(c) Component burst pressure should be rated to at least 50 percent over the maximum pressure available to all components.

(d) All components should have a helium leak rate no greater than 0.00001 cc/hr .

(e) Regulators should be of the hand loaded type. Dome loaded regulators should not be used on hazardous gases. Remotely operated gas delivery systems may use dome loaded regulators.

(f) No check valves should be used as a primary control of potential cross contamination and bacldlow.

s~). Electrical components on purge panels should be intrinsically

(h) Excess flow control (valve or switch) should be provided on the high pressure side of the purge panel.

(i) Emergency high pressure shutoffvalves should be provided and should operate upon the activation of an emergency offbutton, gas monitoring alarm (high alarm), or electronically monitored excess flow control switch.

(j) All systems should be equipped with an emergency shutoff.

A-6-4.1(d) Exhaust air flow should be calculated by multiplying 200 FPM by the cross sectional volume of the cabinet.

A-6-4.2.1 Alternate substances should be considered for replacement of hazardous gases.

A-6-5.1 A certification program should be used to ensure adequate training.

A.7.1 Introduction. This chapter may be used to minimize known fire hazards inherent in the construction and operation of cleanroom tools.

Proper materials, regulatory requirements, and good practices should be considereffin design, f~se, and maintaifiabilRy of all tools. Where hazards cannot be eliminated, no single failure should

result in an exposure situation that places people in jeopardy. All fire prevention or protection systems used 1Internal to, or with, eqmpment shouldbe fail-safe,

General Recommendations. Tools should be designed to achieve fire prevention, or in the event of fire, to provide early detection and suppression adequate to prevent fire spread, explosion, or threat to life safety.

The completed system should have third party review based on the requirements of this chapter.

Where available, components and subassemblies used should be listed.

Listed below is a guideline setting forth areas of consideration when tool design drawings are being reviewed. This list is suggestive only. Design review should not be hmited by, or to, these items:

(a) Materials of constructions (flammability, combustibility, and compatibility).

(b) Electrical components, their mounting, and enclosures.

(c) Electrical circuit protection.

(d) Access to components within equipment.

(e) Minimization and control of pyrophoric chemicals.

(f) A review of process piping, connectors, and materials.

(g) Methods of preventing excess flow of gases.

(h) Earthquake stability where and when applicable.

(i) Redundant controls of electrical heaters.

(j) Software interlocks.

Tools should bear a nameplate identifying the manufacturer by name and address, and the model and seri/fl number of the too l

Tool manufacturers should notify owners of inherent defects that effect fire and safety, when they become known. Likewise, users should notify tool manufacturers of potential fire and safety considerations.

Tool manufacturers should conduct ongoing programs of quality assurance, safety research, and investigauon to identify, correct, and inform users of any potential operating malfunctions that may constitute firesafety hazards that could exist in their products.

All known hazards that cannot be engineered out of a tool should be clearly identified and controlled. These conditions should be specifically addressed in the tool's operation and maintenance manuals or in a notice accompanying the tool.

Plans and specifications for tools, prior to their fabrication or use or both should be reviewed and signed by a gained employee or independent third party using the requirements in this chapter.

The maintenance and operation manuals should provide guidance for .the posting of appropriate signs on tools to indicate that maintenance is in process.

Adminiatration.

Owners should designate a responsible individual in their employ to review drawings o f tool and system designs to ensure that tools will be in conformance with these requirements.

Owners should perform physical inspection of tools on receipt to insure that the tool is in conformance with their design/review documents.

Owners should ensure that the tool is accompanied with adequate installation, maintenance, and operating instructions which will include appropriate wiring details and facilitizing of the tool.

Owners should ensure that a proper hands-on trainingprogram is instituted in the safe operation of the tool, and that standardized examinations are given to test knowledge and ability.

Owners should institute an appropriate maintenance program to ensure that all safety controls will work in a proper manner when required. Inspection and maintenance should be done on a sufficiently frequent basis against a check list by qualified personnel to ensure continued safe operation of the tool. The name of the inspector should be posted on or close to the tool, as well as the date of last inspection.

Production and Support Equipment may be designed to comply with SEMI $2-91 Product Safety Guideline and designed and installed in accordance with Section 7-2 through 7-9.

A-7-2.1 Interlock systems should be designed to prevent override during normal operation.

A-7-4.1.8 Wet benches that use combustible chemicals, heated above their flash points, or flammable chemicals should be provided with devices to detect fire.

A-7-4.1.4 A convenient way in which to test low liquid level sensors is to use them at least weeldy to shut down the process by removing them from the bath; if they fail to shut offequipment, they prove they are not operating properly.

• 4.-7-6.1 Such devices may be traps, condensers, demisters, or coalescing filters. As an alternauve, noncombustible oils should be used, or dry-type pumps not requiring lubricant should be used.

A-7-6-2.1 Vacuum pumps whose construction is susceptible to backstreaming oil into tools should have foreline traps on their inlets.

5 8

N F P A 318 - - F91 T C D

A-7-8 Exhaust flow should be monitored and controlled by a sensor set at a negative static pressure to provide the minimum airflow specified in Chapter 5.

As an alternative to the above, the minimum airflow may be monitored by periodic inspection to preclude changes caused by modifications to the exhaust duct system.

In the event a low ab'flow condition results, a local audible and visual alarm should provide a signal at the tool. The sensor and alarm should be of the manual reset type.

Exhaust static pressure or flow monitoring should be provided on all exhausted tools. Local visual and audible alarms should also be provided. The sensor and alarm should be of the manual reset type.

Appendix B

B-I The following appendix contains useful and explanatory information about subjects related to the installation of fire protection systems but not covered in the text.

B-2 Seismic Protection.

B-2.1 In seismic zones, where required by the authority having .jurisdiction, approved seismic warning and control systems should b e installed to mitigate the damage o f an earthquake.

B-2.2 An approved seismically-activated valve should be provided to automatically shut off piping systems conveying hazardous chemicals during significant seismic events. It should ~enerate a signal to activate emergency-shutoffvalves on gas cabinets, hazardous gas supply lines, and appropriate utility services, such as natural o-r LP gas.

B-2.3 Seismic warning and control systems should be able to discriminate actual seismic activity from background industrial interference, such as a forklift operating in the area of the seismic sensors.

B-2.4 The optimal seismic warning and control system should react only to a ground acceleration of 0.05G- 0.25G at the specific frequencies inherent to earthquakes (0.5 Hz - 15 Hz).

B-2.5 Electrically operated seismic warning systems should be powered by an uninterruptible power supply.

Appendix C Referenced Publications

C-1 The following documents or portions thereof are referenced within this standard for informational purposes only and thus are not considered part of the requirements of this document. The edition indicated for each reference is the current edition as of the date of the NFPA issuance of this document.

C-1.1 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101.

NFPA 13A, Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems, 1987 edition NFPA 90A, Installation of Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems,

1989 edition NFPA 329, Handling Underground Leakage of Flammable and Combus-

tible Liquids, 1987 edition

C-1.2 Other Publications.

C-1-2.1 SEMI Publlcations. Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 805 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94043-4080.

SEMI F3-90 Guideline for welding stainless steel tubingfor seraiconduaor manufaauring applications.

SEMI $2-91, Product Safety Guidelines.

5 9

Date post:	25-Apr-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngothu
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times