Tevatron Decommissioning Overview Rich Stanek Director’s Review September 15, 2011

Outline Introduction D&D Plan (Two Phases) S&T Review Outcome and Updates Fermilab Visitor Program Phase 1 – Secure, Reuse & Display Phase 2 – Full Disassembly & Disposal Goals and Milestones Summary Guide to Charge Questions 2

Introduction TeV, CDF and D0 decommissioning will begin in FY12  Work starts after required calibration/survey work is complete No longer planning to keep TeV at 80K  opens up an unique opportunity to display the TeV and the collider detectors to our visitors  Distinctive communication opportunity for the general public  Exceptional educational experience for students Task Force formed (Feb 2011) to prepare a plan  Representatives from the Divisions/Sections plus technical Subject Matter Experts and management representatives  Two phased approach which initially puts detectors & part of TeV on display for visitors and defers full D&D until a later time Presentation to S&T Review Committee (June 6, 2011)  Plan received positive comments 3

TeV Decom Task Force Membership Marge Bardeen Peter Cooper Donald Cossairt Paul Czarapata Bill Shull George Ginther Jack Kelly Jonathan Lewis Rhonda Merchut Ron Moore Kurt Riesselmann Russ Rucinski Philip Schlabach Rich Stanek Katie Yurkewicz Young-Kee Kim Greg Bock Peter Garbincius Michael Lindgren Randy Ortgiesen 4 Scientists, engineers, materials handling specialist, ES&H rep, facilities engineers (incl. IARC rep), Office of Communication, Education Office and management

Methodology for Establishing the Plan Establish a conceptual plan and build consensus  Continuous feedback and suggestions for improvements  Solicit agreement from management (DOE, Lab, and collaborations) Understand ES&H issues associated with this work List of Reusable Components Work with collaborators and future experiments Employ elements of a project-like approach to this work, to the extent that there is value added (graded approach)  Not a project, but more like the next stage in the lifecycle  WBS defining the Scope of Work  List of Assumptions Include agreed upon reuse of space inside buildings  High-level Cost Estimate/Preliminary Timeline  Resource Loaded Schedule (in progress) 5

TeV Decommissioning Plan Phase 1 Secure, Reuse & Display (topic of review)  Priority 1: Secure and stabilize systems Eliminate or mitigate hazards Put systems into long term storage mode  Priority 2: Cleanout areas and harvest useable components Coordinated effort to remove equipment and cleanout areas that have an agreed upon reuse  Priority 3: Setup TeV, CDF and D0 to be part of visitor program Basic Display (FY12) - make required Life Safety improvements, utilize existing hardware exhibits and begin scheduling visitor tours Enhanced Display (FY13 & beyond) - build out displays/exhibits Phase 2 Full Disassembly & Disposal (briefly mentioned)  TeV Tunnel – clean out complete TeV tunnel except for beamlines to AP0 and Switchyard. Concrete tunnel sections remain in place  TeV Surface Bldgs. – continue to store reusable cryo/elect equipment  CDF and D0 – disassemble and dispose of detectors 6

S & T Review Outcome Plan was presented to S&T Review Committee (June 2011) No recommendations but several constructive comments  “The approach to D&D is overall reasonable”  Other comments reinforced existing elements of our plan such as the need to gather documentation and preserve fixtures Based on S&T Committee Report and subsequent communication with DOE OHEP  Have agreement that the Phase 1 plan is acceptable and it is OK to defer Phase 2 until a much later time Won’t really discuss Phase 2 much in this Review  Emphasis is on working out all the details of Phase 1 7

Updates since the S&T Review FY12 budget for this work is now known  Reduce scope of work and set priorities, push tasks into FY13 Named leaders responsible for executing this work  Paul Czarapata AD Tevatron  George Ginther PPD D0  Jonathan Lewis PPD CDF  Kurt Riesselmann/Marge Bardeen Display/Tour aspects Continued to refine cost estimates  Some estimated costs dropped significantly Started to build Resource Loaded Schedule  Focus on the first few months  Must realize that this plan is subject to change Labor availability given higher priority projects Actual costs incurred as work is performed 8

FY12 Budgets AD has no specific budget designated for this work  Will Secure & Stabilize the TeV systems as part of ongoing operations (similar to long shutdown)  Paul Czarapata’s talk PPD has designated the following allocations  Labor: CDF ~13.8 FTE, D0 ~14.5 FTE Represents an effort consistent with current operations  M&S: ~$500K (direct) for each area (CDF & D0) Actual M&S ($1M) will be allocated based on defined scope of work and may not follow the 50/50 Rule Fenced $50K specifically for display work  Scope of work must be adjusted to stay within budget Scale back on initial objectives (systems must be secured) Push work into FY13 or beyond (e.g. display improvements)  See Jonathan & George’s talks for more details 9

Guidelines for Executing the Plan Assume approximately the same workforce as presently used for detector operations (or slightly less) Highest priority is to Stabilize & Secure  Work safely and remove the hazards Clean out of CDF & D0 areas needs to be consistent with reuse plans by IARC & MicroBooNE respectively  Space needs to be available when new users require it  Reuse of large components which require extra effort to harvest will be paid for by the new user. Start the Display/Tours small and build up  Make improvements as feedback is collected  Already do VIP tours and that is still available Line management is responsible for executing this plan  Task Force will cease as PPD/AD line organizations take charge 10

CDF and D0 Displays (see Kurt’s talk for details) Phase 1 plan is to have both detectors available for display Each detector offers its own unique experience  CDF  tour inside the Collision Hall Technology  Silicon and wire chamber tracking, p lastic scintillator calorimetry with modular muon coverage Access  Detailed inner detector tour including access to TeV tunnel Emphasize  Past (TeV Collider) versus present applications (IARC)  D0  impressive view from the overlook and from the ground level of Assembly Hall Technology  Silicon and scintillator fiber tracking, LAr calorimetry with hermetic muon detector coverage Access  View of detector (from Sidewalk) facilitated by partial removal of the shield wall. Detailed inner detector tour reserved for VIP tours Emphasize  LAr technology present & future as well as Project X Visitor experience will be complementary 11

What are the Benefits? Unique opportunity to present the complexity and importance of particle physics research Greatly enhances existing visitor program (adding a huge “wow factor”)  See real scientific instruments at HEP scales  Go inside a previously inaccessible scientific workplace  Compare/contrast Tevatron experiments with current projects  Builds community awareness of Fermilab’s future  Connects the past and present to the future including ties to LHC Builds support for and awareness of the value of scientific research Helps people get an idea of what it means to be a scientist... you don’t need a white coat 12

Tevatron (Paul’s talk) Scope of Work for Phase 1 is well understood  Secure & Stabilize is similar to work required for long shutdown  Once stabilized and warm, the TeV magnets & systems just sit  Display concept only affects a small section of tunnel Rest of tunnel will be positively isolated Developing estimates for continued annual maintenance Not part of TeV Decom scope of work Maintain services to areas as required Parts of TeV tunnel still used for operation Keep the tunnels in reasonable shape Address long term site issues and development plans Phase 2 estimate has been revisited  Included costs to remove all components (incl. old MR magnets)  Developed an estimate for removal on a “per house” basis Allows Phase 2 Full TeV D&D to begin when funding is available 13

Reuse of CDF and D0 Buildings MicroBooNE assembly & 1 kton LAr TPC prototype in D0 Assembly Building IARC and CDF 14

CDF (Jonathan’s talk) Scope of Work for Phase 1  Secure & Stabilize is well understood  Cleanout & Harvest Components is taking shape Working out many details on how spaces will be reused  Setup for display/visitors Several possible life safety projects are being investigated Engaged fire protection consultant and Lab’s official “Authority Having Jurisdiction” (AHJ) for walkthroughs of areas Interaction with IARC building construction  Integrating milestones from IARC construction schedule with Phase 1 CDF schedule In the short term, continue to make effective use of space  While IARC develops, Particle Physics Division will continue to use east high bay and part of assembly pit (coordinated efforts) Phase 2 estimate remains essentially unchanged from last year 15

D0 (George’s talk) Scope of Work for Phase 1 well defined  Secure & Stabilize well understood  D0 plans on 12 wks. of cosmic/calibration runs after TeV shutdown  Maintain appropriate environment for depleted uranium once the detector is warm  Cleanout and Harvest stage is relatively well understood  Firm plan for the visitors program Interaction with future LAr development work  Integrating milestones from MicroBooNE assembly schedule with Phase 1 D0 schedule  Future use is consistent with current infrastructure  Many D0 technical experts are involved with future LAr projects Only minor modifications to the Phase 2 cost estimate relative to last year’s estimate 16

ES&H Major Challenges Following established methodologies (e.g. JHA, Move Requests) : Radiation Issues  FRCM Chapters of particular relevance Chapter 2 – radiological standards; dose limits, Chapter 4 – standards on radioactive materials (sealed sources) Chapter 9 – policies on “radiation” & tour groups Material Disposal Rad Waste / Mixed Waste Regulated Chemical Waste Depleted Uranium Life Safety / Building Occupancy Issues Working with AHJ and Fire Safety Consultant Mechanical /Electrical Disassembly Issues Work planning, Job Hazard Analysis… Coordination with other ongoing activities in the area NEPA Assessment One important benefit of the Task Force is that it brought together the “right” group of people to talk about these issues 17

Old Cost Estimate for Phase 1 18 Majority of the cost estimate based on engineer or scientist estimates Contingency is estimated at 50 to 70% Setting up Basic Display adds $3M to Phase 1 cost (~ 2/3 of this total are building improvements related to the dual use of the areas)

Updated Cost Estimate for Phase 1 19

Phase 1 Timeline Resource Loaded Schedule is being developed 20

Phase 2 Full Disassembly & Disposal Remove, disassemble and dispose of components in the TeV tunnel, CDF and D0 Collision Halls as well as all elements of the display Estimates are based on previous work Take into account  Clean out work already performed as part of Phase1  Intended reuse of buildings and possibly the tunnel Maintain infrastructure that has future use  not going to a “green field” site  Any new information regarding disassembly or disposal Outstanding issues include  Better understanding of disposal methods/costs associated with slightly radioactive material and depleted uranium from D0  Availability of technical experts/fixtures when Phase 2 begins 21

Cost Estimate for Phase 2 22 Estimate has not changed since June S&T Review Contingency is high (100%) due to several higher risk items and the fact that the plan is still developing  What will be rules in place (at the time of Phase 2) for material disposal?  Will there be additional calls for some of the detector components?  Will systems come apart “as easy” as they went together? Cost might be reduced  By making use of specialized outside contractors for bulk removal (under proper supervision by trained Lab technical staff)  By bundling more work together may find economies of scale

Goals for FY12 As soon as the necessary calibrations and surveys are complete execute Secure & Stabilize stage  Put the TeV, CDF and D0 detectors into a safe state Begin cleanout of areas with the goal of having areas ready for reuse  TeV  No planned reuse  no real cleanout required  CDF  IARC  D0  MicroBooNE Perform necessary Life Safety improvements and set up basic tour sequence Run a few tours in FY12 and gather feedback on how best to schedule improvements to the display 23

High Level Milestones TeV Secure & Stabilize CompleteFebruary 6, 2012 CDF Secure & Stabilize CompleteNovember 15, 2011 D0 Secure & Stabilize CompleteMay 9, 2012 CDF Ready for IARC ConstructionApril 12, 2012 D0 Ready for MicroBooNEJanuary 18, 2012 CDF/TeV Ready for Tours*August 3, 2012 D0 Ready for Tours*May 21, 2012 * VIP tours can be arranged on demand 24

Summary Tevatron will be shutoff at the end of FY11 Decommissioning will begin in FY12 (after required calibration runs and surveys) Two-phased decommissioning plan has been agreed to  Phase 1 Secure, Reuse & Display  executing this in FY12 Takes advantage of unique opportunity to strengthen visitor program Takes into account the intended reuse of facilities/equipment  Phase 2 Full Disassembly & Disposal (indeterminate time in future) Preliminary cost estimate and schedule are presented  Contingency is high due to some higher risk items and the need to perform additional engineering and work analysis Transitioning away from the Task Force to PPD/AD Line Organizations for execution of the Phase 1 plan 25

Guide to Charge Questions (1) 1. Have the expected end-states or accomplishments at completion of this phase been adequately defined for CDF and D-Zero experiments, and not only the Tevatron tunnels and service buildings and their technical systems, but also for the Central Helium Liquefier (CHL), the C-Zero collision hall, the Pelletron, and the Antiproton Source? CDF & D0 end-states well defined (details in Jonathan and George’s talks) Some TeV systems are still under discussion (details in Paul’s talk) 2. Does the plan adequately address the goals expected in FY2012? Have the activities been clearly identified that will continue into FY2013? Is the plan adequately developed and personnel assigned (project leaders and people with key responsibilities, by name) so that Fermilab resources, both money and personnel, are efficiently utilized? FY12/FY13 planning boundary is established by system experts (with use of scheduling tool and known resource limitations). Actual line of demarcation depends on how well work progresses, other higher priority projects (interruptions) and funding constraints. 26

Guide to Charge Questions (2) 3. Since the amount of work possible will be scaled to the available resources, are the expectations and timescales of the current plan compatible with those resources for FY2012? Plan for amount of work accomplished in FY12 and resources required was formulated by system experts, intimately familiar with the detectors and the TeV systems. Staff performing work is very knowledgeable with these systems and has operational & maintenance experience. 4. Although these activities will not be treated as a formal project (e.g. no EVMS status), are there appropriate plans and mechanisms for keeping Fermilab management appraised as to progress in meeting the goals? Schedule (still a work in progress) and milestone tracking could be used to provide feedback to Fermilab management. Execution of the work plan will be performed by line organizations which creates a direct link into Fermilab management. (details in Paul, Jonathan and George’s talks) 27

Guide to Charge Questions (3) 5. Have the ES&H impacts and risks of both stabilization and decommissioning been identified and mitigated? Team is very experienced with hazards and risks associated with the detectors and TeV systems and will follow all established Lab safety policies and procedures. (details in Paul, Jonathan and George’s talks) Full decommissioning is not being addressed in this review 6. There are time-critical interface points with the construction of the IARC Building at CDF and availability of an area for construction of the MicroBooNE detector at D-Zero. Are these interface points adequately defined and does the plan meet these deadlines? Yes, reuse of facilities is defined as part of the scope of work and has been part of the planning process since the beginning. Communication among groups has been good. Milestones for MicroBooNE and IARC are incorporated in the schedule. (details in Jonathan and George’s talks) 28

Guide to Charge Questions (4) 7. Does the plan include protected storage (moth-balling, etc.) of those components which may have possible use in the future? Most equipment will be stored in place. Tunnels and halls will be maintained in good condition. D&D fixtures will be kept available. (details in Paul, Jonathan and George’s talks) 8. Have the long-term facilities operations and maintenance plans been developed (e.g. access to buildings and tunnels, HVAC, sump pump systems, building maintenance, MR cooling pond system, etc.)? Do any of the resources for decommissioning need to be invested in preparing for the long-term state of these systems? Discussed by the Task Force, recognized as important issue. Not part of our scope of work. Needs to be addressed by line organizations. 9. Do the Accelerator Division activities in the Tevatron interface with the activities at CDF and at D-Zero and have interfaces been appropriately addressed? Task Force promoted communication and all parties are aware of interfaces. (details in Paul, Jonathan and George’s talks) 29