Towards TT 2 A target experiment SAFETY CERN

Towards TT 2 A target experiment: SAFETY CERN, July 2004 A. Fabich

Safety Responsibles at CERN • SAFETY CONTACT PERSON FOR ALL MATTERS: Bruno PICHLER • • • Responsible tel. DSO of AB FGSO of PH • • • General Safety Radiation Gas and Chemicals Electricity Emergency stops Magnetic Field Laser Fire Material Paolo CENNINI Olav ULLALAND Bruno PICHLER Thomas OTTO Jonathan GULLEY Fritz SZONCSO Fabio CORSANEGO or Jonathan GULLEY Mechanical safety Alberto DESIRELLI Cryogenics Gunnar LINDELL

Notes 21. July 2004 • • • Present: BP, TO, HH, JL, AF List of safety people to be contacted: see above Ventilation: – – • If n. To. F running, it will be installed anyhow If not, then this few pulses (~40) do not need a ventilation • • Fire issues: Fabio calculates the temperatures possible by assuming the material in the room. He needs a list of materials and amounts present in the installation. This determines the temperature range designed for. From the whole setup (mercury circuit+2 nd confinement) must not leak Installation and deinstallation: transport to contact and reverify possibility to bring solenoid in? Magnet stays in tunnel (at least until shutdown) Only mercury circuit needs to be evacuated • • JL, AF ISO 2919 – – • Impact test: critical for windows, which material, which thickness Temperature: no problem, but can it be cooled to 70 K? ? ? Overall weight/size of the setup: 2 m 3, 500 kg + magnet Safety needs more detailed setup Safety people are impressed by the experience of the people from Oakridge and we should be happy to have them in the boat.

RP (T. Otto) From: Thomas Otto … The most appropriate solution is to put the proposed experiment into a work sector of class B and to arrange a beam dump downstream of it. The work sector would provide the necessary contamination barriers. The … I agree with you, a whole experiment cannot be approved by a testing laboratory as a "source" conforming to ISO 2919. The SC-RP approach is to take the mechanical and thermal performance requirements of table 2 in this standard as a pragmatic guideline. We then request the same performance from the weakest parts of an experimental apparatus presenting a contamination hazard. … Contact Fabio

Chemistry (J. Gulley) -----Original Message----From: Jonathan Gulley Sent: jeudi, 10. juin 2004 16: 50 Subject: Use of Mercury at CERN - Oak Ridge National Laboratory Hello Thomas, Bruno Thanks for the document on safe handling of mercury from the meeting in May. It seems they have a lot of experience in this domain and the details givin in the document satisfy many of my queries (in terms of decontamintaion, leak testing, monitoring, access etc. ). One or two questions remain though, if we are able to communicate them to the experiment, Bruno, to be discussed at the next meeting? They are: - how will they deal with any contaminated waste (e. g. after clean-up, contaminated protective clothing etc. )? - is a wash-station at hand for first aid? - the monitor must be calibrated before start-up - watch to be maintained during initial cycle (after filling) and at regular intervals thereafter - specify type of gloves used and type of filters used in respiratory protection, filters to be stored away from where mercury is used and changed regularly. - is there an indication that the filter inside TTF building ventilation system is saturated? How often will the filter be maintained/replaced? - avoid exposure to mercury of pregnant women. All other persons to be registered with their Medical Service - ensure any safety relief valves are vented safely - start-up, shut-down & emergency procedures to be posted at the workplace - warning panels to be put in place Other points: - the CERN fire brigade must be informed of the installation Will provide a memo with statements above +Hazop study: http: //nfwgtarget. web. cern. ch/nfwgtarget/docs/HAZOP. doc + a few more refernces

Notes 27. July, Japan • • Kirk, Harold, Koshi, Nick, Steven, Roger, Michael, Helmut, Adrian, HH: research board, relevance to CERN (argue with more protons, greater spot size, and different shower profile, see Simone simulation), budget is available? Another argument for relevance is the study of the pulse length effect! HK is wondered, that we have to show budget plan beforehand to the decision of research board. To what extend do you have to demonstrate this? Is a statement by MZ sufficient? Memorandum of understanding? AF: research board (see slide up) • Safety: get memos from everybody and we will treat them. • • Magnet: coils are started, not the cryo vessel. 1. 5 mm longer than design, fine! • Power supply: ALICE/LHCb is baseline. But where do we get the money from? Batteries are back-up. No news fro them. • •

• Cryogenics: Ken Peach is big help. RAL is very interested. • • Copy to mail: PS beam: Cngs beam is not extractable at 24 Ge. V before ? 2008? We could run some shots at 24 Ge. V and some at 14 Ge. V, where we can extend the pulse length to any length we wish. • • Beam line: beam dump needed, what size/type? Beam monitors: the dump causes a background, which interferes to the measurement of the secondary particle yield. SEM-grid scopes easily with the full range of pulse intensities for beam tuning and at full run. Beam position, profile and divergence measured by placing two SEM-grid Run MAD-simulation. ACAD-drawing of beam line, • • • Hg jet (ORNL): ORNL agreed on taking over the major responsibility; meeting end of August there;