From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 16 12:51:59 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:51:59 -0700 Subject: Chemical Safety Violation in Litho Message-ID: <4121105E.FC0D5AC1@snf.stanford.edu> Sigh.... Not again... There was a chemical safety violation discovered this morning in the litho area. You are receiving this note because you enabled one of the manual coaters (or svgcoat track #1, which can be used for manual coats) some time between Friday at 5 pm and this morning. In as broad sweeping campaign to eliminate chemical safety violations in the lab, I am prepared to ANNOY AND PUNISH EVERYONE... What happened: A yellow hazardous waste bag, without a label, was found in the regular trash can (NOT the enclosed solid solvent waste can) across from the litho solvent bench. Jorge, the custodian, was doing his regular cleanup, and complained about the smell. Do I have to tell you how completely and utterly irresponsible this is? I mean it's bad enough to subject your fellow labmates to chemical exposure, however inadvertent -- but at least he/she probably has some fair idea of what it might be and what to do about it -- it's just completely appalling that someone would be so careless as to subject the custodial staff to this. Solid waste that is contaminated by standard solvents or photoresists should be bagged under a ventilated area and placed in the solid solvent waste can. Non-standard or halogenated (i.e., chlorinated) solvent waste should be double-bagged separately and tightly in yellow hazardous waste bags, and the chemical contents listed on the hazardous waste tag which you attach to the bag. The bag should be placed in the appropriate area for pickup. If the solvent waste can is full, then double-bag your waste in yellow hazardous waste bags, LABEL it, and place in the appropriate area for pickup. DO NOT PLACE IN REGULAR TRASH! Our custodial staff should not be handling any chemical or other hazardous waste - and this includes sharps like used razor blades or discarded glass or wafers. I don't know who did this, and I'll be the first to admit that it's hard to find who did. And I'm sure it wasn't intentional. But we are ALL responsible for safety in the lab and we ALL need to be aware of not only our own actions, but those of others working around us. Therefore, I am going to inflict penalty on ALL OF YOU... You have the following choices: 1. If you have been a labmember for more than one year, you can take the safety test (again, if you have taken it before). You can obtain a safety test from Maureen Baran. or: 2. You have to provide me with a question that I can use for the safety test. You can email your question to me. For reference, please review the safety manual at: http://snf.stanford.edu/Labmembers/Labmembers.html Please do this by Monday, Aug. 23. If you do not do so, I will disqualify you from the station(s) you enabled over the weekend. According to the Coral history, the following people enabled these tools over the weekend: headway2: yinliu, lindaw, weigao, honkai, levi laurel: dhum, lgx, arvind, raychen svgcoat: kenney, axiu, me342d, crichter, lindaw, weigao, rohank, yeh, alissa, me342c, mcconnel, jgarate This is the third egregious incident in two weeks. I truly don't want to do impose penalties or threaten, but unless someone can suggest a better way (and one that does NOT involve installing video cameras!) then I plan to continue impose punishments on everyone until we see a change or until Paul Rissman directs us to shut down the litho area. (Paul warns that he will disqualify everyone from all the lithography tools, if the situation doesn't change.) But YOU can make things happen. Please work safely and make sure everyone around you works safely. If you see someone doing something that makes you feel uncomfortable, SAY something -- if not directly to them, then to me, or send an email to safety at snf.stanford.edu. Please spread the word -- Paul's the new sheriff in town and I'm acting deputy -- unsafe practices will NOT be tolerated. Thank you for your attention... Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 17 08:26:15 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:26:15 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Chemical exposure] Message-ID: <41222397.7EAB1BAC@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- Here's some more detail from Scott Andrews about how he got a good whiff of SPR-220. I'm just about to ask Maureen to make up some colored, laminated signs which say "Avoid Exposure to Fumes: Open Slowly" which I'd like to post on the 90 C and 110 C ovens (maybe the little blue M too?), the flammables cabinets and the flammables refrigerator. Mary -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Chemical exposure Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:17:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Scott D. Andrews" Reply-To: Scott Andrews To: Mary Tang Hi Mary, > When transferring wafers straight from spin (when the resist is still wet) to > either hot plates or the post-spin-bake oven, wafers should be placed inside > an enclosed box. When transferring the wafers, I was using a single wafer box to carry then over. I still smelled a little, but I assume that was contamination on my tweezers or gloves. As I said, this was really minor, and I wouldn't be too concerned about any exposure here. Perhaps you can answer one more question, though. I have wondered about the best procedure when trasfering full wafers. Can they be put back in the vertical holders (the main boxes that hold 25 wafers) after spinning? I was always concerned about screwing up the spin at the edge where it touches the box and also contaminating my box which would then spread vapors for days. I have a few reservations too about using the single holders -- although that is usually what I do. Since occassionally, small amounts of resist go onto the backside of the wafer either due to contaminated tweezers or a bad spin, putting it in a box can cause it to become sticky and again vent for days. Do you have any good suggestions on how to handle this? > Was your exposure during the post-spin-bake? If so, which stations were you > using and what was your procedure? All the exposure I had was during post-spin baking. I was spinning very thick resist (SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec) as a protection layer. I was only using the headway, hot plates, and the white ovens next to it. Initially, I was using 90 degrees and then transferred to the 115 degree oven for the final bake. My exact procedure was: 1) Put blue tape on back of my wafer (needed because it had free standing membranes that would have been destroyed by the vacuum) 2) Spin SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec 3) Remove tape 4) Move to hot plate, bake for 100 seconds at 90 degrees 5) Spin SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec on backside 6) Move to 90 degree oven for ~30-45 minutes (Since this was a protection layer, I didn't care if I had the proper time, I just needed it dry) 7) Move to 115 degree oven for another 30 minutes or so > Another observations I've had is how many of us open the doors on the > flammables cabinets (and may apply here as well)... The exhaust is static and > when a door is opened quickly, it counters the exhaust, potentially drawing > fumes across the person opening the door... I TOTALLY agree about the flammables cabinets. I've have always been concerned about that. I didn't realize that the speed of opening the cabinets makes a difference. I always assumed the exhaust simply wasn't enough. > I'll try this out in the litho area a few times, and if this helps, I'll > put some signs up ("open the door slooowwwwllly") and add it to our > safety training info. Please let me know what you find. One recommendation on the sign is to indicate why one should open it slowly too. Since the processes people use in the cleanroom are complex often information seems to get lost as to why certain thing need to be done. For example sometimes I thought the order of certain operations such as opening certain valves were critical to get a machine to operate safely/properly. Only later when I understood the process more, did I realize it was just the order the trainer had happened to use during training. I think knowing why helps us all protect the equipment and ourselves if we know why certain things need to be done. For example, if the sign only said "open the door slowly," I would assume that the door was fragile and watch for something wrong near the hinge. Thus, if I still smelled fumes, I would not realize I had opened it too fast. Also, with regards to the furnaces, this may very well be part of the problem. After getting several whiffs of the fumes, I tended to open the door as quickly as possible, insert the wafers, and close it quickly with the thought that the less time the door was open, the less time for fumes to escape. > I'm really sorry this happened, and truly appreciate you letting us > know... I realize thing like this happen. I just appreciate you taking this so seriously and helping make the lab a safe place for us to work. > Knowing that you are a conscientious person in the lab, I'm concerned that > there is something wrong in our procedures and/or our equipment setup. Again, > if you could provide a little more detail (which stations, etc.) and insight > as to what you feel might help, it would be much appreciated... I really think I was doing everything generally right. Especially after breathing the fumes the first time, I tried to be very careful because I knew it wasn't healthy. As I mentioned, the only stations were the headway, the nearest hot plates, and the two white furnaces. Thanks for your help. Let me know if there is any other info I can provide. -Scott From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 17 08:50:34 2004 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:50:34 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Chemical exposure] References: <41222397.7EAB1BAC@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4122294A.53C68D44@snf.stanford.edu> Mary, Concerning the signs, are these the words (Avoid Exposure to Fumes: Open Slowly) you want? If so, I have them ready in a day or so. Dick Mary Tang wrote: > Hi all -- > > Here's some more detail from Scott Andrews about how he got a good whiff > of SPR-220. I'm just about to ask Maureen to make up some colored, > laminated signs which say "Avoid Exposure to Fumes: Open Slowly" which > I'd like to post on the 90 C and 110 C ovens (maybe the little blue M > too?), the flammables cabinets and the flammables refrigerator. > > Mary > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Chemical exposure > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:17:38 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Scott D. Andrews" > Reply-To: Scott Andrews > To: Mary Tang > > Hi Mary, > > > When transferring wafers straight from spin (when the resist is still wet) to > > either hot plates or the post-spin-bake oven, wafers should be placed inside > > an enclosed box. > > When transferring the wafers, I was using a single wafer box to carry > then > over. I still smelled a little, but I assume that was contamination on > my > tweezers or gloves. As I said, this was really minor, and I wouldn't be > too concerned about any exposure here. Perhaps you can answer one more > question, though. I have wondered about the best procedure when > trasfering full wafers. Can they be put back in the vertical holders > (the > main boxes that hold 25 wafers) after spinning? I was always concerned > about screwing up the spin at the edge where it touches the box and also > contaminating my box which would then spread vapors for days. I have a > few reservations too about using the single holders -- although that is > usually what I do. Since occassionally, small amounts of resist go onto > the backside of the wafer either due to contaminated tweezers or a bad > spin, putting it in a box can cause it to become sticky and again vent > for > days. Do you have any good suggestions on how to handle this? > > > Was your exposure during the post-spin-bake? If so, which stations were you > > using and what was your procedure? > > All the exposure I had was during post-spin baking. I was spinning very > thick resist (SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec) as a protection layer. I was > only > using the headway, hot plates, and the white ovens next to it. > Initially, I > was using 90 degrees and then transferred to the 115 degree oven for the > final bake. My exact procedure was: > > 1) Put blue tape on back of my wafer (needed because it had free > standing > membranes that would have been destroyed by the vacuum) > 2) Spin SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec > 3) Remove tape > 4) Move to hot plate, bake for 100 seconds at 90 degrees > 5) Spin SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec on backside > 6) Move to 90 degree oven for ~30-45 minutes (Since this was a > protection > layer, I didn't care if I had the proper time, I just needed it dry) > 7) Move to 115 degree oven for another 30 minutes or so > > > Another observations I've had is how many of us open the doors on the > > flammables cabinets (and may apply here as well)... The exhaust is static and > > when a door is opened quickly, it counters the exhaust, potentially drawing > > fumes across the person opening the door... > > I TOTALLY agree about the flammables cabinets. I've have always been > concerned about that. I didn't realize that the speed of opening the > cabinets makes a difference. I always assumed the exhaust simply wasn't > enough. > > > I'll try this out in the litho area a few times, and if this helps, I'll > > put some signs up ("open the door slooowwwwllly") and add it to our > > safety training info. > > Please let me know what you find. One recommendation on the sign is to > indicate why one should open it slowly too. Since the processes people > use in the cleanroom are complex often information seems to get lost as > to > why certain thing need to be done. For example sometimes I thought the > order of certain operations such as opening certain valves were critical > to get a machine to operate safely/properly. Only later when I > understood > the process more, did I realize it was just the order the trainer had > happened to use during training. I think knowing why helps us all > protect > the equipment and ourselves if we know why certain things need to be > done. > For example, if the sign only said "open the door slowly," I would > assume > that the door was fragile and watch for something wrong near the hinge. > Thus, if I still smelled fumes, I would not realize I had opened it too > fast. Also, with regards to the furnaces, this may very well be part of > the problem. After getting several whiffs of the fumes, I tended to > open > the door as quickly as possible, insert the wafers, and close it quickly > with the thought that the less time the door was open, the less time for > fumes to escape. > > > I'm really sorry this happened, and truly appreciate you letting us > > know... > > I realize thing like this happen. I just appreciate you taking this so > seriously and helping make the lab a safe place for us to work. > > > Knowing that you are a conscientious person in the lab, I'm concerned that > > there is something wrong in our procedures and/or our equipment setup. Again, > > if you could provide a little more detail (which stations, etc.) and insight > > as to what you feel might help, it would be much appreciated... > > I really think I was doing everything generally right. Especially after > breathing the fumes the first time, I tried to be very careful because I > knew it wasn't healthy. As I mentioned, the only stations were the > headway, the nearest hot plates, and the two white furnaces. > > Thanks for your help. Let me know if there is any other info I can > provide. > > -Scott From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 17 10:02:12 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:02:12 -0700 Subject: Chemical Safety Violation in Litho References: <4121105E.FC0D5AC1@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <41223A14.1EFFDA52@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- Needless to say, I've received a lot of email responses about this... In answer to the most frequently asked questions: 1. Who did this? No, I don't know who did this. Actually, I do not think this individual's actions in this specific incident is really the problem. The problem is that four people wrote to say they noticed a strong solvent smell and three decided not to do anything about it, not even mention it to other people in the lab. It's easy to take for granted, but EVERYONE is responsible for safety. Especially after hours and on weekends. Don't be shy -- it's YOUR lab, not ours... If you don't or can't take action, the very least you can do is to inform someone -- an email to safety at snf.stanford.edu. 2. I didn't do this, do I still receive the penalty? Yes, please either take the safety test (if you haven't ever done so -- it was implemented over a year ago) or provide a question that we can use on the safety test. I know that it's likely that none of you was specifically responsible for the incident, but again, see #1 above. The penalty is small, but meant to be annoying rather than onerous. I suggest that the length and thought that went into several of the emails I've received so far would probably have just as well been spent in coming up with a good question... 3. As for the safety test question: please provide a question in the form of multiple choice. If you haven't seen the safety test (i.e., you're an old-timer), please drop by Maureen's office to pick up one. Yes, the questions are difficult, several of which don't have answers -- most were real questions from labmembers and real life situations. And you too can contribute to the safety awareness of future labmembers! 4. Why am I singled out for punishment? No one person is singled out. EVERYONE who enabled manual coaters during the time frame that we suspect the violation occured. And yes, some people will get hit up multiple times, simply because they've happened to enable equipment during the suspected time. Claudia has been hit up twice, but Daesung is the winner at 3 times, so far I think. Yes, it seems unfair -- but again, I'm sure that the culprits in this and other incidents did not do these things intentionally, and again, in each and every one of these incidents, I've received emails from people who said they noticed these things, but didn't say or do anything about them.... EVERYONE is responsible for safety in the lab. 5. Why have I received this email, though I haven't been in the lab? This is because you are listed as members of the two me342 groups which used a group enable on one of the manual coaters. Your group can collectively provide a question. Again, I am sorry to do this -- I can't describe how much I dislike policing -- but these chemical safety violations are not acceptable and we all need to share responsibility for them. This is repeated many times in Uli's all-litho training, but we all need to be reminded of things we may take for granted... Please help by spreading the word: "Everyone is responsible for safety in the lab." Thanks, Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From Heekyung.H.Kim at jpl.nasa.gov Tue Aug 17 11:24:53 2004 From: Heekyung.H.Kim at jpl.nasa.gov (Heekyung Hellen Kim) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:24:53 -0700 Subject: Accident statistics? Message-ID: <004201c48487$7d596b00$94444f89@jpl.nasa.gov> Dear Sir/Mam: We are currently considering changing our fee structure for clean room usage. I understand that your lab chages fees by the hour of usage. Some people think that it will make people rush their jobs. I personally do not think that it would be the case. However, if I have some statistics to support that charging fee by the hour won't make the clean room unsafe, it would be very helpful. Do you have some safety accident statistics in your clean room facility? If so, would you please send me information on that? Thank you so much in advance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heekyung Hellen Kim, Ph.D., P.E. (Say Hick-Young, not bad, huh? Still not easy? OK, call me Hellen. ;-)) In-Situ Exploration Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory NASA 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 302-231, RM 302-205E Pasadena, CA 91109 (Tel) 818-393-2530 (Fax) 818-393-4663 (e-mail) Heekyung.H.Kim at jpl.nasa.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 17 13:08:04 2004 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:08:04 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Chemical exposure] References: <41222397.7EAB1BAC@snf.stanford.edu> <4122294A.53C68D44@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <412265A4.3BC5649C@snf.stanford.edu> Mary Sounds good, although sounds horrible. mahnaz Dick Crane wrote: > Mary, > > Concerning the signs, are these the words (Avoid Exposure to Fumes: Open Slowly) > you want? If so, I have them ready in a day or so. > > Dick > > Mary Tang wrote: > > > Hi all -- > > > > Here's some more detail from Scott Andrews about how he got a good whiff > > of SPR-220. I'm just about to ask Maureen to make up some colored, > > laminated signs which say "Avoid Exposure to Fumes: Open Slowly" which > > I'd like to post on the 90 C and 110 C ovens (maybe the little blue M > > too?), the flammables cabinets and the flammables refrigerator. > > > > Mary > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: Chemical exposure > > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:17:38 -0700 (PDT) > > From: "Scott D. Andrews" > > Reply-To: Scott Andrews > > To: Mary Tang > > > > Hi Mary, > > > > > When transferring wafers straight from spin (when the resist is still wet) to > > > either hot plates or the post-spin-bake oven, wafers should be placed inside > > > an enclosed box. > > > > When transferring the wafers, I was using a single wafer box to carry > > then > > over. I still smelled a little, but I assume that was contamination on > > my > > tweezers or gloves. As I said, this was really minor, and I wouldn't be > > too concerned about any exposure here. Perhaps you can answer one more > > question, though. I have wondered about the best procedure when > > trasfering full wafers. Can they be put back in the vertical holders > > (the > > main boxes that hold 25 wafers) after spinning? I was always concerned > > about screwing up the spin at the edge where it touches the box and also > > contaminating my box which would then spread vapors for days. I have a > > few reservations too about using the single holders -- although that is > > usually what I do. Since occassionally, small amounts of resist go onto > > the backside of the wafer either due to contaminated tweezers or a bad > > spin, putting it in a box can cause it to become sticky and again vent > > for > > days. Do you have any good suggestions on how to handle this? > > > > > Was your exposure during the post-spin-bake? If so, which stations were you > > > using and what was your procedure? > > > > All the exposure I had was during post-spin baking. I was spinning very > > thick resist (SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec) as a protection layer. I was > > only > > using the headway, hot plates, and the white ovens next to it. > > Initially, I > > was using 90 degrees and then transferred to the 115 degree oven for the > > final bake. My exact procedure was: > > > > 1) Put blue tape on back of my wafer (needed because it had free > > standing > > membranes that would have been destroyed by the vacuum) > > 2) Spin SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec > > 3) Remove tape > > 4) Move to hot plate, bake for 100 seconds at 90 degrees > > 5) Spin SPR-220, 1 krpm, 30 sec on backside > > 6) Move to 90 degree oven for ~30-45 minutes (Since this was a > > protection > > layer, I didn't care if I had the proper time, I just needed it dry) > > 7) Move to 115 degree oven for another 30 minutes or so > > > > > Another observations I've had is how many of us open the doors on the > > > flammables cabinets (and may apply here as well)... The exhaust is static and > > > when a door is opened quickly, it counters the exhaust, potentially drawing > > > fumes across the person opening the door... > > > > I TOTALLY agree about the flammables cabinets. I've have always been > > concerned about that. I didn't realize that the speed of opening the > > cabinets makes a difference. I always assumed the exhaust simply wasn't > > enough. > > > > > I'll try this out in the litho area a few times, and if this helps, I'll > > > put some signs up ("open the door slooowwwwllly") and add it to our > > > safety training info. > > > > Please let me know what you find. One recommendation on the sign is to > > indicate why one should open it slowly too. Since the processes people > > use in the cleanroom are complex often information seems to get lost as > > to > > why certain thing need to be done. For example sometimes I thought the > > order of certain operations such as opening certain valves were critical > > to get a machine to operate safely/properly. Only later when I > > understood > > the process more, did I realize it was just the order the trainer had > > happened to use during training. I think knowing why helps us all > > protect > > the equipment and ourselves if we know why certain things need to be > > done. > > For example, if the sign only said "open the door slowly," I would > > assume > > that the door was fragile and watch for something wrong near the hinge. > > Thus, if I still smelled fumes, I would not realize I had opened it too > > fast. Also, with regards to the furnaces, this may very well be part of > > the problem. After getting several whiffs of the fumes, I tended to > > open > > the door as quickly as possible, insert the wafers, and close it quickly > > with the thought that the less time the door was open, the less time for > > fumes to escape. > > > > > I'm really sorry this happened, and truly appreciate you letting us > > > know... > > > > I realize thing like this happen. I just appreciate you taking this so > > seriously and helping make the lab a safe place for us to work. > > > > > Knowing that you are a conscientious person in the lab, I'm concerned that > > > there is something wrong in our procedures and/or our equipment setup. Again, > > > if you could provide a little more detail (which stations, etc.) and insight > > > as to what you feel might help, it would be much appreciated... > > > > I really think I was doing everything generally right. Especially after > > breathing the fumes the first time, I tried to be very careful because I > > knew it wasn't healthy. As I mentioned, the only stations were the > > headway, the nearest hot plates, and the two white furnaces. > > > > Thanks for your help. Let me know if there is any other info I can > > provide. > > > > -Scott From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 20 09:27:49 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:27:49 -0700 Subject: Chemical Safety Violation in Litho References: <4121105E.FC0D5AC1@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <41262685.A21F4AE7@snf.stanford.edu> Hello all -- Just a reminder and follow up... Please either retake the safety test (if you have not taken it before) or provide me with a question that can be used on future safety tests by Monday, Aug. 23. For reference, the safety manual is available online in PDF format from links at http://snf.stanford.edu/Labmembers/Labmembers.html and if you would like a copy of the safety test (a good idea anyway, if you don't remember it, for creating new questions), contact me (Maureen is on vacation.) If I don't receive something by Monday, you may be disqualified from the following tools. > headway2: yinliu, lindaw, weigao, levi > laurel: lgx, arvind, raychen > svgcoat: axiu, lindaw, weigao, yeh, alissa, mcconnel, jgarate Again, I deeply apologize for being hardnosed about this, but we have to do something (another unlabeled beaker was found yesterday morning!) and if it means cutting a wide swath to make a point, well, I'll do it. Please help improve safety in the lab by complying with this request and spreading the word. Thanks, Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From amf at amfitzgerald.com Sat Aug 21 15:04:35 2004 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: mystery bag near wbgaas Message-ID: <20040821220435.38154.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, There is a clear plastic ziploc bag containing what appears to be waste (crumpled al foil, gloves, wipes) sitting on the work bench opposite wbgaas. I found it ~ 1pm, no one has been back to claim it. It doesn't smell. I'm not sure what to do with it, not knowing what is actually inside. For the time being I will leave it where it is and send an email to the lab list. -Alissa From amf at amfitzgerald.com Sun Aug 22 10:23:09 2004 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fwd: mystery bag near wbgaas Message-ID: <20040822172309.73432.qmail@web52609.mail.yahoo.com> Hello, I sent this message to the labmembers list on Sat at 3pm, it is now Sun 10:20am and I still have not received my copy of this message. Is Coral that slow? I have not received an email bounce. Anyway, I wanted to notify you that I had attempted to alert other users, but so far it looks like the message hasn't gotten through. -Alissa "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:10:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" Subject: mystery bag near wbgaas To: labmembers at snf.stanford.edu Hello labmembers, This Sat at ~1pm I found a clear plastic ziploc bag containing what appears to be waste (crumpled al foil, gloves, wipes) sitting on the work bench opposite wbgaas. If this is your bag, please come back to the lab immediately and dispose of it properly! -Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leet at stanford.edu Mon Aug 23 13:24:33 2004 From: leet at stanford.edu (Thomas T. Lee) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:24:33 -0700 Subject: Safety Issue: Chemical Handling In-Reply-To: <412A4D45.A6BF19C8@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040823131243.0214efd8@leet.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi Mary, Thanks for your email. I've had a couple scares with fumes in the litho room myself recently. I was emptying the red container underneath lithosolv and got a faceful of fumes - I think someone didn't put their trash in a plastic bag. One suggestion on improving safety - require all labmembers to take the safety test annually. It's doesn't have to be an onerous test - just enough to get people to re-read the safety procedures and remind themselves of things they may have forgotten. To make sure people comply, Coral logins could be disabled (or enabling privileges automatically one year after the user last took the test, and reset once the test is completed. This also ensures that people who don't use the lab for a long time don't go back in without a safety refresher. Thanks, --Tom At 01:02 PM 8/23/2004 -0700, you wrote: >Labmembers: > >There has been a rash of incidents in involving handling of chemicals >and chemical waste in the lab. Unlabeled beakers containing chemicals >have been found ? on one occasion, ON TOP of an exhausted hood station, >where it donated resist fumes to the litho area. In one appalling >instance, someone placed a yellow hazardous waste bag containing resist >waste, untied, and without a label, into the regular trash can. The >custodian, doing his regular cleanup, complained about the smell to >Mario, who took care of it... however irresponsible it is to expose >fellow labmates to unknown chemicals, it is utterly unconscionable to >expose the custodial staff. > >Then, just this weekend, a concerned labmember found and reported an >unlabeled bag of solid waste near wbsolvent and two more unlabeled >beakers of resist were found in a litho bench. > >I?m sure that no one intentionally did these things. And equally sure >that it would be difficult to find the person(s) responsible. However, >in following up on each of these incidents, I seem to always get at >least one response from someone who noticed something wrong at the time, >but was too busy or shy to do or say anything... Please... We are ALL >RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY in the lab!! > >Even if you are not the person who did these things, this is your lab >too (and your air that you are breathing.) If you see someone engaging >in an unsafe situation, you should be able to tell the person about >your concerns. At the very least, you should let a staff member know or >email safety at snf.stanford.edu with your concerns. If you see chemical >waste that has been improperly handled or dispose of, please tell >someone (safety at snf.stanford.edu or your friendly neighborhood >staffer). If you aren?t sure and it?s off hours, ask your fellow >labmembers and send an email (safety at snf.stanford.edu). > >Consider this an utlimatum: Paul Rissman is making safety a top >priority. He?s the new sheriff in town, and I?m a deputy. So, for each >safety incident encountered in the lab that we can?t trace, we?ll impose >a penalty on EVERYONE who has enabled equipment in the vicinity. The >penalties thus far are relatively light and consist of taking the safety >test (for those old-timers who haven?t done so) or providing an >acceptable multiple-choice question that can be used for the test. NO, >there?s no guarantee that the person who did this is also getting >penalized. YES, there will be a number of people who are getting >penalized who are in no way responsible. YES, there may be some >innocent people who get penalized multiple times. However, the penalty >is small ? please view this as an act of community service to improve >safety and safety awareness. (And if anyone can think of a better >method for eliminating these chemical safety handling problems, we?ll >gladly discuss this with you.) > >I trust everyone is as concerned as we are about making sure the lab is >a safe place to work. > >And did I tell you that we have a safety group, who can be reached at >safety at snf.stanford.edu? If you have any questions, comments, or >concerns about this, please email safety at snf.stanford.edu. > >Thanks for your attention -- > >Mary > > >-- >Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. >Stanford Nanofabrication Facility >CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 >Stanford, CA 94305 >(650)723-9980 >mtang at stanford.edu >http://snf.stanford.edu From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 23 14:07:08 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:07:08 -0700 Subject: Safety Issue: Chemical Handling References: <5.2.1.1.2.20040823131243.0214efd8@leet.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <412A5C7C.751023B1@snf.stanford.edu> Thanks Tom -- And good point on the safety test (Berkeley does theirs annually - they have several tests, like the DMV.) We've talked about doing this but had not gotten the logistics together, having just implemented the tests ourselves just a bit over a year ago. I'm glad you see it is beneficial thing and can take the time to let us know. In short, we do plan to do annual tests, in the not-too-distant future. Mary "Thomas T. Lee" wrote: > Hi Mary, > > Thanks for your email. I've had a couple scares with fumes in the litho > room myself recently. I was emptying the red container underneath lithosolv > and got a faceful of fumes - I think someone didn't put their trash in a > plastic bag. > > One suggestion on improving safety - require all labmembers to take the safety > test annually. It's doesn't have to be an onerous test - just enough to > get people > to re-read the safety procedures and remind themselves of things they may have > forgotten. To make sure people comply, Coral logins could be disabled (or > enabling > privileges automatically one year after the user last took the test, and > reset once > the test is completed. This also ensures that people who don't use the lab for > a long time don't go back in without a safety refresher. > > Thanks, > --Tom > > At 01:02 PM 8/23/2004 -0700, you wrote: > >Labmembers: > > > >There has been a rash of incidents in involving handling of chemicals > >and chemical waste in the lab. Unlabeled beakers containing chemicals > >have been found ? on one occasion, ON TOP of an exhausted hood station, > >where it donated resist fumes to the litho area. In one appalling > >instance, someone placed a yellow hazardous waste bag containing resist > >waste, untied, and without a label, into the regular trash can. The > >custodian, doing his regular cleanup, complained about the smell to > >Mario, who took care of it... however irresponsible it is to expose > >fellow labmates to unknown chemicals, it is utterly unconscionable to > >expose the custodial staff. > > > >Then, just this weekend, a concerned labmember found and reported an > >unlabeled bag of solid waste near wbsolvent and two more unlabeled > >beakers of resist were found in a litho bench. > > > >I?m sure that no one intentionally did these things. And equally sure > >that it would be difficult to find the person(s) responsible. However, > >in following up on each of these incidents, I seem to always get at > >least one response from someone who noticed something wrong at the time, > >but was too busy or shy to do or say anything... Please... We are ALL > >RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY in the lab!! > > > >Even if you are not the person who did these things, this is your lab > >too (and your air that you are breathing.) If you see someone engaging > >in an unsafe situation, you should be able to tell the person about > >your concerns. At the very least, you should let a staff member know or > >email safety at snf.stanford.edu with your concerns. If you see chemical > >waste that has been improperly handled or dispose of, please tell > >someone (safety at snf.stanford.edu or your friendly neighborhood > >staffer). If you aren?t sure and it?s off hours, ask your fellow > >labmembers and send an email (safety at snf.stanford.edu). > > > >Consider this an utlimatum: Paul Rissman is making safety a top > >priority. He?s the new sheriff in town, and I?m a deputy. So, for each > >safety incident encountered in the lab that we can?t trace, we?ll impose > >a penalty on EVERYONE who has enabled equipment in the vicinity. The > >penalties thus far are relatively light and consist of taking the safety > >test (for those old-timers who haven?t done so) or providing an > >acceptable multiple-choice question that can be used for the test. NO, > >there?s no guarantee that the person who did this is also getting > >penalized. YES, there will be a number of people who are getting > >penalized who are in no way responsible. YES, there may be some > >innocent people who get penalized multiple times. However, the penalty > >is small ? please view this as an act of community service to improve > >safety and safety awareness. (And if anyone can think of a better > >method for eliminating these chemical safety handling problems, we?ll > >gladly discuss this with you.) > > > >I trust everyone is as concerned as we are about making sure the lab is > >a safe place to work. > > > >And did I tell you that we have a safety group, who can be reached at > >safety at snf.stanford.edu? If you have any questions, comments, or > >concerns about this, please email safety at snf.stanford.edu. > > > >Thanks for your attention -- > > > >Mary > > > > > >-- > >Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > >Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > >CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > >Stanford, CA 94305 > >(650)723-9980 > >mtang at stanford.edu > >http://snf.stanford.edu -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu