R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion R2E Mitigation Project CMS Relocation...

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion

R2E Mitigation Project

CMS Relocation OptionsTowards An R2E Baseline

1

M. Brugger for the R2E Project


FirstMANY THANKS

Anne-Laure, Katy, Martin, Jean-Claude, Philippe, Yvon, Piero, Sylvain, Michael, Giovanni, Jean-Pierre, Nuno, John, Caterina, Daniel, Frederic, Julie, Marco,

Stephane, Jean-Marc, Christoph, Cezary, Stefan, Andre, Samy, Equipment Owners,…

and many more …

2


Goal Of TodayUpdate/Review of P5 relocation optionsPossible show-stoppers & planning constraintsAdvantages/Disadvantages of each proposalCMS gallery and requirement due to R2EDo we need to foresee the shielding-> Towards a baseline solutionR2E project proposal for P5 baseline solution

Presented to R2E committeeProposal from R2E committee towards LHC managementDetailed study (Integration/Planning/Implementation)

3

…afterwards


AgendaR2E constraints and introduction [Markus]Status and options as available at R2E workshop [Markus]Summary of alternative solutions (no or minor impact on escape path) [Anne Laure]Update on impact of CMS gallery [Martin]Summary & Conclusions[All]

4


R2E ConstraintsWork must fit into available shutdown (12months today)Long operation periods between shutdowns require full relocation in case risk of radiation induced failures is to be minimizedHighest priority: full relocationTiming: long lead times required -> Baseline Now (planning/purchase and preparation requirements)Available cost envelope is estimated as around 3-4MCHF; contingencies possible, but not excessive

5


R2E Workshop StatusCommon approach: use the UJ561 and USC55 S4Scenario A: use space UL55 bypass tunnel in additionScenario B: use space in USC55 control room in additionThree possible options for the CMS escape route

As is todayThrough bypassNew gallery

6


UJ561

7


USC55 S4

8


Scenario AUsing the UL55 in addition to the UJ561 and the USC55S4 area

Disadvantages:Equipment installed there would not be available during operation (as for most LHC equipment)Using space for future upgrade projects

Advantages:No need for additional CE workWork in an area relatively empty

9


Scenario BThe USC55 control room area would be used in addition to the UJ561 and the USC55S4 area

Disadvantages:Need for new metallic structures, as well as at least 1 service duct (CE work) between UJ561 and USC55Additional mixing of LHC/CMS networks (already the case in S4)

Advantages:Equipment available at all times (if ok with RP!)Work on the metallic structures could be done during operation => no penalty for scheduleSpace in Bypass remains available for future projects such as inner triplet upgradeSynergies with CMS upgrade programs

10


Escape Route OptionsOption 1 (through UJ561):- Presence of flammable material (also in UJ56!)- Small clearance between equipment and wall ~1m (???)- Escape route would go through a safe room+ No need for civil engineering+ Identical to existing path

11


Escape Route OptionsOption 2 (through UL55):- Slightly more complicated and a little bit longer- Less favorable for ALARA

(breezing of potentially activated air) -> RP ok+ Minor civil engineering work+ No need to enter the UJ561

12


Escape Route OptionsOption 3 (through UJ561):- Civil engineering work required for ~ 3 months- Complication of access system- Insertion in PM56 to be defined+ Shorter and safer escape route+ “fully compliant” with requirements (definition unclear)

13


Result of First StudiesCosts:

EN/EL dominating part (~2.3MCHF)CE estimate not complete (at workshop)CV and other parts not available then…Total costs: 3.5-4MCFHGallery would cost <=1MCHF in addition

Timing:Difficult (Impossible) to fit into 12months (expected between 15 and 18 months)“Defining a baseline scenario is urgently needed to focus the few resources available on detailed studies”

Escape Route:UJ561: passing safe-room + reduced widthBypass option not excludedGallery is preferred solution for CMS

14


Next Talks:

Anne-Laure, Martin

15


Some QuestionsSafety Exit Route?

2nd route, thus 0.9m ok if <=100 people -> why not?1.2m per definition okpassage through bypass:

ok for RPno reason (difference) in terms of ‘combined’ riskstwo turns more -> why not?

Risk/Impact – How to Weight?machine failure due to radiation damage (increasing frequency, intervening personnel, ...)not the best possible 2nd escape passage(best option would be not having personnel underground, or less of them)

16


Summary & ConclusionsIntegration:

Required safety passage can be achievedSafe-Room solution to be tackled independentlyBypass solution seems to have highest flexibility

CostsSimilar for all options (minor gain in full UJ561 solution -> 3.5-4MCHFCMS Gallery will ad ~1MCHF

Planning Constraints: difficult to achieve in given constraints for all options >=12monthsgallery won’t make it easierLong lead-time (final integration, planning, preparation)Baseline to be defined before end of 2010LHC constraints: 2011/2013/14/15 Operation, 2012/2016 Shutdown

17


Summary & ConclusionsShielding:

expected to be insufficient given the foreseen operation plan and expected radiation levelsFull relocation highly recommended, cost saving is 400-500kCHF

CMS Gallery:Requirement (if agreed by CERN management) seems independent to R2E activities

Risk:Work other than for direct relocation might lead to additional delaysNo additional risk to personnel due to relocation activityExit route through bypass seems ok?Project flexibility: leave UJ561 empty (at least for now)

Preferred Solution: full relocation to bypass?18

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion R2E Mitigation Project CMS Relocation...

Documents

Transcript of R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion R2E Mitigation Project CMS Relocation...