ActiWiz – optimizing your nuclide inventory at proton accelerators with a computer code Helmut Vincke, Chris Theis DGS/RP 1 RSO committee – 1/3/2012 Remote manipulations/handling of radioactive material workshop 6/5/2013

Contents Motivation for this project Introduction to “ActiWiz” Illustration of the Catalogue: “Radiological Hazard classification of Materials in CERN’s accelerator environments“ 2

Motivation Safety benefit Lower dose rates and committed doses Operational benefit Reduced downtime due to faster access Less restrictions for manipulation & access End of life-cycle benefit Smaller amount and less critical radioactive waste Smaller financial burden 3 Project concerning the radiological classification of materials initiated by Steve Myers Beside other aspects also the radiological consequences of the implementation of a material have to be considered Level of activation depends on the type of the material

 very strong dependence on radiation environment  need for “CERN specific” assessment in contrast to experience from nuclear industry Next to target: brass vs. iron  equivalent Outside: brass vs. iron  significantly worse Use-case Using brass instead of iron as COMPASS-2? 4

Strategy to obtain radiological material guidelines Categorization of radiation environment Development of ActiWiz – code assessing radiation risks, dominant nuclides etc., for arbitrary materials Radiological hazard catalogue for materials 5

Radiological assessment of materials Energy (machine) Position in accelerator Radiological hazard assessment for a given material 6 Time of material present in accelerator (irradiation time)

Categorization of the radiation environments (energy) FLUKA calculations of typical hadronic particle spectra (p, n,  +,  - ) in CERN’s accelerators LHC SPS PS Linac 4 + Booster MeV (Linac4), 1.4 GeV (Booster), 14 GeV/c (PS), 400 GeV/c (SPS), 7 TeV (LHC)

Radiological assessment of materials 35 spectra * 5 irradiation periods * 13 cooling timesFLUKA isotope calculations for 69 single components (63 chemical elements + 6 isotopes) 2400 single Monte Carlo simulations  nuclide inventories (10 GB of data)  ~ hazard factors ActiWiz – software evaluate radiological hazard for arbitrary materials with a few mouse clicks 8

ActiWiz – program interface 1.) Select energy / location / irradiation times 2.) Define material composition based on 69 chemical elements 9 * Many thanks to R. Froeschl for providing activation data on Zinc

Output of ActiWiz 10 Nuclide inventory & dominant isotopes Safety relevant quantities (activity, H*(10), radiotoxicity) Radiological hazard assessment Hazard factors allowing to compare various materials with each other Program provides so-called global hazard factors for Operation (indicator of external dose to personnel) Waste (indicator of risk generating radioactive waste)

Material catalogue Classification of most common materials by the use of global operational and waste hazard factors 11 Catalogue provides guidelines for selection of materials to be used in CERN’s accelerator environment Authors: Robert Froeschl, Stefano Sgobba, Chris Theis, Francesco La Torre, Helmut Vincke and Nick Walter Acknowledgements: J. Gulley, D. Forkel-Wirth, S. Roesler, M. Silari and M. Magistris

Catalogue consists of three parts: Catalogue for the radiological hazard classification of materials Introduction List of critical materials in terms of handling & waste disposal* Appendix with data Provides radiological guidelines via hazard values  cannot replace Monte Carlo studies by a specialist for specific cases outside of the generic irradiation scenarios assumed 12 * Many thanks to Luisa Ulrici (DGS-RP-RW) for elaborating and providing the waste disposal guidelines

Catalogue structure MeV (Linac4), 1.4 GeV (Booster), 14 GeV/c (PS), 400 GeV/c (SPS), 7 TeV (LHC), energy independent 7 typical radiation fields in an accelerator Various irradiation times 1 day, 1 week, 1 operational year, 20 years, irradiation time independent Various energies/momenta Materials not addressed by the catalogue can be assessed with the ActiWiz program

Examples for using the catalogue 14

Proton Beam 1 wt-% of hafnium shall be used as an additive to a copper cable. The cables are placed in cable trays attached to the concrete tunnel wall alongside to SPS magnets. Question arising: Is 1% of hafnium in terms of radiological consequences an acceptable choice? Summary of situation: a)Foreseen location: concrete wall beside SPS magnets b)Duration of its stay at this position: SPS life time c)Material choice: is 1% of hafnium acceptable? Summary of situation: a)Foreseen location: concrete wall beside SPS magnets b)Duration of its stay at this position: SPS life time c)Material choice: is 1% of hafnium acceptable? Hazard factor comparison: Hazard factor comparison  Hazard of elements per mass unit: Operational: 1.36 (copper) versus 976 (hafnium); Waste: 2.54 (copper) versus (hafnium) 1 wt-% of hafnium in the alloy causes an 7 times higher operational and a 200 times higher waste related radiological hazard than the remaining 99.0 wt-% of copper.  find another additive for the cable Hazard factor comparison: Hazard factor comparison  Hazard of elements per mass unit: Operational: 1.36 (copper) versus 976 (hafnium); Waste: 2.54 (copper) versus (hafnium) 1 wt-% of hafnium in the alloy causes an 7 times higher operational and a 200 times higher waste related radiological hazard than the remaining 99.0 wt-% of copper.  find another additive for the cable Example 15 Parameters to be chosen for retrieving the correct data: a.Irradiation energy + location: 400 GeV/c; activation occurring close to the concrete tunnel wall (beam loss in bulky material) b.Irradiation time: 20 years c.Find hazard factor of hafnium in table listing elements per mass unit

Concrete tunnel 7 TeV protons Proton Beam For a test lasting one year a container for an LHC collimator has to be built. It was proposed to build the container either of Steel 316L, Titanium Grade6 or Tungsten. What is in terms of radiological consequences the best choice? Summary of situation: a)Foreseen location: locations close to a collimator b)Duration of its stay at this position: 1 operational year (200 days) c)Material choice: Steel 316L, Titanium Grade6 or Tungsten ? Summary of situation: a)Foreseen location: locations close to a collimator b)Duration of its stay at this position: 1 operational year (200 days) c)Material choice: Steel 316L, Titanium Grade6 or Tungsten ? Parameters to be chosen for retrieving the correct data: a.Irradiation location: 7 TeV; activation occurring at 10 cm lateral distance to target b.Irradiation time: 200 days c.Compare hazard factors of compounds (Steel 316L, Titanium Grade6) and elements (Tungsten) per unit volume respectively. Example 2/1 16 Hazard factor comparison: Operational hazard: 1.72 (Steel 316L) versus 1.06 (Titanium Grade6) versus 3.44 (Tungsten). Waste hazard: (Steel 316L) versus (Titanium Grade6) versus 2.75 (Tungsten). Hazard factor comparison: Operational hazard: 1.72 (Steel 316L) versus 1.06 (Titanium Grade6) versus 3.44 (Tungsten). Waste hazard: (Steel 316L) versus (Titanium Grade6) versus 2.75 (Tungsten).

Example 2/2 17 Hazard factor comparison: Operational hazard: 1.72 (Steel 316L) versus 1.06 (Titanium Grade6) versus 3.44 (Tungsten). Waste hazard: (Steel 316L) versus (Titanium Grade6) versus 2.75 (Tungsten). Hazard factor comparison: Operational hazard: 1.72 (Steel 316L) versus 1.06 (Titanium Grade6) versus 3.44 (Tungsten). Waste hazard: (Steel 316L) versus (Titanium Grade6) versus 2.75 (Tungsten). First conclusions Tungsten can be excluded from the choice Waste and operational hazard ratio inverted  lower external exposure but higher risk of producing radioactive waste Titanium Grade6 should be taken as material to build the collimator container. How to proceed in such a case:

Web-based catalogue: ActiWeb Interactive web-based catalogue in collaboration with software developer Fernando Leite Pereira (DGS/RP).

Summary ActiWiz software  allows to quickly quantify radiological hazard of material implemented into CERN’s accelerator environment. 69 elements and most common metals and construction materials were processed  first version of a catalogue for CERN accelerators (LINAC4, BOOSTER, PS, SPS & LHC radiation environments) Catalogue provides radiological guidelines supporting the user in the choice of materials to be implemented in the accelerator environment. Currently we are in the process of promoting the catalogue & getting feedback from users. 19

Thank you for your attention 20

First example of an ActiWiz application Comparison of ambient dose equivalent for various materials installed in a cable LHC, operating for 20 years – Copper – Aluminum – Iron – Steel 316L 21 Check nuclide inventory to understand results

Further analysis with ActiWiz 22 “Why is stainless steel so much worse than pure iron?” Co-60: 99% Fe-55: 86% Sc-44: 9% Steel 316LIronAluminum Na-22: 99% Co-60: 99% Copper Shielding requirements for equipment: defined by dominating energy of the radio-isotopes: Co-60: 1.33 MeV 1.17 MeV Fe-55: X-ray due to  Sc-44: 1.15 MeV Steel 316LIronAluminum Na-22: 1.27 MeV Co-60: 1.33 MeV 1.17 MeV Copper Required thickness of concrete shielding for an attenuation of a factor of 10: Co-60: 31 cm Fe-55: / Sc-44: 30 cm Steel 316LIronAluminum Na-22: 31 cm Co-60: 31 cm Copper Main contributor to ambient dose equivalent for a cool down of 10 years:

FLUKA benchmarks Fundamental quantity: calculation of radionuclide production with FLUKA 23 Very well benchmarked & documented: M. Brugger, A. Ferrari, S. Roesler, L. Ulrici, Validation of the FLUKA Monte Carlo code for predicting induced radioactivity at high-energy accelerators, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Accelerator Applications - AccApp05, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A562, , (2006). M. Brugger, H. Khater, S. Mayer, A. Prinz, S. Roesler, L. Ulrici, Hz. Vincke, Benchmark studies of induced radioactivity produced in LHC materials, Part 1: specific activities, Proc. ICRS-10 (May 2004); Rad. Prot. Dosim. 116, 6-11, (2005). S. Mallows. T. Otto, Measurements of the induced radioactivity at CTF-3, ARIA workshop 08 – PSI, (2008). M. Brugger, D. Forkel-Wirth, S. Roesler, J. Vollaire, Studies of induced radioactivity and residual dose rates around beam absorbers of different materials, Proceedings of HB2010, Morschach, Switzerland, (2010). J. Vollaire, M. Brugger, D. Forkel-Wirth, S. Roesler, P. Vojtyla, Calculation of water activation for the LHC, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, Volume 562, Issue 2, p , (2006). M.Brugger, F.Cerutti, A.Ferrari Ferrari, E.Lebbos, S.Roesler, P.R.Sala,F.Sommerer, V. Vlachoudis, Calculation of Induced radioactivity with the FLUKA Monte Carlo code, ARIA workshop 08 – PSI, (2008). non exhaustive list G. Dissertori, P. Lecomte, D. Luckey, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, F. Pauss, T. Otto, S. Roesler, C. Urscheler, A study of high-energy proton induced damage in cerium fluoride in comparison with measurements in lead tungstate calorimeter crystals, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, p , Vol. 622, (2010).

Categorization of the radiation environments (position) beam impact area within bulky material (e.g. magnet) surrounding the beam impact area adjacent to bulky material surrounding the beam impact area close to concrete tunnel wall (loss on bulky object) behind massive concrete shielding 10 cm lateral distance to a target close to concrete tunnel wall (loss on target) 24

Concrete tunnel 7 TeV protons Proton Beam A support for a beam loss monitor foreseen to be installed close to LHC magnets has to be designed. A choice between Aluminium 5083 and Steel 316L in terms of materials to be used to build the support has to be made. Summary of situation: a)Foreseen location: beside LHC magnet b)Duration of its stay at this position: LHC life time c)Material choice: either Aluminium 5083 or Steel 316L Summary of situation: a)Foreseen location: beside LHC magnet b)Duration of its stay at this position: LHC life time c)Material choice: either Aluminium 5083 or Steel 316L Parameters to be chosen for retrieving the correct data: a.Irradiation energy + location: 7 TeV; activation occurring adjacent to bulky material (e.g. magnet) surrounding the beam impact area b.Irradiation time: 20 years c.Compare hazard factors of compounds per unit volume Example 1 25 Hazard factor comparison: Operational: (Aluminium 5083) versus 2.36 (Steel 316L) Waste: (Aluminium 5083) versus 7.18 (Steel 316L) Aluminium 5083 provides a 10 times lower operational radiological hazard and a 40 times lower waste related hazard factor than Steel 316L. Hazard factor comparison: Operational: (Aluminium 5083) versus 2.36 (Steel 316L) Waste: (Aluminium 5083) versus 7.18 (Steel 316L) Aluminium 5083 provides a 10 times lower operational radiological hazard and a 40 times lower waste related hazard factor than Steel 316L.

Concrete tunnel 7 TeV protons Proton Beam For a test lasting one year a container for an LHC collimator has to be built. It was proposed to build the container either of Steel 316L, Titanium TiNb or Tungsten. What is in terms of radiological consequences the best choice? Summary of situation: a)Foreseen location: locations close to a collimator b)Duration of its stay at this position: 1 operational year (200 days) c)Material choice: Steel 316L, Titanium TiNb or Tungsten ? Summary of situation: a)Foreseen location: locations close to a collimator b)Duration of its stay at this position: 1 operational year (200 days) c)Material choice: Steel 316L, Titanium TiNb or Tungsten ? Parameters to be chosen for retrieving the correct data: a.Irradiation location: 7 TeV; activation occurring at 10 cm lateral distance to target b.Irradiation time: 200 days c.Compare hazard factors of compounds (Steel 316L, Titanium TiNb) and elements (Tungsten) per unit volume respectively. Example 4/1 26 Hazard factor comparison: Operational hazard: 1.72 (Steel 316L) versus 1.63 (Titanium TiNb) versus 3.44 (Tungsten). Waste hazard: (Steel 316L) versus 1.91 (Titanium TiNb) versus 2.75 (Tungsten). Hazard factor comparison: Operational hazard: 1.72 (Steel 316L) versus 1.63 (Titanium TiNb) versus 3.44 (Tungsten). Waste hazard: (Steel 316L) versus 1.91 (Titanium TiNb) versus 2.75 (Tungsten).

Example 4/2 27 Hazard factor comparison: Operational hazard: 1.72 (Steel 316L) versus 1.63 (Titanium TiNb) versus 3.44 (Tungsten). Waste hazard: (Steel 316L) versus 1.91 (Titanium TiNb) versus 2.75 (Tungsten). Hazard factor comparison: Operational hazard: 1.72 (Steel 316L) versus 1.63 (Titanium TiNb) versus 3.44 (Tungsten). Waste hazard: (Steel 316L) versus 1.91 (Titanium TiNb) versus 2.75 (Tungsten). First conclusions Tungsten can be excluded from the choice Waste and operational hazard ratio inverted  lower external exposure Call RP for further advice in that matter. How to proceed in such a case:

Hazard factor types Applications for “hazard factors per volume unit”: 1.Choosing material for non-bulky objects (the thickness of the object for which the material is chosen should be less than 10 cm iron equivalent). 2.For choosing material for massive objects (thickness of more than 10 cm iron equivalent) if the density variation between the different materials is < 2. Applications for “hazard factors per mass unit”: 1.Evaluation of the influence of chemical elements on the hazard factor of a compound (e.g.: change of hazard factor of a compound when x wt% of element A is added). 2.Massive objects of a thickness of more than 10 cm iron equivalent if the density variation between the different materials is > 2  (ActiWiz program has to be used). 28 Two hazard factor types are available Hazard factor per volume unit Hazard factor per mass unit MAIN APPLICATION