R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion R2E Mitigation Project CMS Relocation Options Towards An R2E Baseline 1 M. Brugger for the R2E Project

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion First MANY 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

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Goal Of Today Update/Review of P5 relocation options Possible show-stoppers & planning constraints Advantages/Disadvantages of each proposal CMS gallery and requirement due to R2E Do we need to foresee the shielding -> Towards a baseline solution R2E project proposal for P5 baseline solution Presented to R2E committee Proposal from R2E committee towards LHC management Detailed study (Integration/Planning/Implementation) 3 …afterwards

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Agenda R2E 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 Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion R2E Constraints Work 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 minimized Highest priority: full relocation Timing: 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 Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion R2E Workshop Status Common approach: use the UJ561 and USC55 S4 Scenario A: use space UL55 bypass tunnel in addition Scenario B: use space in USC55 control room in addition Three possible options for the CMS escape route As is today Through bypass New gallery 6

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion UJ561 7

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion USC55 S4 8

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Scenario A Using 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 work Work in an area relatively empty 9

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Scenario B The 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 USC55 Additional 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 schedule Space in Bypass remains available for future projects such as inner triplet upgrade Synergies with CMS upgrade programs 10

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Escape Route Options Option 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

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Escape Route Options Option 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

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Escape Route Options Option 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

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Result of First Studies Costs: EN/EL dominating part (~2.3MCHF) CE estimate not complete (at workshop) CV and other parts not available then… Total costs: 3.5-4MCFH Gallery 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 width Bypass option not excluded Gallery is preferred solution for CMS 14

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Next Talks: Anne-Laure, Martin 15

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Some Questions Safety Exit Route? 2 nd route, thus 0.9m ok if why not? 1.2m per definition ok passage through bypass: ok for RP no reason (difference) in terms of ‘combined’ risks two turns more -> why not? Risk/Impact – How to Weight? machine failure due to radiation damage (increasing frequency, intervening personnel,...) not the best possible 2 nd escape passage (best option would be not having personnel underground, or less of them) 16

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Summary & Conclusions Integration: Required safety passage can be achieved Safe-Room solution to be tackled independently Bypass solution seems to have highest flexibility Costs Similar for all options (minor gain in full UJ561 solution -> 3.5-4MCHF CMS Gallery will ad ~1MCHF Planning Constraints: difficult to achieve in given constraints for all options >=12months gallery won’t make it easier Long lead-time (final integration, planning, preparation) Baseline to be defined before end of 2010 LHC constraints: 2011/2013/14/15 Operation, 2012/2016 Shutdown 17

R2E Mitigation Project P5 Relocation Options - Discussion Summary & Conclusions Shielding: expected to be insufficient given the foreseen operation plan and expected radiation levels Full relocation highly recommended, cost saving is kCHF CMS Gallery: Requirement (if agreed by CERN management) seems independent to R2E activities Risk: Work other than for direct relocation might lead to additional delays No additional risk to personnel due to relocation activity Exit route through bypass seems ok? Project flexibility: leave UJ561 empty (at least for now) Preferred Solution: full relocation to bypass? 18