N2-WP2 Report

1. N2-WP2 Report WP2 members: lab safety officers + collaborators Roberto, Chiara (LNGS) Alfonso, José (LSC) Michel, Thierry (LSM) Timo, Juha (CUPP) Jamie, Sean (IUS) • Particular lab location • Deep underground: confined spaces • Boundary conditions: tunnel/mine  strict correlation

2. End 2004 Distribution of the different labs’ Safety documents to the WP2 members: not uniform documentation, difficult to make comparisons among the different labs. Jan 2005Modane meeting & lab visit: first idea to have as soon as possible a comparison table among the different labs, in order to improve the exchange of information, to understand common and not common points, to point out weak points/improvements and to start the discussion Feb 2005First version of the comparison table (13 pages Word doc) Mar 2005Boulby working meeting& lab visit: safety courses attended and discussion about the main differences with other labs. May 2005 LNGS working meeting& lab visit: safety courses attended and discussion on plants, installation and safety procedures. People from Finnish lab first joined WP2group. July 2005Paris working meeting: Report to EB on WP2 activity & report on the Frejus tunnel fire accident, lesson learned. Sep 2005 Zaragoza meeting & LSC visit: discussion on interferences between labs and external entities (motorway, mine).

3. Last steps March 2006LNGS annual meeting: working group on access protocol, safety/teaching management. Specific technical visit to the lab safety installations, lab and motorway control room. May 2006Contacts with the High Energy Physics Safety Group. Goal to create a link among the two different networks (common problems, common strategies and solutions?). June 2006Visit to the Finnish lab and working meeting (a detailed report on the visit was prepared)

4. Pyhäsalmi lab visit: June 5th and 6th, 2006 (1) • Agenda • Monday June 5 • 09:00 - 09:45 Presentation of the mine (film and talk by Ilpo Mäkinen, the mine manager) • 09:45 - 10:15 Mine safety (Raija Urpelainen, the safety manager of the mine) • 10:15 - 10:30 Demonstration of safety device (Jari Joutsenvaara) • 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee break • 11:00 - 12:00 Meeting of all • 12:00 - 13:00 Lunch • 13:00 - 17:00 Safety Group: Visit in the mine (by two cars) • 18:00 - … Football, Sauna & Dinner • Tuesday June 6 • 09:00 - 12:00 Safety Group: Meeting & Discussions • 12:00 - 13:00 Lunch • 14.00 Transportation to Oulu (and Helsinki)

5. Pyhäsalmi lab visit: June 5th and 6th, 2006 (2) • List of participants to the meeting • José Manuel Carmona (LSC) • Alfonso Ortiz (LSC) • Matthias Laubenstein (LNGS) • Roberto Tartaglia (LNGS) • Chiara Vignoli (LNGS) • Jamie Mulholland (IUS) • Michel Zampaolo (LSM) • Timo Enqvist (CUPP) • Pasi Kuusiniemi (CUPP) • Juha Peltoniemi (CUPP) • Arja Aula-Matila (CUPP) • Jari Joutsenvaara (CUPP) • Antti Pennanen (CUPP) • Ilpo Mäkinen (Pyhäsalmi mine) • Raija Urpelainen (Pyhäsalmi mine)

6. Pyhäsalmi lab visit: June 5th and 6th, 2006 (3) • Visit to the mine and underground laboratory • Eleven persons attended the visit (with two cars). The visit took about three and half hoursin total and about 22 kilometres were driven underground • We first went to see the rescue area at the depth of 65 metres. This is the closest rescue area to the cosmic-ray experiment EMMA at the depth of 85 metres. From this area there is the access to the surface level by lift or on foo • The next visit was at the depth of 85 metres where the EMMA experiment (an instrument for cosmic-ray studies) is under construction. This is the first large-scale experiment in the laboratory (at the moment we saw only the frames of one detector unit but more units will be added soon). • The next stop was at the depth of 660 metres. Here there are many small and one large cavern that can be used for experiments. The large cavern is planned to host a supernova neutrino experiment. The size of the cavern is about 30 m x 10 m x 8 m, but it can be also increased if needed. • The last place of visit was at the main level of the mine, at the depth of 1425 metres. At this level there is also a cantine where we had a coffee break. After that we visited the rescue area of the main level and walked around. Large halls are present in the main level (a couple of halls of about 30 m x 10 m x 10 m). At the moment there are no experiment at this depth but it is possible to build small-size experiments also there (about 10 m x 10 m x 10 m).

7. Exercitation

8. Going underground by car (22 km to the bottom level, ≈ 50’)

9. At the 65 m level (rescue area)

10. At the main level (1425 m): coffe @ cantine

11. At the main level (1425 m)

12. At the main level (1425 m)

13. Pyhäsalmi lab visit: June 5th and 6th, 2006 (3):Working group meeting Items discussed: • 1. Joint training strategy • 2. Joint safety strategy • 3. Relation with the High Energy Physics Safety Group • 4. Safety Auditing Group • 5. N2 - WP2 Web Page

14. 1. Joint training strategy • The 5 labs have very similar safety aspects for both their confined location and the experimental plants hosted inside. • interesting to proceed toward a joint training strategy. • In particular for the specific boundary conditions it is useful to subdivide the five labs into 2 groups in order to even more specialize the training approach as regard access protocol, evacuation and emergency procedures: • the 3 “tunnel” labs (LSM, LSC, LNGS) • the 2 “mine” labs (IUS and CUPP) • We start with the foreseen safety courses in each lab and successively try to organize dedicated joint training courses (only for safety officers and Glimos). Proposal of involvement of tunnel/mine operators. • At the moment the LNGS Safety course (a course in English organized once per month) seems the most general and even the most detailed course among the 5 labs. The course foresees the projection of a film of a simulation of an emergency situation (car and bus crash in the motorway tunnel near the lab entrance) in which lab staff, tunnel personnel and fire brigades took part. • We decided to attend the LNGS Safety course before the end of 2006. People from the other laboratories will give a presentation of their lab too and in particular Michel will give a presentation of the lesson learned by LSM from Fréjus Tunnel accident of the last year.

15. 2. Joint safety strategy • As most of us have completed the 5 lab visit with Pyhäsalmi lab,nowwe have acomplete scenario of the different characteristics and safety aspects of the various labs • Discussion and comment on the lab • Comparison and upgrade of the lab comparison table • As a result of this discussion we started the work towards the report on strengths and weaknesses of the various safety policies (which is one of our deliverables). • A list of weak points of each lab was prepared.

16. List of weak points (1) • LNGS • The civil works ongoing have greatly increased lab safety quality, highly improved lab infrastructures and enhanced reliability of utilities (in particular creating redundancy for all the important systems/utilities). • The most important weak point is the absence of an independent evacuation tunnel. • No communication via radio during the travel from the external labs and inside, portable phone inactive inside. • LSC • It is not possible to evaluate the safety quality of the lab at the present stage as it is near to the definitive start-up. • At the moment there is lab organization and management. No emergency plan at the moment too. • As lab is a new construction the safety quality will be very presumably as high as possible. • But no redundancyis present in the ventilation system, safety controls, etc. No filtration of water.

17. List of weak points (2) • LSM • No identification of people in the lab (an electronic device will be installed soon). • No radio to keep in contact with the tunnel at the moment (under development). • Independent safety/access tunnel is under preparation. • IUS • Size of equipment that can be fitted into shafts. • Full scale fire evacuation to be completed in the future. • CUPP • No air conditioning in the upper level of the mine, also for radon. • Suggestion to improve DPI (a torch plus durable battery for each person).

18. 3. Relation with the High Energy Physics Safety Group • As first step we decided to participate as to the next HEP Forum: International Technical Safety Forum 2006 18-22 September 2006 at the CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (UK). See the web site: http://www.itsf2006.cclrc.ac.uk/ • Roberto had contacts with one of the Forum organizers: the idea is to have one or more ILIAS talks and take the occasion also to have a meeting with some HEP Group representatives. • Roberto will collect the contributions from each lab in order to start the preparation of the abstract of the talk/talks. • THE DEADLINE IS JULY 31!

19. Working in similar condition: - confined area - access rules - companies control - similar apparatus - gas mixtures use - cryogenic fluids HEP vs ILIAS network Boulby Modane Pyhasalmi ILIAS Network Canfranc LNGS DESY LNGS RAL HEP Network BNL SLAC CERN FERMILAB

20. Reasons to keep in touch with HEP - Forum There are several experts from all over the world in different fields: - risk assessment - safety audits - Experimental Collaboration (Physicists) attitude and people - electrical plants, and/or liquid scintillators and/or cryogenic fluids - environmental monitoring and control - operational training - safety briefings.

21. 4. Safety Auditing Group • We had a long discussion on the possibility to elect a Safety Auditing Group and its role. • In principle it could be very interesting and useful for all the labs as this group could be involved in general lab safety/training aspects and risk analysis but also in specific topics connected for example with the proposal of new experimental plants and lab utility and systems upgrades. • LNGS people referred some examples • But this point has to be discussed with each lab Director as it could be a delicate issue. • In each lab it is present a safety management structure together with a Scientific Committee and the outcome of the auditing group could be different and also in contradiction with the lab internal approach. • For this reason the target activity of the Auditing Group has to be discussed in details with all the labs and formalized. • To be discussed in the Zaragoza N2 general meeting • We decided to start thinking about a list of possible participants to the Auditing Group both from each lab and from HEP Group. To do this we need a representative from each lab plus external people. • A list of possible topics for the Auditing Group was prepared.

22. 8) Access control Vehicle People Security 9) External interactions Utilities, Supply of 10) Geological/Seismic Risks Faults Mine/tunnel closure rates Seismic activity 11) Health and Safety Training Quality Frequency 12) User Awareness What are they up to? Cryogenic equipment/storage Oxygen deficency Spillage containment 2) Flammable/toxic chemicals use/storage 3) Confined space – working in. 4) Evacuation procedures/plans/training 5) Fire Risk assessment Material selection 6) Environmental factors Spillage control Monitoring/gas etc Waste management Radon 7) Ventilation issues Plans Radon etc List of auditing topics

23. 5. N2 - WP2 Web Page • We discussed the organization of a Web Page of our working group with a general part and a restricted area in which we can share documentation (lab safety documents, flow chart of the lab management structure, list of materials with related information, list of the experimental plants with related risk assessment information, …) for our activity and a list of our meetings, minutes, picture gallery, reports, list of the foreseen safety training courses and so on. • to ease information exchange and improve common strategies • This page will probably be organized by the LNGS group with the help of LSC group and located in the LNGS web site.

24. We are here

26. THANKS!

28. The “G” man and the mine woman

29. We are here