FCCB Copy Exactly: A Summary Overview
R. Cohen / K. Hassett / R. Litchfield
Topic
Page
1. Purpose Of This Document: ..................................................................................................... 1
2. FCCB Copy Exactly (CE!) Summary ........................................................................................ 1
3. "Compelling Reason For Change" ............................................................................................ 2
4. Who Needs to Know About CE! (Scope) .................................................................................. 2
5. CE! Expectations ...................................................................................................................... 2
6. “Real Life” CE! Examples ......................................................................................................... 2
7. FCCB Change Classification System ....................................................................................... 3
8. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 4
9. Appendix A: FCCB Change Classification System .................................................................. 4
10. Appendix B: FCCB Change Classification Examples ........................................................... 11
1.
Purpose Of This Document:
To stress the importance of Copy Exactly! for facilities systems and equipment installation
changes and to give a brief overview of the FCCB white paper process.
2.
FCCB Copy Exactly (CE!) Summary
WHAT IS COPY EXACTLY! ?
“COPY EXACTLY!” is one of the most important elements of Intel’s process transfer
methodology. It means that we copy the approved standard for process equipment installations
and facilities systems exactly when we add manufacturing capacity locally or at a new factory.

WHY USE COPY EXACTLY! ?
Advanced silicon chip processes are very complex and sensitive. We simply don’t understand
all the sensitivities and subtle interactions. In the past, some very simple and innocent-looking
changes have caused dramatic decreases in yield, reliability, and output.

DOES CE! WORK ?
Yes! By using this method, Intel has been able to transfer advanced technologies and add new
product capacity significantly faster than our competitors. Examples of CE! success were the
startups of Fab 11 and Fab 12 on P854 where their initial yields were essentially equivalent to
the Fab 15 yields and the factories have continued to track yield levels very closely since.

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS?
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 1 of 12
Yes, only if there are compelling reasons or physical barriers to copying exactly. However,
these exceptions must be tested, documented, reviewed, and then approved by the FCCB
process to ensure that the proposed changes won’t affect product yield or reliability.
3.
"Compelling Reason For Change"
Some examples of a compelling reason to change could be:

A particular component is no longer available, at any price

A local site requires additional waste treatment, above and beyond the POR (plan of record)

A substantial cost savings can be realized by Intel without impacting the process

Corrects a known problem and establishes a new POR
Compelling does not mean:
1. That's the way we do it in __________ (plug in the appropriate Intel site)
2. This is the industry standard
3. Personal preference/bias
Once a change is established as compelling, the change is documented using a white paper
and it is reviewed through the FCCB change control process.
4.
Who Needs to Know About CE! (Scope)
Anyone who is working on the design, construction, or maintenance of a Fab, Bridge Building,
Sort, Fab C4, or Fab Cub area for processes P854, 856, 858, 860, 802, and 1260.
Office buildings, Assembly, Test, and General Purpose buildings are covered by a separate CE!
system and are not part of this presentation.
5.
CE! Expectations
It is an expectation that anyone who is working within the scope of CE! will write a white paper
(ahead of time) for any change that requires a white paper. It is not acceptable to make a
change first and then write the white paper after the fact. This is because that change may be
deemed unacceptable and it will have to be retrofitted which could have a significant impact on
cost and schedule.
6.
“Real Life” CE! Examples
Example 1:
An engineer in the employ of an Intel A/E consultant reviewed a submittal requesting
substitution for a backdraft damper to be used in the scrubbed exhaust system. The engineer
did not flag the item to the Intel Workgroup lead as requiring a Whitepaper.
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 2 of 12
Result: Substituted damper failed in service; replacement had to be scheduled which caused
factory downtime.
Example 2:
An Intel project was kicked off with aggressive goals for cost cutting. All Intel FCT engineers
were tasked with finding cheaper vendors for capital equipment. The Mechanical group bids
and awards to a makeup air handler vendor were not on the approved supplier list.
Result: After startup the unit was found to have excessive housing leakage.
Example 3:
A planar chemical tool was installed and the chemical valve manifold box was slightly different
from the approved design. The IQ engineer and tool owner made a field decision to accept the
non-standard box design even though it caused a minor process line slope change (line runs
slightly “uphill” before turning back down to the tool). No white paper was submitted because it
was felt that the change was “minor” and not impactive.
Result: After several months, a second tool was connected to the non-standard valve box and
the increased chemical demand coupled with the line slope change resulted in a “bubble” in the
line which formed a vapor lock and starved the original Planarization tool with this chemical.
Several wafers were scrapped as a result and the valve box had to be fixed.
Example 4:
An engineer in the Litho area received approval from the JET to change the type and design of
the pedestal supporting the Micrascan stepper in the Fab without any form of documentation.
Result: This undocumented decision caused a significant lack of synergy between processes
for pedestal design. This lack of synergy could result in significant costs and downtimes for
retrofits if it is determined to be a problem. At a minimum, the different types of pedestals are a
violation of CE!.
7.
FCCB Change Classification System
A key element of the FCCB white paper is its "classification". The white paper classification is a
number (denoted as a roman numeral) that assesses the amount of risk associated with the
specified change. The “risk” that we refer to here is typically risk to factory output. The change
classification level becomes the overall "class" of the white paper (e.g., a Class III white paper).
In the FCCB, the following white papers are reviewed:

Class III: Significant Risk (min 3 levels of review)

Class IV: Moderate Risk (min 2 levels of review)

Class V: Low Risk (min 1 level of review)
The overall classification of the WP determines how much review, and by which groups, will be
required before it is approved.
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 3 of 12
Each change that is included in a white paper is classified by using the FCCB Change
Classification matrix. This is a table that compares two things: 1) the “Level” of a particular
utility that is being affected by the change, and 2) the amount or “degree” of the change. Details
on how to classify changes for the FCCB can be found in the Fab FCCB Policies and
Procedures , FCCB White Paper Handbook , or by taking the FCCB White Paper Intel
University class.
8.
Summary
CE! is extremely critical to Intel’s success. It is imperative that all changes are reviewed and
understood completely before taking any action. The FCCB white paper is the vehicle that must
be used to document, review, and approve all changes that fall within the FCCB scope.
Once a change is identified and is determined to require an FCCB white paper, work within your
working group to get the white paper written and reviewed through the FCCB process.
An Intel University class is available which focuses on writing FCCB white papers and is
recommended for anyone who will be writing one or more white papers: Intel University course
code PTD007692. Additionally, the FCCB has a document which outlines the FCCB processes
entitled Fab FCCB Policies and Procedures.
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 4 of 12
Appendix A: FCCB Change Classification System
A.
Types of FCCB White Papers
The types of white papers that the FCCB will review are:
1. Changes to in-scope facilities or Fab process equipment installations with respect to the
Plan of Record.
2. Documentation of A-level system qualifications (e.g., D1B Fab C4 BCD system
qualification)
3. Facilities Matching for A, B, and E-level systems
4. Documentation for a new facilities systems or Fab process equipment installation POR’s
B.
FCCB Change Classification System
The white paper classification is a number (denoted as a roman numeral) that assesses the
amount of risk associated with the specified change. The “risk” that we refer to here is typically
risk to factory output. The change classification level becomes the overall "class" of the white
paper (e.g., a Class III white paper).
In the FCCB, the following white papers are reviewed:

Class III: Significant Risk

Class IV: Moderate Risk

Class V: Low Risk
The overall classification of the white paper determines how much review, and by which groups,
will be required before it is approved.
Typically, if a white paper contains multiple changes, each change is classified. However, the
overall classification of the white paper is determined by the "highest" class of all of the
changes. For example, if a white paper contains one class III change and three class IV
changes, the overall classification of the white paper is III.
Facilities matching and A-level system qualification white papers are always reviewed through
the FCCB and will be at least class IV white paper. However, if the facilities matching white
paper contains a change that is a class III change (per the matrix), then the overall classification
of the white paper will be class III.
FCCB changes are classified by using the FCCB Change Classification matrix. This is a table
that compares two things:
1. the particular facilities system that is being affected by the change
2. the amount or degree of the change.
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 5 of 12
Note: a detailed explanation of classifying changes and writing FCCB white papers is available
through the Intel University class, Writing FCCB White Papers, class code PTD007692.
C.
FCCB System Levels
The various facilities systems that are within the scope of the Fab FCCB are categorized into
four levels: A, B, C, and E.
LEVEL A
LEVEL B
LEVEL C
LEVEL E
SYSTEM LEVELS DEFINITION
Changes to Level A systems carry the highest risk to factory
output. Typically, these are systems that actually contact the
wafer surface or directly impact manufacturing operations.
Changes to Level B systems carry a moderate amount of risk to
factory output. These systems do not typically contact the wafer
surface but are critical to process tool operations.
Changes to Level C systems carry a minimal amount of risk to
factory output. These systems do not contact the wafer surface
but are still critical to building systems operations.
Changes to Level E (Environmental) systems carry the risk of
changing or exceeding the factory’s chemical or gaseous effluent
upper limits which impact operating permits.
The complete list of factory facilities systems and their associated FCCB level are as follows:
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 6 of 12
FCCB System Levels
Level A Systems
Level B Systems
High Purity Systems
- Specialty gases
- HP nitrogen
- Oxygen
- HP argon
- Hydrogen
- Helium
- Bulk chemical delivery
- Planar chemical delivery
- Ultra-pure w ater (ambient)
- Hot Ultra-pure w ater
- Process tool vacuum pumps
- Process tool pump forelines
- Process equipment point of use
effluent treatment systems
Level C Systems
Process Tool Utilities
-
General Bldg. Utilities
Electricity
Industrial w ater
Process Cooling w ater
House Process vacuum
Tool pedestals
Tool blocks
Transformers
Conditioners
-
General House Gases
- Oil Free Air
- Utility Nitrogen
- Construction Argon
Chilled w ater
City w ater
Condenser w ater
Fire Protection
HPM Make-up air/exhaust
Heating w ater
House vacuum
Instrument air
Security systems
Smoke exhaust
Steam
Venturi nitrogen
Telecommunications
Radio communications
Boilers
Cleanroom Environment
Support Cleanrooms
-
Fab recirc air
Fab makeup air
Cleanroom envelope
Cleanroom w all changes
General Support Room
HVAC
- Gow nroom
- Sort
- C4
-
Monitoring Systems
- FMS Base System
- Life Safety Systems
- Breathing Air System
Level E Systems
Air Emission Devices
-
House scrubbers
VOC Treatment
HAPs Duct Scrubber
PFC Recycle
Ammonia Scrubber
General/Heat exhaust
Liquid Effluent
Systems
-
AWN / CAW
C4 Waste Systems
URW
HF Treatment
KD-100 Waste Treatment
Sulfuric Waste Collection
Solvent Waste Collection
Phosphoric Waste System
Subfab
SCR rooms
Gas Pad
Trench
BCR rooms
Lead reclaim w aste
Dilute lead w aste
Concentrated lead w aste
Organic lead w aste
EG/EG3
Ethyl Lactate
NMP (PRS)
General Solvent
- Fire alarm
- Voice evacuation
- H2 detection
- O2 depletion
- Liquid leak detection
- HPM leak detection
D.
FCCB Change Degrees
The amount or “degree” of change is described as either a change degree 1, 2, 3, or 4. A
change degree 1 would be the most significant amount of change incurred by the facilities
system while a change degree 4 would be the least amount of change incurred by the facilities
system.
Change Degree Descriptions
Change
Degree
Description
A change in the OUTPUT or
Change PERFORMANCE of a particular system.
Degree 1 This would also include items such as the
Example(s)
A change in the temperature of the delivered
UPW would be a degree 1 change for the
UPW system.
system reliability.
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 7 of 12
Change Degree Descriptions
Change
Degree
Description
A change in the DESIGN, or a
Change DIFFERENT MATERIAL in the wetted
Degree 2 stream, of a particular system which is not
expected to affect the performance,
reliability, or output of the system.
DESIGN is defined as any one of the
following:
1. the addition or deletion of a component
or a unit operation in the system
2. the rearrangement (i.e., different order)
of unit operations
3. changing/switching the building
facilities systems that are connected to
the tool (input or output)
4. a change that modifies or does not
meet the documented design criteria
(Master Package Facilities Data Sheet,
Facilities Master Specs, Facilities
System Design Specs, Master
Equipment Installation Standards)
Example(s)
Different Material example:

A lower grade of stainless steel for the
high purity Nitrogen system laterals
Different Design examples:
1. Addition of new UV lamp in the UPW
system
2. Changing the order of the UPW unit
operations.
3. Switching an etcher exhaust from
scrubbed exhaust to general exhaust.
4. Installing a pump Foreline that is 22 feet
long when the Master Package Facilities
Data Sheet states a 20 foot maximum or a
change that results in the Facilities Master
Specs requiring modification.
Change A change in one or more CRITICAL
Degree 3 COMPONENTS in a particular system.
A different high purity UPW valve which has
the same specifications as the prior valve and
System controls, software, and monitoring it is not expected to affect the quality or
are considered a critical component as well performance of the UPW system is a degree 3
as the valves, fittings, etc.
change. The addition or deletion of an
approved supplier on an FT master document
is a degree 3 change.
Change A change in one or more NON-CRITICAL A change in the distribution pump motor for
Degree 4 COMPONENTS in a particular system.
the UPW system would be considered a
degree 4 change since the motor itself is not in
the "wetted" stream of the UPW system.
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 8 of 12
E.
FCCB Change Classification Matrix
Taken together, the system level and change degree combine to produce an overall change
class. The matrix below defines this relationship.
Change
Degree
1
Different Output
2
Different Design
3
Different Critical
Component
4
Different NonCritical
Component
LEVEL A
SYSTEM LEVELS
LEVEL B
LEVEL C
LEVEL E
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Class IV
Class III
Class V
Class V
Class IV
Class IV
Class V
Project Team
Class V
Class V
Project Team
Project Team
Project Team
F.
FCCB White Paper: Required Review Forums
As noted above, the overall classification of the white paper determines the amount of review
that is required. The diagram below gives a high level summary of what is required for the
different classifications of FCCB white papers. Two much more detailed flowcharts that
describe the white paper flow can be found in the appendix of this document.
“Project Team” changes do not require a white paper unless the cost of the project exceeds
$50K in the virtual factory. This means that any change that falls into one of the following
categories: B-4, C-3, C-4, or E-4, and the cost of the total project (sum of the cost for all
affected factories) exceeds $50K, requires a white paper.
“Project Team” changes that will result in the modification of an FT master document will require
submittal of an FCCB Project Team Document Change Order. This document will be reviewed
and approved by the appropriate FT owner and submitted to the FCCB Admin for tracking via
the post-FCCB white paper flowchart (see appendix).
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 9 of 12
Simplified Pre-FCCB White Paper Flow
FCCB
White Paper
Generated
Facilities
Sponsors
Facilities
Type of
White Pape r
Eqpt
Install
Equipment
Installation
Sponsors
Block
Change
Review
Facilities
XJET
Review
Process JET
JIQT
XJET
Reviews
Class III, IV and V White Papers
Class III, IV
and V White Papers
FCCB
Review
Class III
White Papers
PCCB
Review
Note: Refer to the appendix for a detailed flowchart of the white paper review process
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Page 10 of 12
9.
Appendix B: FCCB Change Classification Examples
CHANGE
LEVEL
DEGREE
WHITE
PAPER?
WHY
1. Hydrogen from new
supplier
2. Fab recirc units will
have more capacity
and different
configuration
3. Change design of
spec gas cabinet
A
3
Yes
A
2
Yes
(III)
Different critical component which wafer
sees
Different design to a part of the system
which affects the cleanroom environment
A
4
Yes
(V)
4. Change software
which provides manmachine interface to
FMS
5. Add critical PCW
system
6. Change vendor for
transformers or power
conditioners
7. Change method of
labeling electric wiring
or valves
B
1
Yes
(IV)
B
2
B
3
Yes
(V)
Yes
(V)
B
4
No
8. Change vacuum
pump vendor who has
lower vacuum
capability
9. Use air cooled
chillers instead of
water cooled
10. Change fan
vendor for smoke
exhaust system
11. Change motor
vendor in smoke
exhaust fan
A
1
Yes
(III)
This is a different design, splitting PCW
into PCW and CPCW
Critical component because the electric
current is affected directly by the
transformer or power conditioner.
This is a non-critical component of the
system; it will not affect the quality of the
power or fluid flowing through the
system.
This is a different output to a B level
system.
C
2
Yes
(V)
This would be a different design of
chiller.
C
3
No
C
3 or 4
No
E
2
Yes
(IV)
This is a different critical component as
the fan “sees” the smoke exhausted air
stream. Project Team decision
If the exhaust stream is isolated from the
motor, e.g. belt drive, this would be
degree 4 but if the exhaust stream flows
over the motor this would be degree 3.
Both are Project Team decisions.
This is a different design. Output is
expected to be same.
12. Change from
vertical scrubbers to
horizontal scrubbers
Rev Date 19-May-1999
Non-critical component; houses gas
cylinder but doesn’t necessarily affect
the gas itself.
Different output is expected; format will
probably be different; operation will be
different.
Page 11 of 12
CHANGE
LEVEL
DEGREE
WHITE
PAPER?
13. Change heat
exchanger vendor in
C4 waste system
14. Change boiler O2
controller
manufacturer
E
3
Yes
Different critical component - the heat
exchanger “sees” the waste.
E
4
No
15. Changing the
process vacuum
pump model from dry
to wet and the
supplier.
16. Adding new
components to a
existing approved Fab
or Subfab tool block
17. Removing the
liquid leak detection
from the wet stations
in the Fab.
A
2
Yes
Different non-critical component because
the hot water is the critical fluid here, not
the flue gas which is what the analyzer
acts on.
This would be a different design.
B
2
Yes
A different design changing space in the
Fab or Subfab plus changes in the
Master Design package and site layouts.
B
3
Yes
This is a different critical component
change, to the monitoring system
supporting the Fab.
Rev Date 19-May-1999
WHY
Page 12 of 12