Dying facilities get second chance
05/01/2000
Mark A. DeSorbo
BALTIMORE-A recent study conducted by a research center based at Arizona State University indicates that there are 200 semiconductor facilities in the world that are at least 15 years old.
In other words, a significant number of fabs that helped launch the world into the computer age are approaching life's end, and for the owners of these aging facilities, what to do with them can be a dilemma.
"All of my clients have an older facility that they don't know what to do with," says William R. Acorn, principal of Acorn Consulting Services (Tempe, AZ), which specializes in facility optimization, strategic and pre-project planning.
The aging facility issue and the concepts to remedy the plight were uncovered by Construction Research Education for Advanced Technology Environments (CREATE), a research center that is based at the Del E. Webb School of Construction of Arizona State University in Tempe. CREATE is dedicated to the study and improvement of the construction delivery process of facilities with cleanrooms.
Three members of CREATE unveiled a methodology in the conference session, "Decommissioning an Advanced Technology Manufacturing Facility: Concepts for Demolition or Reuse" at CleanRooms East 2000, held here at the end of March. Presenters included Acorn, Dr. Kraig Knutson, an assistant professor for Arizona State, and Steve Cosgriff, graduate research assistant.
 |
This outline indicates the procedure for the reuse or ultimate demolition of an aging facility. It was taken from the conference session, "Decommissioning an Advanced Technology Manufacturing Facility: Concepts for Demolition or Reuse" which was presented at CleanRooms East 2000 in late March.
The course of action recommended by CREATE, which can be applied to numerous industries, involves doing one of two things, deciding whether to demolish or reuse the facility. Knutson, Cosgriff and Acorn recently watched a semiconductor facility go through the process. The owner of the company, Knutson says, decided to find an alternative reuse for the facility. Deciding what to do, he adds, is perhaps the greatest challenge.
Whatever the decision, the project must have clearly defined goals. A process for the decommissioning should be developed; major steps should be documented; and a list of resources such as contractors and facilities engineers must be devised, Cosgriff says. "This is just the beginning of the process," he adds. "You need to spend a lot of time preparing this because it will help you all the way through."
Companies that opt to reuse may run into such challenges as how to find a cost-effective reuse alternative, the removal of hazardous waste or how to deal with environmental concerns. A baseline document, a compilation of a facility's historical and operational history, is a major part of the scope, Cosgriff explains. That document includes a physical description of the facility, its purpose, geology, hydrogeology and other systems. Also included are discharge permits, documentation of environmental problems, inventory of chemicals and equipment, building codes and utilities.
"Keep in mind the interdependencies with adjacent facilities," Cosgriff says. "Try to locate as-built drawings, refer to financial aspects, taxes, revenue bonds, and remember agreements that may have been made with the community. These are aspects you need to know in order to determine how and if the facility can best be reused."
Next, a decision matrix is developed and used to identify and ultimately whittle down a list of alternatives to the most cost-effective and appropriate reuse.
Alternatives are categorized by this criteria: A manufacturing process performed by the owner; a business new to the owner; a business that supports the owner's manufacturing process; or a business that is not related to the manufacturing process. Market strategy, return on investment, technology, local and regulations, project completion time and the work force also weigh heavily. Cosgriff adds that during this evaluation, production is usually idle, giving the owner time to determine if, in fact, reuse or demolition is appropriate.
"A micro-brewery might meet the criteria, while a 300mm fab may meet little," Cosgriff says.
"The matrix is a very good tool," Knutson adds. "This will allow you to eliminate some of the impractical alternatives. An alternative, such as Steve's micro-brewery, could be eliminated because you could never sell that to management."
Knutson and Cosgriff say the decision matrix will then lead to cost and site assessment. If the results point to demolition, or "back to grass" as the speakers put it, the process will involve calculating vibration to structures nearby, controlling dust and determining shutdowns at other facilities.
If a reuse is deemed more appropriate, Cosgriff says approval of the project is needed and compliance with local, state and federal guidelines must be ensured. Project design will be contingent on the baseline document, devised earlier in the process.
As in the beginning of the decommissioning process, the reuse project must be meticulously documented. "This is a very crucial step because you don't know who's going to be looking at the facility down the road," Cosgriff adds.
The topic of aging facilities touches many industries, and taking action, whether it's demolition or a reuse plan, will be visited by company owners at one time or another, Knutson says.
"Some of the facilities we've seen were designed 20 years ago, and so much has changed since then," he adds. "There is a maturation process. Sooner or later you'll have to decide what to do, and we're trying to provide a systematic process."
For more information on research and development projects that are being conducted by CREATE, visit the center's Web site at www.eas.asu.edu/~cleanrm/.