Intel's EHS Training Improvement - Semiconductor Safety Association

Intel’s EHS Training Improvement
John L. Pendley
Senior Safety Engineer, Intel Corporation
4500 S Dobson Rd. MS: OC4-005
Chandler, AZ, 85248
Phone: 480-715-0722 Fax: 480-715-5140
Email: john.pendley@intel.com
Abstract
An integral part of an Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Program is a comprehensive training
program. Training many times serves as an employee’s introduction to EHS for a given company.
Training must serve many purposes, from meeting regulatory requirements to providing in depth
and many times hands-on knowledge of company, site or even area specific requirements, policies
and procedures. Intel has taken EHS training to a new level by ensuring that it meets or exceeds all
external requirements as well as meeting the company’s specific needs for awareness of internal
expectations. Intel has continued to streamline its EHS training to meet the company’s growth and
diversity by moving towards standardized training courses that apply across the corporation,
reducing the need for retraining. This streamlining has also led to the ease of developing EHS
training curriculums specific to the varying business units. The cost and time savings have proved
to be very substantial in the process of increased consistency in a company as large as Intel. Intel
has also greatly increased its use of products developed in house, utilizing internal resources as
content experts. Additionally, Intel engages our internal experts to, both within EHS and in our
general employee population, to actually provide a majority of our training. Intel is now exploring
the diversity in training formats and delivery methods to further increase our training effectivity and
efficiency. In this presentation, I plan to discuss both the challenges and successes realized in
Intel’s continuous improvement with EHS Training, much occurring during a period of rapid
growth.
Biography
John is a Senior Safety Engineer at Intel Corporation. He is the EHS Training Coordinator
facilitating the implementation and continuous improvement of EHS Training at operations
worldwide. John has BS and MS degrees in Safety and Industrial Hygiene respectively, both from
Murray State University.

Introduction
Up until 1995, EHS training at Intel was primarily managed at the site level, with training materials,
supporting codes and even the curriculums being very site specific and sometimes even
organization specific. This had been the way of business since Intel’s inception roughly 27 years
earlier. With that in mind, any change to business as usual was going to be a tough sell.
At Intel, a training service organization exists called Intel University or Intel U. Intel U provides
the basic service for most all training organizations at Intel. They provide the structure that starts
with the actual implementation of the training, including forecasting, instructor placement, session
scheduling, and on to the final tracking of the student’s training completion. Late in 1995, Intel
University began pushing for EHS to better align its training, basically to be more like other training
functions where the training was nearly identical from site to site, therefore making the
implementation much easier.
The Decision to Change
About this same time in 1995, Intel entered into the early stages of a 3 year growth spurt, that led to
the eventual doubling of our workforce to a size of roughly 70,000 employees. It was at this point
that EHS management made the decision with regards to training, that it would be to the
corporation’s advantage to really start acting like the large company we were fast becoming.
Justification for this decision was easily found and would be realized in several ways. They are as
follows:
1. A consistent training message across the corporation for a given program’s training.
2. Improved awareness and utilization of training due to it being the one and only training
product for that program.
3. Reduction of incidents and injuries.
4. Development of consistent training curriculums across platforms, organizations and/or
sites.
5. Reduction in training time due to elimination of re-training.
6. Elimination of time-consuming duplicative efforts across multiple sites.
7. Improved awareness of other sites training programs – promoting a sharing of BKMs
(best known methods).

Early Steps
The first plan of action was to designate a Corporate EHS Training Coordinator with decisive
functional ownership of EHS training and all its supporting courses . Early in 1996, key
stakeholders with responsibility in EHS training were identified. These key stakeholders were
invited to join the newly established EHS Training Council chaired by the EHS Training
Coordinator. The council was comprised of EHS representatives from every site in addition to
several training organizational reps like Intel U and a training development group known as TMG-
Training. The diversity in membership ensured equitable representation in direction setting.
Early Accomplishments
♦ Several courses standardized using cross site teams of content experts.
♦ New resources added in EHS to support effort.
♦ Roles and Responsibilities agreed to and documented.
♦ 5 duplicating courses eliminated.
♦ Site course owners identified per course.
♦ Manufacturing EHS Training Curriculum developed.
♦ Training Council improving awareness.
♦ Alternative delivery methods introduced (Computer Based Training).
Early Key Learnings
♦ Resistance to change was greatly underestimated.
♦ Full cross site representation nearly impossible on nearly every project.
♦ Implementation of new products a challenge, especially where representation was lacking.
♦ Standardized products didn’t allow for addition of site specific information.
♦ Communication gaps beginning to surface.
♦ Key groups struggling with the support structure and performance of others (EHS, Intel U,
and TMG-Training).

Even with several early accomplishments behind us, it was painfully obvious that changing the
structure from site to corporate based was going to be an unenviable task after the 20 plus years of
site ownership. On the positive side, the early struggles aided in the understanding of the vast
diversity of training programs and their management at both the site and organizational level.
Challenging the Status Quo
Armed with ample feedback from the training stakeholders, it was time to transition to the next
stage. This could best be described as ‘challenging the status quo’ with results, compromise and
communication. This occurred from late ’96 through the end of ’97.
Challenging Stage - Key Accomplishments
♦ 100 + courses trimmed to 55.
♦ Course development process documented.
♦ Relaxed our position on standardized training – allowing site specific info to be included.
♦ Course contracts updated – document containing key info for the course including course
summary, key owners, materials description, and details for session set-up.
♦ 1 st Training Council Face to Face meeting.
♦ Coordinator ensuring communication through ‘road-show’ presentations.
♦ Key groups talking partnership (EHS, Intel U and TMG-Training).
♦ Early indicator data being captured.
♦ Standardized product output increasing (up to 20 by end of year).
♦ 10 site specific duplicating courses eliminated.
♦ CEHS Training Curriculum developed capturing standardized courses.
♦ EHS Training Program Manager designated by TMG-Training.
Challenging Stage - Key Learnings
♦ Product development meeting limited resistance.
♦ New course requests rolling in – need for an approval process.
♦ Need for a general curriculum as a guidance document.
♦ Improvement in communication on course development, release and implementation.
♦ Gaps in communication at site level becoming apparent.
♦ Improvement needed in product availability to international sites.

As it turned out, 1997 was the training program’s transitional year as we challenged the corporation
to adopt and/or adapt to the EHS training alignment efforts being put forth. Further direction was
apparent and next steps imminent.
Break Through Stage
By late 1997, conditions were prime for drastic improvements in EHS Training. With the recent
designation of a dedicated program manager in TMG-Training and a restructure of Intel U support,
it was time to kick off a new partnership strategy. The Training Partnership Team was introduced
early 1998 with the leads from TMG-Training, Central Intel University and Corporate EHS. Based
upon the increasing reliance on the other groups for success, the premise of the team was agreed to
as “ if one succeeds, all succeed - if one fails, all fail”. The Training Partnership Team Goals were
developed and are as follows:
♦ Plan and forecast business needs/decisions.
♦ Improve processes, procedures.
♦ Clearly communicate intentions.
♦ Meet the EHS training needs of our customers.
♦ Improve the quality of our product.
Immediate advantages realized by work of the Training Partnership Team are as follows:
♦ Weekly TPT meetings to discuss / resolve all course development and implementation
issues with detailed action items and completion dates documented.
♦ All training contracts further updated with clear ownership identified.
♦ Yearly course development plans (Plan 98, 99) completed and communicated in advance to
all affected groups and progress reported consistently (See Appendix A for Plan 99).
♦ Vendor contracts established to streamline training material handling and reduce costs.
♦ Training function codes cleaned-up quarterly (elimination of duplicative and low use codes).
Break Through Stage - Key Accomplishments in ’98
♦ 15 courses standardized in same format and instructional design with new look and feel.
♦ Apparent transition from new course development to revision of existing training courses.
♦ Corporate Course Owners designated for each course and trained on responsibilities.
♦ EHS Training Request Form created (new course approval process).
♦ Approval Flow and Contingency Matrix documents developed to support request process.
♦ Comprehensive internal EHS Training Website created to house training related documents
and processes including soft copy of standardized training materials (international access).

The Break Through Stage for the program continued well into 1999 with many new opportunities
available. It also became apparent that in order to maintain the focus and energy, the program must
enter into a partial maintenance stage as many parts had now been in place for some time.
Maintenance of several items provided a valuable update of the program’s structure with new gaps
identified based on infrastructure changes across the corporation. Also captured were further
indicators documenting growth and trending that verified our forecasts as well as supporting both
our goals and results (See Figure 2 below).
# Students Trained in EHS Courses
1999
1998
1997
120,027
125,504
122,513
1996
60,104
1995
39,563
1994
1993
17,234
27,807
0 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000 150000
Fig 1. Number of Students Trained and Trending
1999 EHS Training Trending:
Domestic Sites = down 13.0 %
International Sites = up 25.1 %
Break Through Stage - Key Accomplishments in ’99
♦ Actions in 1998 and 1999 lead to the elimination of 66,000 training hours in 1999 resulting
in a cost savings of $1.9 million.
♦ Only one new course added in 1999 (all other developments were revisions to high utilized
courses).
♦ Over 80 course codes eliminated since 1996.

1999 Key Accomplishments Continued
♦ Currently there are 85 active codes with over half being standardized training courses.
♦ Over 75% of current standardized courses are developed in a single consistent format.
♦ Level One student feedback maintaining high material ratings for standardized courses (92-
98%).
♦ Centralized ordering of all training materials reduced material costs and man hours to
manage with an estimated savings of $100,000.
♦ CEHS Training Curriculum revised to include all EHS courses (See Appendix B for Excerpt
of CEHS Curriculum).
♦ EHS leading corporation in development of Web Based Training solutions that reach across
the corporation.
Summary
Despite the many successes in the migration of Intel’s EHS Training program, there is still an
abundance of opportunities for continuous improvement. Recent organizational changes and
expected near-term growth suggests renewed evaluations. These combined factors placed EHS
Training right back into the Challenging Stage where a new management structure is in the proposal
stages in an effort to take the program to the next level.
The true indicator of the success of the program came in the last six months as it became apparent
that training organization after training organization has or is currently adopting our model along
with many of our specific processes.

APPENDIX A
EHS Training Plan 99
12/2/99
ct
Process / Code EHS Owner Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
o Revision /
SAF001569
Revision /
SAF 001561
Safety SAF001500,
SAF001523,
SAF001524
Recert SAF010305
Lead Version SAF010397
SAF010309
Recert SAF010305
SAF010397
SAF010309
s/Cryogen New Dev.
areness SAF010398
ter /
Revision /
er
ENV 005438
ndustrial
ety
RegCompe
x-site consistency
Revision
SAF 001543
Robbie Walls Pilot/Deliv Imp /
TTT
Robbie Walls Dev/Edit Dev. Dev. Dev Pilot Imp/TTT
Jim Campbell
Jim Campbell
Jim Campbell
Pilot/
Delivery
Dev.
Pilot/
Delivery
Inst. Led
Imp.
TTT
Imp.
logistics
Imp.
TTT
Inst Led
Dev/Edit
CBT
Dev/Edit
CBT
Pilot/
Delivery
CBT
Linda Repesh Needs
Assessmt
Dev/Edit Imp/TTT
Michelle Trujillo
Needs Dev/Edit Pilot/ Imp.
Tony Madonia
Assessmt
Delivery TTT
Needs Dev/Edit
John Pendley
Assessmt
Neil Gordon &
Needs Dev/Edit On hold On hold Dev/edit Dev/edit Dev/edit Dev/Edit Pilot Imp.
Niall Gallagher
Assessmt
Imp.
CBT
e Hdlg & Revision /
ENV 6369,7680
Don Crandall
Needs
Assessmt
Needs
Assesmnt
Dev/Edit Dev/Edit Dev/Edit Dev/Edit Dev/Edit Pilot Imp.
TTT
CBT Revision John Pendley Dev/Edit Imp
ool Electrical
tion
New course-
IL Module and
video
James Beasley Needs
Assemnt
Dev/Edit Dev/Edit Dev/Edit Video Pilot Imp/TTT
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
All courses developed by TMG-Training unless otherwise designated below the EHS Owner
egend: Process - the project will follow either the development or revision process as created and determined by the EHS TC
Needs Assessmnt -determine changes and gather data for Rev 0.
Dev/Edit -prepare Rev 0 for edit including all materials and media.
Pilot/Delivery -team reviews all materials, buys-off and pilots Rev.1. Final Contract and materials sent to Intel U.
Implementation -Materials ready for delivery. 1 st week, schedule Train the Trainer, 2 nd week new sessions start with new materials.
ecember 2, 1999
wners: Ann Scheck, Karma Lotina & John Pendley

APPENDIX B
Corporate EHS Training Curriculum
2/22/00
• The intention of this document is to provide a comprehensive listing of all the Intel University EHS courses available (SAF and ENV).
• This document is not meant to be a listing of required training, but as a tool or guideline to be used in the development of your organizations
EHS Training curriculum. This document supports standardization or Copy Exactly across platforms.
• This curriculum should be taken as the main core for reference when developing local EHS curriculums. It may be necessary to supplement your
curriculum with site specific EHS related training courses to develop a comprehensive document applicable to your organization. Typical additions
are based on state, regional or possibly country legislative differences such as the European Union or EU requirements.
• The suggested timeframes (table categories and attendance priority within the tables) are provided as a guide and may vary based on employee’s responsibilities.
• The Training required column contains one of three criteria. They are; 1.) Regulatory (listing OSHA, RCRA etc.) 2.) Intel mandatory
3.) No requirement - represented with dashes as such ---
• The Recert column lists if Recertification is applicable by stating the time frame and supporting recert course options. EX: Annually SAF 5673
• Categories included in this document are:
~ New Hire Orientation ~ 3-12 months Management EHS Training
~ Day 2 to 3 months General EHS Training ~ 6 mos. -2 years Management EHS Training
~ 3-12 months (Job specific) EHS Training ~ Additional EHS Training Courses (SAF &ENV)
~ Re-certification Options in EHS Training
ew Hire Orientation preferred order:
Course Title Code Hrs Delivery
Method
AZCOM
ntroduction (NEO)
ontrol of
azardous Energies
ffected Person
Training
Requirement
ORI 001429 1/2 Class OSHA
1910.1200
ORI 001429 1/2 Class OSHA
SAF 001564
1910.147
AZCOM (CBT) SAF 001546 2 CBT/
Class
OSHA
1910.1200
1910.1450
Target Attendance
Audience Priority
All employees Day 1
Prior to work
All employees Day 1
Prior to work
All employees
working with or
around
chemicals
Day 2 Prior to
working around
chemicals
Skills
General Hazard Awareness
General Hazard Awareness as related to
Hazardous Energies
General Hazard Awareness, chemical
categories, MSDS’s, Safe handling, PPE,
Emergency Response procedures.
Recert
N/A
N/A
N/A
raining Partnership Team (EHS, IU and TMG-T)

APPENDIX B Continued
Day 2 to 3 months General EHS Training preferred order:
Course Title Code
Hrs Delivery
Method
ZCOM Area
rap-up
nufacturing
gonomics
Training
Requirement
Target
Audience
SAF 001491 1 1:1 with OSHA All employees
Supervisor/ 1910.1200 working with
Mngr/Trainer 1910.1450 chemicals
SAF 001561 2 Class Intel Mandatory All employees
working on
manufacturing
floor
fice Ergonomics SAF 001569 1 Class Intel Mandatory All employees
working in
office setting
sic Electrical
fety
ntrol of
zardous
ergies
zardous Waste
rage and
ndling
SAF 001502 2 CBT/
Class
OSHA
1910.332
SAF 001537 3 Class OSHA
1910.147
ENV006369 2 Class RCRA
OSHA
1910-120
Attendance
Priority
Within 3
months
Within 3
months
Within 3
months
All employees Within 3
months
Any employee
required to
perform LO/TO
on different
forms of
hazardous
energies
Any employee
who routinely
handles
hazardous
waste or makes
decisions
regarding waste
Prior to
performing
LO/TO on
equipment
or systems
Within first
3 mos. of
becoming a
hazardous
waste
handler
Skills
Workplace Specific Hazard Training
Symptoms of CTD’s common areas of
CTD’s, risk factors, Safe lifting
practices, stretching practices, desirable
hand tool characteristics.
Symptoms of CTD’s, common areas of
CTD’s, risk factors, safe lifting
practices, stretching practices, desirable
hand tool characteristics.
Role of employee and managers in
safety, procedures for reporting safety
violations, electrical terms, affects of
currents in the body, primary and
secondary injuries, physical and
behavioral hazards, steps for
responding to an electrical accident,
Types of potentially hazardous
energies, four situations and/or
conditions that require hazardous
energies to be controlled, lockout and
tagout, procedures for de-energizing,
locking out, tagging out, re-energizing,
and releasing equipment, lockout/tagout
procedures.
Students learn hazardous
characteristics, correct procedures for
handling, labeling, and storing
hazardous waste, as well as the
responsibilities of hazardous waste
handlers.
Recert
Upon job change
or introduction to
new hazards
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annually
SAF 005673
Or retake SAF
001537
Annually
ENV 007680
raining Partnership Team (EHS, IU and TMG-T)