CMS Relocation Options Towards An R2E Baseline

1. CMS Relocation OptionsTowards An R2E Baseline M. Brugger for the R2E Project

2. 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 …

3. 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) …afterwards

4. 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]

5. 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

6. 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

7. UJ561

8. USC55 S4

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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

15. Next Talks: Anne-Laure, Martin

16. Some Questions • Safety Exit Route? • 2nd route, thus 0.9m ok if <=100 people -> 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 2nd escape passage(best option would be not having personnel underground, or less of them)

17. 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

18. Summary & Conclusions • Shielding: • expected to be insufficient given the foreseen operation plan and expected radiation levels • Full 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 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?