Cooling & Ventilation feed-back M. Nonis – EN/CV

Contents Some figures: LS1 for EN/CV Issues, good and less good: Preparation phase Staff Contracts Specific case: welds Safety Internal organisation Conclusions 2

Duration of LS1 - LHC 3 Stop of one system/circuit. Temporary solutions installed (flying chillers) CV/OPCV/DC No stop for: Ventilation underground & surface Chilled water Compressed air Raising systems Drinking water supplies Fire hydrants network

Workload: M&O hours 4

TEMPORARY SYSTEMS INSTALLED Linac 2 back up chiller during replacement of the PS chilled water pipes Flying chiller for experiments during maintenance CMS – February - May ALICE – June - October LHCb - November - March ATLAS (CNGS one) – September - December 867 radioactive workshop: local demineralised water production during the refurbishment of the 378 production 5

Orders Contract typeNo.kCHF F2211’078 B6627’750 E81424’014 C2972’131 S144’254 others4’09716’224 [kCHF] Carry overTotal Payments13’30028’01022’7401’29065’250 Orders24’37024’91015’97065’250

Logistics ventilation PS tunnel Work areas: Ventilation rooms Galleries Phases:Dismantling - 4 months Installation -1 year 7 Radioactive temp. storage Worksite barracks New material storage Transport: 2 persons 8h00 – 16h00 RP: bi weekly Site manager: weekly + as needed. Storage areas : Wastes: PS  151  ISR (twice per week) for 3 years New: 180, 353,…  PS Route Goward: ok - planned passages Air locks asbestos: Continuous underpressure Inside ventilation rooms

General (personal) feed back: 1.Everything went well, much better than what I thought at the start of LS1! 2.Key factor of success: everyone collaborating, pushing in the same direction. 8

Preparation phase 9 Limited access to work areas before/during studies: Real issue for newcomers; Claim from contractor; Working on pictures/drawings is not optimal. Early requests for information by other services difficult to answer (with a certain reliability): Number of welds to check Storage needs near worksite Transport need Use of – ref. K. Foraz talk Late start of some project (re engineering)… lack of resources

Staff 10 Detailed preparation of LS1 since end 2011: Staff tired already beginning 2013, No break until end Fragmentation of work: Projects approved according to need, not really to available resources, High number of projects per PL, work supervisor, draftmen, control…, Less focused, More time consuming  higher workload. Would it be better to focus on less areas but cover all systems in the area? Late arrival Staff (May 2012…) PJAS (March 2013) Staff already «experienced» of CERN project. Estimated increase of people: +50% (mainly contractors’ personnel)

Frame contracts 11 Specially adapted for works such as R2E, late requests, and to catch up delays; Not for major intervention (drain of resources). Existing ones did not really cope with our needs: Limited additional resources, Reluctant to provide personnel for short period, Good level of competency. Additional contracts for works would have been quite useful….but less people in each of them Dismantling: asbestos &/or activated material: PS ventilation, chilled water pipes in PS and NA, SRs, CCC; Need for large contract for all CERN?

Contractors (supply) MS, 22 major contracts 2010 – 2011: effort to increase the portfolio of possible contractors not to depend on too few contractors and to increase competition. New contractors: 5 (UK, E, F, 2 x I) only 2 with no previous experience of work at CERN at beginning of LS1 Start up phase a bit difficult: Safety training courses Most of problems related to claims for additional costs not knowing CERN procedures and contract clauses. Not really ready to work on shifts (lack of personnel), systematically willing to work during holidays.

X RAY TEST FOR WELDS 13 Contractually every contractor is supposed to subcontract this check to any company he choses. In practice, all contractors ask Qualitech, one single contractor for all CERN. Figures for CV: Number of welds checked: 1’708 (94% Qualitech) Number of interventions: 196 (90% Qualitech) Total time spent: 1’583 hrs (95% Qualitech) Everything went well, not one single disruption, delay or issue to report over the two years! However, is there a risk in depending from one single contractor?

Safety Extremely good collaboration and valuable help during the preparation phase (RP issues, asbestos….). A bit of confusion on: Training courses Radioactive material containers Vacuum cleaners Electrical habilitation Different procedures per complex (IMPACT) mainly for late decision wrt work start. 14

CV Retreat – November 2014 Retreat internal to the group to share experience and wrap up lessons learnt… Actions: Evaluation of workload (real vs estimate) Commissioning team Planning manager 15

Conclusions Need for additional resources. Prepare in advance! Be flexible with contracts. Most effective where we can concentrate on one single major project wrt fragmentation in several smaller interventions. Very good collaboration among groups and services… everyone had the same objective. 16

Wrap up 17 Good It looks like it works! Collaboration among groups Planning, flexibility New contractors Improve Preparation: access to areas, arrival of people Reduce the number of system to be kept in operation Better adjust staff to workload Resources provided by IS contract Internal organization: planning mgr, commissioning team…

A big thanks to all people who collaborated with us during LS1 Questions? 18