# Target Complex Infrastructure Workshop #2 **4th November 2025** **Objectives of this workshop:** * Ensure all requirements are understood To understand studies progress by the different parties * Ensure sufficient spaces are reserved within the target complex * Ensure interfaces between systems and other part of NA are defined * Ensure safety aspect are being integrated by the different parties The focus is on the overall target complex including an update with the target complex service building, routing of utilities from surface to underground, interfaces with SHiP and the beam line. Planning, Budget and Resources aren't discussed during this Workshop. Scientific secretaries: Ixone Angulo, Gemma Humphreys ## Target Requirements - M. Parkin Important commented points during presentation: - Updated information appears in red in the presented slides. ***Comment from R. Jacobsson?– The muon flux should be monitored in the target itself and this data should be accessible online. Entering into cross-sections and basically, it's multiple scattering and the behaviour of the proton interactions, so we would want to monitor that. We could probably even correlate it with a muon flux to see what's going on, so that would be important to have those once the experiment gets more and more sensitive to smaller and smaller effects.*** - Answered by J.L.Grenard: It's just a matter of being connected to the technical network. Making sure we got the right thing on having a timing which is consistent in between the thermocouple recording and the timing. - Commented by R.Ximenes – ***All the thermocouple data will be published. If they need a specific acquisition rate, with different standard timerexpose logging of 1 or 2Hz, then maybe you should specify to see what we could do on our side on the target instrumentation to also have more resolution on that. They need to tell Mike so they can take it into account.*** - Answered by R. Jacobsson: I wouldn't expect any of these environmental parameters to change very rapidly, so, there are many seconds or longer, it seems to put perfectly fine. Now, the exception is, of course, more the beam-related monitoring. - Comment M.Fraser – ***The only thing for SHIP would be to have any data that's synchronous with the start of the spill, so it's reproducible. Otherwise, you'll have acquisitions that are asynchronous. That is the only thing to do in the control system, to make sure that those 1.2 second acquisitions are then synchronous with the spill.*** - Answered by R. Jacobsson - That would help a lot, clearly. But then what would also want some sampling between spills, so that you see how the temperature curve varies, and if there is any change from spill to spill. ***Comment from K. Shing Bruce Li- slide 5 – it says, spill duration 1 second. Just because during setting up time, when it's not perfectly regulated, you could actually go below that, so you might actually extract at a faster rate, maybe 0.8 seconds or something, just to be sure that this system can handle that as well.*** - Follow up question by M. Parkin – ***is this still with the total number of protons per spill?*** - Answer by K. Shing Bruce Li -The specification would be, like, 1 to 1.2 seconds, but when you're setting up, you might be a little bit slower, you might be a little bit faster until you actually converge, so I don't know what the sensitivity is of this, but of course, you want to avoid that, you know, we're too close to the resonance, we actually happen to extract quite fast, and then the thing overheats. - Follow up question by M. Parkin - ***Is this something that could happen only during commissioning, or during normal running?*** - Answered by K. Shing Bruce Li: It can happen during normal running. For example, even a super cycle change, or if you don't perfectly correct the hysteresis, you might extract quite a bit faster. It wouldn't happen continuously, it would be, like, a shot, maybe a couple of shots until it gets realized, and then we can correct it, but it needs to be kind of within the margin. - Comment from M. Fraser - ***During commissioning at 2 * 10^12, you can certainly expect some spikes. Very fast spikes, and we should work out how quick they can be. During normal operation, we will need to protect the target from fast extractions. And that we will have to do on rate, so we need the DI by DT interlock to be working and the BLM, Running sums to be working. we should build in some flexibility on that one second to be slightly smaller. Okay. But for spikes, we'll definitely be able to dump on, but you could have some variation in that one second.** - Comment from R.Ximenes - This table in slide 5 is the current PIM spec that we have on the target. So, the more we verbalize that into a functional spec, the better. So, whatever range of these parameters may fluctuate, whether it's an accident scenario, maybe whether it's something that will occur every day, because there are fluctuations in the machine, you should write it down like this, we can cover and assess them all in our studies. It's not a problem to assess those, but we need to know what we need to study. But if we have a more comprehensive list of specification, then we can address it all, and we can then weight that… the impact on the target with maybe the needs on the interlocks, and so on. - Follow up question from Richard – ***SHiP will want to run without the beam sweep, so we're good to specify in there what are the limitations on the intensity. Running with either the beam really in the center, where the nominal center of the sweep, or even at, you know, a few points out on the radius. Where we stay fixed on that point, so it could have… I mean, we will obviously, in those conditions, run at the very low intensity, the lowest possible, or even stretching, maybe the spill to 2.4, or who knows, maybe 4.8 seconds, just to get a low instantaneous rates for those measurements we want to do within these conditions. But it would be good to put the numbers on the limits. That's a different interlock level when you have the sweep off. There may have to be a second interlock on what is the allowed intensity extraction without the sweep.*** :::info 1. ***Action [M. Parkin] – To put the spikes rate during commissioning explicitly in the failure scenarios of the rate. Formalizing the ranges*** ::: - Comment from M. Fraser ***The second interlock the allowed intensity extraction without the sweet will be interlocked. That's a safe beam flag or intensity.*** Question from M. Fraser to K. Shing Bruce Li - ***Who is following up the DI by DT interlock right now? In general.*** - Answered by K. Shing Bruce Li: The ring one is, is in principle implemented. - Follow up question from M. Fracer - ***It's turned off now, It doesn't work. Right?*** - Answered by K. Shing Bruce Li - It's working. There's one thing, so that's, together with Tom Levins, is being looked at. One of the reasons is, of course, that it, at the moment, because we only have one window to be able to set and one set of thresholds, it interlocks us when we're injecting, when we're firing the injection kicker, and we get some fast losses because it's touching circulating beam, which we want to avoid. So the idea would actually to have two windows, one during injection, which you can keep a bit further open to prevent it to interlock, and then narrow it down as you're going up the ramp. So this is being looked at with Tom. I'm not sure whether we're actually going to implement this even during the YETs already :::info 2. ***Action [M. Fraser] - follow up the interlock together with the requirements of SHiP as well.*** ::: ***Question from Claudia – slide 7 - for 5 years of operation of the target, and then directly after the 5 years, you have the 3.7, 5 days, where you calculate that. So really worst case? And the 1.5 millimeters of cladding?*** - Answered by M. Parkin - Yeah, 5 years of operation, steady-state, beam on the target, so target's already hot. There are 1.5 millimeters of cladding all the way around. - Comment from C. Ahdida: It would be interesting to obtain the LOCA calculation for normal intervention, not only for the worst case scenario, like, after a month of cool down, or wherever you think that the target could be removed, and then have, really the temperature as a function of the time, so that we can also see from RP point of view what kind of radionuclides, at least for the tritium already, what we get out. when we foresee to remove the target, that we have ways to close, still, this target system, that you don't have it open, and basically that the outgassed radionuclets easily get out. They have additional barrier then. :::info 3. ***Action [M. Parkin] - Obtain the LOCA calculation for normal intervention, not only for the worst case scenario.*** ::: - Comment from JL. Grenard - ***I think there are two things. it is understood that we need to confine the target once we remove it from the underground, to not spread whatever goes… could go out. The big next question is, depending on the time we decide to exchange a target, would we need an active cooling which could complexify the thing. I think it's not yet clear, and this is clear that understanding what is the decay heat after months of cool down is quite a valuable input to understand the need and for how long we could stay without cooling. If we're talking about weeks, probably it's good. If we're talking about months, probably we need to foresee something.*** - Answered by M. Parkin - I'd just like to add that, we're also looking at the case where it's completely unclad with Tamsum as well, after 5 years, and also, we're still refining and adding detail to the models. time may shift a little bit, don't think drastically. - Follow up question from C.Ahdida – ***Is the unclad much lower?*** - Answered by M. Parkin – I think there are there some Tangstum, very short-lived tangstum isotopes? I've seen the work by ISIS, etc, showing that the, tantalum show have kind of really influenced the peak, because it's spilling out a lot of its heat in the sort of days to weeks, sort of, time period. But are there some very short tungsten.. - Answered by C. Ahdida - There are, but I mean, at least from a residual dose rate point of view, the first one and a half, two years, it's dominated by the tantrum cladding. - Answered by M. Parkin – Yes, it should be. We're going to do those studies as well, because that's our preferred type of cladding is definitely not. ***Question by F. Pedrosa – slide 7- From the presentation of Francesco in June, the time that we can stay without cooling for an accident, restarting the skid it's compatible with the numbers that Francesco presented. But, What about the main the annual maintenance? Do you need the redundant system to be kicked in? Because the announced time was a week, minimum, so it’s not compatible with 1 or 4 days, is this the case?*** - Answered by M. Parkin - I mean, we haven't looked at the residual dose rate after a year, two years, three years, four years yet. - Answer by R. Ximenes - This was really looking at the worst case, which is if we suddenly lose the cooling, we're at the end of 5 years of operation, we're operating in steady state, so the target is already hot, and this is really the minimum time of intervention in the worst conditions. I mean, here, the calculation was really assuming we're not cooling out all the blocks, but they have a big thermal inertia, that's why it takes some time to warm up until the 700 degrees, which is has been, for us, defined as the temperature limit where we'd start damaging the target, let's say. I mean, in terms of oxidation and the other things. for an intervention, yes, it's a bit different, because, first we will stop the beam a bit before, the K8, after a few weeks. the power after the beam stops is, I think, it is 300 times less than the set beam power, and that power decreases a bit, so the conditions are a bit different. We can assess those cases, but I wouldn't take this number as, this is not compatible with an intervention. No, no, it's a question, because I assumed that, but the one week announced in June was also considering that RP allows interventions during the run. - Follow up question from F. Pedrosa: ***I assumed that, but the one week announced in June was also considering that RP allows interventions during the run. so the tendency is to be bigger than a one-week intervention once a year. If, considering all these scenarios stopping a week before, it's compatible with one system, or a redundant system that needs to kick in while you maintain the other.*** - Answered by J.L. Grenard - There is a redundant system, it's mandatory, because if you have a power cut, if you have a failure of the compressor during operation, right after irradiation, we need to have a cooling system. Yeah. Because it will take weeks or months to exchange the compressor and during at least first couple of weeks, we need to have an active flow on the system, meaning which is perfectly in line with a YETS. - Answered by R. Ximenes - These numbers are the minimum time to activate the redundant system. And the redundant system, if it's the one of the prototype target, can perfectly cool the target, because you're talking about 1kW, 2kW of thermal power. The prototype target, it's made for 10kW, so it will surely cool the decay heat of the large target, so that's perfectly fine. - Answered by JL. Grenard - So, it's still in the design of Francesco he will present this afternoon. there is this redundant cooling skid, which is mandatory for, let's say, keeping alive and keeping the operation, let's say, more or less stable for the target. ## Target Station and Target Area - J.L Grenard ***Question from R.Jacobsson - for only 20kw of energy deposition into the shielding, do you need to embed the pipes?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard - that’s the question that we are currently evaluating, could be brazed piped within the shielding. We will perform the thermomechanical simulations to verity. The energy deposition will change as we have more shielding and its closer to the target ***Question from D.Hunt- Slide 10, you have a number of instrumental safety functions listed, has a functional safety assessment been included as a scope of work for contractor?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard - the contractor initially proposed to do risk assessment for the vacuum vessel, but we haven't said yes yet, we could go for a risk assessment on their side to see what they think. We have only just started contract with them so we wanted to see how they would perform first before agreeing to extra scope of work. - Follow up question from D. Hunt - ***But the intension is there?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard - yes, this will also be done in FFMEA so we will look at this there but specifically for this we will have the support of the contractor. We will also receive advice from the panel at next years TSAC. - Answered by M.Averna - its not established if we need to go for a safety instrumented system. At the moment we are assessing the design and what the risks are and this will come after the FFMEA. ***Question - M.Averna - Slide 10, Do you know the location of the vacuum pumps yet?*** - Answer by JL.Grenard - in TCC8 either in target area or upstream target area confinement wall. We need to assess this. Will be linked to technology they proposed (e.g.if we were to have an oil pump, locating it in the target area would have an impact on the fire safety). They will come with a proposal of pump types, and we will assess them before deciding on the location. - Comment from M.Averna - the oil pumps are the best from a radiological perspective but it would need to be assessed within the FIRIA exercise - Comment from C.Ahdida - the filters themselves would be radioactive - Answered by JL.Grenard - we could change the location of the filters :::info 4. ***Action [R.Janardhan, O.Rios] - Perform evaluation of pump and filter locations within the FIRIA study once a proposal has been given from the vacuum vessel design study*** ::: ***Question from P.Diaz - What is the vacuum level expected in the vacuum vessel?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard - 10^-3 mbars. ***Comment from R.Jacobsson - we need to start looking at the installation plan as we want the muon shield to be part of the commissioning in 2031 and we would need 9-12 months for that, we need to check everything that needs to be installed, civil engineering works to arrange the timings*** :::info 5. ***Action [F.Pedrosa] – Look at the installation plan and timeline of components for BDF.*** ::: ***Question from Simon - Slide 18, what is the driving factor giving the requirement to inspect within the vessel annually?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard - We have a blind system so we would like to understand if we have corrosion within target vessel, we want to inspect pipe connections and welds. All the possible weak points drive the annual inspection. ## Magnetised Hadron Stopper - M. Liebsch Important commented points during presentation: :::info 6. ***Action [ M. Liebsch, O. Pinto, C. Ahdida ]: Input from Rad protection needed on the allowed spacing between the metallic plates (slide 11 MHS Presentation).*** ::: :::info 7. ***Action [ M. Liebsch, O.Pinto, C.Ahdida ]: In slide 12 (MHS Presentation)– Check with radiation protection if they can have a plate below (the yellow part) that can be changed.*** ::: ***Comment from C. Ahdida - From RP side, concerning the gaps, there is already a gap included next to the magnet in FLUKA. The gaps should be minimised, particularly if they are close to the beamline, not only from RP but also, for the R2E point of view. There is additional shielding downstream which could compensate for some mandatory gaps that may be needed for the MHS.*** :::info 8. ***Action [M. Liebsch, O.Pinto, C.Ahdida] – Sit with RP to check where the gaps are absolutely required and then assess how shielding could be added downstream to compensate.*** ::: ***Question by R. Jacobsson – Regarding the power screws, are they needed throughout? In case of a failure, they can’t be demagnetised, it's not only about lifting the lid, it's also eventually about disassembling the whole thing at some point, or you will put a new coil in that allows you to demagnetize?*** - Answer by M. Liebsch – There will only have a problem when opening the ceiling, because this will break the circuit for a few lines and then the field drops. then the flux is cut and it can be disassembled more easily. Once the top it’s opened, it’s done, the flux stops. It’s very difficult thing to calculate because the calculation that have been done are with a homogeneous distribution in higher fields. In lower fields, the distribution is not that homogeneous so it’s not certain that every corner can be demagnetised in that way. :::info 9. ***Action [M. Liebsch] Test with the prototype, how the MHS behaves for different fields and how it demagnetises.*** ::: - Comment from M. Liebsch – Cords in all the nodes are foreseen so they can be lift with power. ***Question by P. Santos – Regarding the 3D model, could it include the manifold volume?*** • Answered by M. Liebsch - Slide 5 – In this drawing, it’s shown the space foreseen for the manifold, it’s even exaggerated. • Follow up question by P. Santos - ***In slide 4 - In the shown 3D model, the manifolds were not included. Now there is some shielding after the muon shield so it’s really to ensure that there is enough space.*** • Answered by M. Liebsch – This is just the simplification, we will include it. ***Question by Melania – slide 10 – the 10 mm impact has been checked with CE?*** - Answer by J-L. Grenard - This 10mm come from civil engineering and survey. - Answer by A. Huncikova – She doesn’t know where this 10 mm come from. From the past experiments’ data: the sinking of NA62 was 1-2mm and atlas has only moved 5mm. It has to be checked if this is the worst case. - Answer by M. Fraser – Everything will be moved down. The target is the reference point, when it goes down the rest should be able to be lowered as well. The absolute number is not important, it only has to be considered how much it goes down in comparison to the target. This has to be considered in the SCE consultant study. ***Comment by M. Liebsch – If there is no possibility of realignment, in maintenance the relocation of the target can be measured and the deviation can be added to the calculation as a known effect.*** - Comment by M. Fraser - The beam can only been moved with respect the target. The problem is when the target gets misaligned with respect to the good field region down stream. :::info 10. ***Action [D.Rodriguez] : It has to be studied whether something has to be done to the floor to prevent sinking during civil engineering or after. This has to come from the study that is going to happen now.*** ::: ***Question from M. Averna - slide 15 - it is mentioned “regular” alignment: does this mean yearly?*** • Answer from M. Liebsch: this could be done more often, it’s not critical. This would be visible from the Muon Shield side. • Follow up question from A. Huncikova - ***This should be discussed in her presentation. All the reinstalments should be able to be realigned in the future. Shouldn't we consider the target as a reference forever or what are the possibilities to realign the beamline to a real position? Or should the MHS considered as the reference?*** • Answer from Matt - they don’t want to be putting everything apart to align the target in the future. But maybe this can be further discussed. Should movable jacks under this equipment be considered? In the worst-case scenario, they could be lifted back up, but we don’t want to be pulling everything back up in few years. :::info 11. ***Action [C. Vendeuvre, A. Huncikova, R. Jacobsson, L.Nevay, J.L Grenard] : To study the different alignment constraints per subsystem.*** ::: ***Question by M.Ferro-Luzzi – slide 12 – There are shielding blocks all around the target. If there is a superconducting magnet. How are the things considered in the design to be able to introduce the sc magnet next to it? Are you going to plan to connect the blocks to one another?*** - Answer M. Liebsch: There will also be the forces pulling from the other side. They need to have an idea of the forces that will be applied need to be calculated and designed a structure to maintain it. The cross talks effects have been studied. :::info 12. ***Action [R. Jacobsson, P. Santos]: Provide a magnetic field map of the muon shield for the 2 configurations*** ::: :::info 13. ***Action [M.Liebsch]: Consider the superconducting magnet in the study of the shielding design. Do they need to lock them?*** ::: ***Question from M. Fraser- How close are we to update the specifications of the field tolerances using the simulations from the SHiP side, in order to relax the field quality.*** • Answered by M. Liebsch- This is ongoing. Massi did a lot of study in the sensitivity analysis. In general, it will not be a different in the homogeneity that it’s easily achievable. It could be improved by tapering but, it will not me a strong tapering. • Answered by M.Ferro-Luzzi: the homogeneity is not the problem they are looking if they could relax the good field region, where the original value of +- 0.5m was excessive, it has already been reduced to 0.4m. In terms of homogeneity, there isn’t much constrain, they want them to reach 1.9 everywhere in the Woodfield region, and it was reduced to 1.4. • Answer by M. Liebsch - The smaller the coil, the cheaper magnet and the better. ***Comment Matt: we don’t need to forget the muons coming from upstream. For this the core should be bigger. They need to check how this is effect of them.*** :::info 14. ***Action [M. Liebsch]: Study how the two effects play out with the super conducting and normal conducting magnets.*** ::: ## Service Cell Study - J.L Grenard Important commented points during presentation: - Power needs for cutting and crane have increased. Compressed air for wire diamond saw values assigned ***Question from C.Ahdida– for the airlock, would you install it for specific tasks or is it permanent?*** - Answered by JL. Grenard – would always be there and would have the capability to bring equipment out from the airlock to the logistics space. It's a new idea that needs to be further developed for bringing equipment out the cell without spready dirty products. ***Question from C.Ahdida – Slide 13, for the door rail system – how would you ensure that you are not spreading any contamination?*** - Answered by JL. Grenard - you make a step within the airlock in a “grey area” before moving into the logistics area. - Follow up question from C.Ahdida – ***how would this airlock be ventilated?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – this would need to be discussed. Currently, we already have an airlock (within the service cell) with differential pressure with respect to the rest of the target complex, we would implement something similar. ***Question from R.Ximenes – the cutting gap of diamond saw is 10.5mm so since we wont increase gaps in blocks within the target so we would have to accept either we would have to cut through the tungsten or we would have to open the vessel to extract the core to then be able to divide it*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – The other option is we could rotate the target whilst cutting it to then extract the contents? - Follow-up question from R.Ximenes – ***we cannot cut the tungsten blocks so we need to foresee something which allows for proper segmentation between target blocks for cutting:*** - Answer by JL.Grenard- the 10.5mm is a fixed number and we cannot cut the tungsten blocks so we would have to rethink the cutting process. We would need to do an unbolting operation for the 2 steel jaws inside the target vessel. Likely we would cut the vessel, then do mechanical dismantling with the master slave manipulators ***Question from R.Ximenes – the location of the ventilation for the wire diamond saw is inside of the service cell?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – yes, you cool the wire at a given location to -20 degrees and due to the length of the wire you will reach a point where the wire isn’t warming too much - Follow-up question by R.Ximenes – ***If the wire breaks while cutting hot equipment what happens?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – we would replace it or cover the target with something and use the crane and the slave manipulators to resolve the problem. Personnel airlock will also be designed to allow for the passage of the robot. ***Question from M.Fraser – reducing the vertical stoke of cutting machine- how does that reduce what we can manipulate?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – the 1.3m vertical is compatible with everything. BDF target is out of question for having human intervention if there was a problem. Depending on the object being cut, we could profit from the space and the tool and we could adapt the size of the gantry to have a larger capability. ***Question from M.Fraser – can we do anything with the large crane in the service building; can we optimise it in any way?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – information should come from Roberto and we would need to discuss with Bilfinger and discuss our requirements. ***Question from M.Averna – do we know material of inflatable seals?*** - Answer by JL.Grenard – we don’t have the exact material but er have a few options and they are currently used in the nuclear sector. Its known technology for sealing applications ***Question from D. Hunt – once access system gives you access – do you need any mechanical assistance to open the door?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – you would need a tool/hoist/pulley depending on weight, you cannot open by hand. ***Comment from O.Rios – to be noted that we need to integrate the rest of the safety systems of the service cell into the safety systems of the service building. There will need to be communication between the both.*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – this is very clear and we are conducting a preliminary study and the outputs will be used to write the final spec for detailed design and supply of the service cell. A lot of details like this would need to be added to the final design and construction of the cell. ***Question from C.Gutierrez – slide 7, the crane capacity in the service cell has increased, if we had a hatch in the roof, could we do maintenance with the 30t overhead crane in the service building if we adjusted it to do remote handling so we could reduce the capacity of the crane in the service cell and , in turn, the height of the service cell?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – we need to keep static and dynamic confinement in the cell; the target has very strict requirements so couldn't open the hatch in this case. Its clear the current service cell design doesn’t fit the size of the building which is why we are looking at options for reducing the cell height – e.g. making the wire diamond saw smaller. ## TSAC#1 Response Update - J.L Grenard No questions or comments ## Target Area RP Requirement - O.Pinto ***Question from M.Calviani – slide 15 – here you consider tritium directly produced in helium?*** - Answered by C.Ahdida– no it’s from the target, it’s from the tungsten, we have calculated the steady state, but we will do another calculation to get a more precise value– we are assuming in an extreme case currently. ***Comment from M.Calviani – mentioned that there would be tritium created from proximity shielding*** - Comment from O.Pinto – the study is ongoing to see how much tritium is going from the copper into the cooling pipes ***Comment M.Calviani – We have feedback from other facilities that the outgassing and tritium diffusion from all of the shielding around the target into air is large and many steps need to be taken when opening their vacuum vessels. After the vessel is open the tritium release continues to be a problem as its still diffusing tritium into the air.*** :::info 15. ***Action [C. Ahdida]: Discuss with tritium communities around what issues they are having with tritium release*** ::: ***Question from M.Calviani – if you pump out the vacuum from the vessel, we would also be pumping out the tritium, would we be monitoring this before ejecting it into the target area?*** - Answered by C.Ahdida – yes, we would also have filters. Then when there is a release, we will have the environment monitoring stations. We currently foresee the air activation to start directly from a pipe. :::info 16. ***Action [C. Ahdida, O. Pinto] – Any discussions on tritium release and the vacuum system should ensure that Jean-Louis and the design study focusing on the vacuum pump is kept in the loop*** ::: ***Question from R.Ximenes - Is there a specific requirement for tritium other than what we are considering for the leak rate and the pipes?*** - Answered by C.Ahdida – for the tritium, yes ***Comment from R.Ximenes - There are 2 hot points in the cooling circuit, one after the target and the other after the compressor where the temperature will increase 70-80 degrees, it’s important to think about if you will want to monitor this.*** - Comment from C.Ahdida – We will have a specific monitor in that room which would be accessible during operation. ***Question from F. Pedrosa - Slide 20– we have a sump downstairs and then it goes directly to the river, are you requesting an interlock with this pump? Is the point in yellow on slide 20 interlocked/are you asking for it to be interlocked with your monitors?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – the situation in terms of sumps for the underground isn’t clear, it’s not compatible with the latest regulations. - Comment by F.Pedrosa – there is no retention at the surface at all today for these areas. - Comment by JL.Grenard – We need to see if we will connect to the new retention/new sump system which would be created in Building 754 and we need to see if we would have to make a connection between the new and existing sumps. We need to understand how we want to collect the water and if we want to separate it from the target station compared to the rest of the facility and what is the volume of firefighting water we might have and how it might be handled :::info 17. ***Action [G.Cnudde, D.Rodriguez] – Hold a discussion on what to do regarding the sump network for TCC8 and gain a better understanding of how we should manipulate the area*** ::: ***Question from M.Averna - Slide 16 – it is mentioned that the air contamination shall be monitored and maintained – what does this mean? Operation? Access? This is a scenario we need to account for in the ventilation design? Therefore, to be maintained means if we lose normal power we need to account for the eventual maintenance and operation – what is the requirement, and have you discussed with Nikola?*** - Comment from C.Ahdida – this is only during normal operation, if we dismantle confinement wall then the situation would change. It was discussed that this under pressure should be monitored, and it needs to be maintained in the sense that if the adjacent areas also have an under pressure that you compensate for that and you have the delta P always at -20. - Comment from M. Averna – we need to account for it also in the failure scenario and the operability - Comment from N. Zaric - we have predicted this in our systems - Follow up question from M.Averna - ***Do you account for the availability of the system as well in the design?*** - Answer from N.Zaric – In this moment, yes. Underground we have a dedicated system which we plan to modify to ensure it can still run in the case of a power cut and we are planning to install a dedicated extraction system which will also work as a smoke extraction system in a way that would continue the operation if there were to be a power cut. ***Question from J.Currie - slide 8 – Is there a no access area at the BEAS?*** - Answered by C.Ahdida - no you will be able to access this area to quickly place the sample but you won’t be standing directly in front of it. ## Fire Safety Concept Surface Building and Underground - O. Rios ***Question from D. Hunt – slide 6 - Could you clarify the position of the window, it’s not in the zone A? Is it a potential source of unauthorised access?*** - Answered by R. Kallada – The window is in the second floor in the CV room. It’s not in the zone A. - Answered by C.Ahdida – The window will only be opened to extract the cold smoke only after RP approval. - Comment by JL.Grenard – its not a window, its a hatch for extraction of smoke. - Comment by O. Rios – It’s only for air extraction. Having mechanical extraction in this area would be an overkill when CdT prescriptive approach allows to have an openable window/hatch. ***Question by F. Pedrosa – slide 5- you have a system that in case of a fire it will keep a closed loop to keep dynamic confinement. But how do you actually do it? If you inject less air and you extract more, to keep the pressure difference the air has to be sent elsewhere.*** - Answered by O. Rios - There is a net extraction system. You are releasing a minimum amount, just to keep the under pressure, you have a filtration system to evacuate the smoke. ***Comment by F. Pedrosa – During the PT meeting on Monday, it was mentioned that a SIREN system is needed before we start dismantling the underground area. Why are we doing it for this dismantling, and not in any other parts at CERN?*** - Answered by R. Kallada – the occupancy during dismantling will be much higher than during normal operation. - Answered by O. Rios - We realized during recent assessment that this area is the only one in NA Cons complex (TTs) that is not currently covered by evacuation sirens. A system is required to alert workers in LS3. If needed it can be temporary. - ***Comment from F. Pedrosa - the problem of installation the temporary system where we do a full decabling of the full area over 2 years and the amount of people might also be less than during a YETS. Why can the system can be installed after in the project.*** - Answered by M. Averna: the lack of siren system was spotted during an on-site visit. - Answered by O. Rios- This area is a doubly managed area by HI-ECN3 and NACONS, and lack of alarms was only spotted one month ago when we were working in the safety matrix for NA. - Answered by M. Averna - the system was discontinued but never dismantled in the 80s. This is a problem because you will have a misconceptions of safety. As a project, we need to make sure that the people working in the underground are safe. - Answered by O. Rios – During the testing, when the walls weren’t present, something could be heard, but now that the wall is in place it can’t be heard. - Answered by F. Pedrosa – If the system is discontinued, the action should happen now. There is also people going doing works now in the underground. - Answered by M. Averna - ECN3 is equipped and part of GHN300 gallery is also equipped. The problem is upstream the blue wall. - Answered by F. Pedrosa- There are people going every Wednesday. If it’s a problem for evacuation time, it’s a problem today. :::info 18. ***Action [M.Dole] : Schedule a meeting to discuss on if a SIREN system is needed before dismantling the underground area*** ::: ***Question from M. Dole - slide 5- smoke extraction is manually done to aid evacuation. I think this is not compatible. If you want to have evacuation this should be done automatically, because people will evacuate during the first minutes, so the air will come inside after the people have evacuated:*** - Answered by O. Rios: This is not a life-safety system or for evacuation. This is only to support intervention. Iti is a misleading statement and will be corrected. ***Question from M. Dole -slide 17 – For the matrix, If we check the zones for NACONS, the zones are much larger. The ECN3 is divided in smaller areas. Could we have the same partition as done in NACONS? This would avoid inconsistencies. 1 evacuation zone and 1 compartmentation zone for the whole facility.*** - Answered by O. Rios: this is part of the discussion with Hi-ECN3. They have some problems of false detection impact into operation. The solution considered would be to separate the usage of areas in higher granularity than done in the NACONS project to avoid this problem. - Commented by M. Dole: there is the triggering there are some system considered . The system used in NACONS is different to the one used here. It will not have as many false alarms as there are in the SPS - Answered by M. Averna: In ECN3 they have different usage areas so it makes sence to have smaller areas. For the detection: ***We are only expecting single detection?*** - Answered by O. Rios: the policy is single detection, and what we propose to limit farther the impact of detection is that everything goes in single detection except for the compartmentation, which triggers in the second detection. This is more about the dampers, maybe we want to close them in the second detection, to make sure that we are doing something that it’s not reversible. - Follow up comment from D.Hunt: ***there might be some false detections in the sparks.*** - Answered by O.Rios: the surface building, the service cell is not considered here. It’s part of the service cell study that is still pending. ## General Safety Requirements - J. Currie :::warning Actions coming from final slide: • Review the ventilation system of the target area and the service building with the OHS and RP hierarchy • Confirm the specification for the CV room doors with HSE-ENV • Review the safety requirements for the UPS • Comment and provide support on the ODH assessment with EN-CV • Continue to provide regular updates and support to ongoing studies (e.g. Transport Opening & Chicane Requirements) • Address SHiP safety needs in the context of HI-ECN ::: ***Question from F. Pedrosa: For the pressure cascade, you considered normal operation. For the degraded modes, the specifications should come from CV or are there any special requirements from HSE that must be respected?*** :::info 19. ***Action [C.Ahdida] - HSE requirements regarding the pressure cascade have to be finalised.*** ::: - Answered by R.Kallada: For the fire safety, for the service cell, there is a need for the confinement. So, the pressure cascade will not be maintained but a pressure difference should be maintained in degraded modes. - Comment F. Pedrosa: ***it’s not more in the fire case but if we have a air handling unit that fails, do we need to secure the pressure difference? how will it work?*** - Answered by C. Ahdida: for the service cell yes, but not for the rest. Here we have to follow the regulation. - Answered by F. Pedrosa: I just looked to the document and it only specifies normal operation. :::info 20. ***Action [C. Ahdida] - make a statement about degraded modes in the pressure cascade document.*** ::: - ***Comment by N. Zaric: from CV side. This is an operation more considered in the statement document. Here it’s more important to focus on the service cell as it’s a grade A lab, and we have a redundant scenario with the air handling unit, so it means that it will start immediately. As soon as the other unit starts immediately it will balance the under pressure out immediately, as it was designed.*** ***Question from JL. Grenard: For the UPS, and the location the battery in the safe room?*** - Answered by J. Currie - For the fire safety, this would be one of the best locations. - Answered by R.Kallada: The UPS has to be located in an area with the lowest fire risk. Currently, the safe room is the one with the lowest risk. - Follow up question from M. Averna: ***The safe room is for the safety systems, is it smart to install the batteries in the same room?*** - Answered by R. Kallada: we have a find a dedicated fire rated cabinet for it. It can’t be located in the electrical room. - Follow up question from JL. Grenard: ***Do we need a new room for the batteries inside the safe room?*** - Answered by M. Liu: This is the normal procedure, and now-a-days there is not any problem in any other system installed at CERN. It has been discussed already with Vincent(EN-EL equipment responsible). Melania will agree the type of batteries chosen that come already in confinement. These batteries are already in enclosure. - Answered R. Kallada: the suiss corse allows the confinement of the UPS inside the electrical room. Meaning extra low voltage wires. :::info 21. ***Action [E.Cano, M. Dao R.Janardhan , O.Rios, N.Zaric] - Hold a dedicated discussion on the placement of the UPS batteries.*** ::: ## Way Towards the TDR - Important commented points during presentation: - The idea has to be to write the TDR document based on RELEASED documents. :::info 22. ***Action [M.Fraser, B.Goddard, W.Weterings] (2 weeks): Update and release the WBS. Matt, Bren, and Wim to make a proposal of a table of the people that need to fill the information.*** ::: ***Question from Richard: Regarding the review of the document. The facility has to be prepared to be able to accommodate SHiP, therefore, SHiP referees and the SPSC should also follow the approval process. The feasibility of the experiment in the built infrastructure has to be proven in the TDR more than the technical details themselves. How will this be done, should it be revised by the ATS ?*** - Answered by M. Fraser – Our deadline is to design so we don’t have overspending. The first thing in which we will start spending is the civil engineering. Does the budget comes from the consolidation? Do we have it? These are the key questions that need to be answered. We need to go to the cost-scope schedule review with the TDR finished by the end of 2026. - Answered by B. Goddard – we need to already organise in September 2026 IEFC + SPSC review, where both committees designate the review panel. :::info 23. ***Action [B. Goddard]: Organise a meeting in September 2026 with the IEFC and SPSC designated reviewers to check the draft of the TDR*** ::: - Comment by R.Jacobsson – The draft of the TDR needs to be finished by June 2026 and there has to be a clear review process with some questions that might imply adding more details into the document. - Answered by B.Goddard – The teams need to have the designs advanced enough to be confident of the proposal they are introducing in the TDR, even if the last details aren’t defined yet. It’s important to have time before to be sure of the documentation needed but also to have time after the TDR to have everything ready for the cost and schedule. ***Comment from M.Fraser – The baseline of the project has to be defined in MTP 2027 before we have overspending, so it has to be defined by the end of 2026. Planning in the reverse direction, the TDR has to be ready by early June and the final review on the end of September.*** - Comment from Brennan: ***these deadlines have to be included in the discussions with the WP leaders, where they are going to be.*** - Comment from M. Fraser: ***the project isn’t in ATP. This is how we get there by allocating the budget.*** :::warning ***Comment from Brennan: The plan is to start on January with the work package descriptions. Making sure that they map correctly to the work package descriptions with the information inside the TDR.The hard part is shorting out what has to be published and actually publishing it before drafting the TDR.*** ::: ## Target Complex FFMEA Progress Report - M. Parkin :::info 24. ***Action [G.Banks, R.Xiemens, J.L Grenard] – (Addressed by Matt) We need to sit down to discuss the boundaries and the limits of the FFMEA scope.*** ::: ***Comment from C. Ahdida – need to further develop this sooner rather than later to ensure it is mature enough to present at the TSAC*** - Follow up comment from M. Parkin- we have a timeline, as we have lots of stakeholders it will take some time to hold all of the required meetings but once we have the requirements we should be able to go through the failure modes fairly quickly. Perhaps allocating 2 months for the review & FMEA and 2 months for the review and system breakdown is optimistic so maybe we change the timeline - Follow up comment from JL.Grenard - this is why we are asking for inputs from others to gain better understanding and speed up the process ***Question from F. Pedrosa – what kind of changes do we expect from FFMEA analysis in the infrastructure? After looking at the timeline highlighting that it would be finished in April 2026 and we need the TDR by June 2026 with a constant schedule review by the end of 2026 to not miss MTP 2027. If we come to service groups in April for the specifications and cost estimations for June then there's not enough time to finish the design changes.*** - Answered by JL. Grenard – until we know which target we have then a lot of things will be up in the air. This is why we need to work on this planning and understand how long it would take us to switch back design from helium to water if we have to go back to this design and see how this is compatible with the TDR. Typically the cooling station would change and this would result in a change in the cooling pipes which could have impact on general infrastructure. - Answered by M. Parkin – will be scope to change target details from summer 2026 onwards, these things have effects which can then mean we need to re-evaluate the safety, etc which could change the design - Comment from F. Pedrosa – Even if the FMEA isn’t finalised is there a way where we could define some limits that the groups could work/prepare for (e.g. mentioning it would be somewhere between 10MW and 12MW, like we need X amount of cooling and X amount of electricity. This would help even if the final results are not there. - Comment from JL.Grenard – This is understood, and it is why we are working on the helium cooling as its requiring more power and more complex compared to water. We need to work on this to ensure that this understanding is correct. ## Target Station Cooling - F. Dragoni ***Question from M. Fraser – can you clarify UPS requirements – some control racks have ups built in, do you need anything external to your systems?*** - Answered by F. Dragoni – no not really, all of our control racks have their own UPS network that can stay up to 2 hours. We have only the secure network on the helium skid in case we want to run it in the event of a power cut in the service building. ***Comment from M. Parkin – The manual intervention in case of LOCA for back up compressor is 1-3 days for setup*** - Follow up comment from F.Dragoni – We are on the learning curve for this, we are commissioning the skid, and we are moving much faster than we had envisioned. If the skid was kept in pressure, then it would be much faster than the 1-3 days. If the skid was ready to run, we would just isolate it from the main circuits and then we would just have to open and close some valves and start the compressor which could be done very quickly. What would take the time is installing the skid, doing the initial flush with helium, putting it into vacuum, filling it up and then making sure it can run. The 1-3 days was an initial estimate that would likely go down. It also depends on the time of day that the failure would happen (e.g if it happened in the middle of the night) - Follow up comment from M. Parkin – we will keep you in the loop as estimates are refined, currently it is between 1-4 days before we would reach critical temperatures. ***Question from Melvin – requirements summary slide – for the MHS, 20kw was mentioned, this is fine for nominal operation but if we have a failure of the coil we would like to operate for limited time with higher values (32kW). Is this acceptable?*** - Answered by F. Dragoni – no problem, we would need to supply around 50% more water, but this is fine as MHS coil is bunched to existing demi water network from BA82 cooling station it would be fine. If the proximity shielding is more than 20kW this is fine, station would be able to supply up to 50kW. :::info 25. ***Action [G. Humphreys] – Provide the revised numbers for the heat load going into the proximity shielding*** ::: ***Question from JL.Grenard - for the cooling of the MHS do we need to make an assessment for the water activation coming from the coil as it is connected to the BA82 cooling station?*** - Answered by C.Ahdida – looking at prompt dose rates and comparing them to other magnets in TCC2 it was so little that it was assumed that this is very minor activation. - Comment from F.Dragoni – the water coming from BA82 doesn’t only go to ECN3 – it also goes to EHN2. If the activation already isn’t a big problem for the experiment in EHN2 then it’s unlikely that the MHS would add much more of a problem. :::info 26. ***Action [C.Ahdida]– Check that using the demi water from BA82 to cool the MHS coil doesn’t lead to any water activation issues*** ::: ## Target Complex Ventiallation - N. Zaric ***Question from C. Ahdida – slide 23/24 you refer to the savings for each option – this is respect to the baseline that has real smoke extraction?*** - Answer N. Zaric – yes, option 1 is where we have savings from excluding 2 of the 2 hour levels so the CV room and the filter room on the 1st and second floor so in this case we would have less dampers, less duct work, less grills (?) so we are changing our fans to be lower which will give savings – this is same for all scenarios. For option 2.1 and option 2.2, both of them have option 1 included plus additional gains. The handling hall strategy is what changes - would we use the existing system for extraction and to change the fire ratio for the ducts and the fans or would we have a dedicated system for the ventilation with certain temperatures for the ducts. - Follow up question from C. Ahdida - ***For underground what are the savings?*** - Answered by N. Zaric - in this scenario we are changing the ducts and fans. Originally, we had fans up to 400deg but the selection of fans which are up to 200deg is very low and manufacturers are either focused on fans up to 120deg or 400deg. Based on certain temperature requirements we have, we will decide if we keep fans up to 400deg. Usually if a smoke extraction fan is working as a regular extraction fan, the efficiency is very low, as we don’t have the space here to route 2 extra ducts, then perhaps we should stick to having 1 dedicated system and make some pros and cons of the fan selection for the temperature and efficiency. :::info 27. ***Action [N. Zaric] – Conduct a pro and con evaluation of the different smoke extraction fan choices in respect to temperature and efficiency.*** ::: ***Question from M. Liu – slide 33, could you clarify that the ventilation loads shown are ECN3 and TCC8 cavern only?*** - Answered by N. Zaric – yes, this is what will be on the secured power network, we have electrical coils for AHU, we have extraction systems for AHU for service cell, we have extraction system for the smoke extraction system in service building, we have smoke extraction system for underground and that’s all that we foresee for the ventilation. - Follow up question by M.Liu - ***So you don’t foresee anymore loads requiring secured power?*** - Answered by N.Zaric - For the ventilation, no we don’t. ***Question from P.Diaz - for the cascade you will use the present TCC8 ventilation system?*** - Answered by N.Zaric – yes - Follow-up question from P.Diaz - ***Will cooling capacity be reduced?*** - Answered by N.Zaric – No, it won’t be reduced. For TCC8 we have additional airflow which would mean we have additional chilled water - Comment from – P.Diaz - If we move muon shield fully into TCC8 there may be additional heat load. - Comment from N.Zaric – from our perspective if would be better if the muon shield wasn’t fully in TCC8. ## Transport and Handling Systems - C. Gutierrez :::warning Important point: - If the volume of the object is bigger that the volumes presented in slide 13, EN-HE needs to do a dedicated transport study to see how it will be brought to the underground. ::: ***Comment from C. Ahdida – for the shielding cask for the target. There was a preliminary study during the CDS to get 2 mSV/h, there were given lead and iron equivalent, but, we also need to see if we cannot just shield the person in the truck level, we need to check how much time the person will be working there etc. It needs to be a close package that there is no contamination spread but we need to check.*** - Comment from JL.Grenard – The thickness is in line what it’s realistic with the crane capacity, and what we need. The 2 mSV/h we don’t need it, it’s just a mitigation measure value. The idea is really to go for the functional specifications and start developing the requirements from someone that has the expertise. - :::info 28. ***Action [C.Ahdida, JL.Grenard, C.Gutierre]: Define together how to protect the workers from the radiation during the transportation of the target and detail the exposure values. Fully develop the transportation sequence.*** ::: - Follow up ***comment from C.Ahdida - For example, the shielding containers design for CGNS dismantling, they took into account the distance between the person and the handling object. The full transport sequence needs to be revised.*** ***Question from F. Pedrosa – slide 18 – it was mentioned that they are studied human/fully remote operations. What are the RP limits that are been considered? ALARA 2 limits?*** - Answered by C. Ahdida – It will be ALARA 3 in all of them because it is a recurrent risk. If it’s a recurrent intervention there wouldn’t be an ALARA committee its time. - Follow up ***question by F. Pedroa– what is the criteria that is considered to be acceptable to be worked on next to the object?*** - Answered by C. Ahdida – It was calculated and it was several tens of Sv/h so no one can get close to it. But it really depends on the intervention. - Answered by J-L Grenard - The target handling it’s 100% sure that it has to be done remotely. For the other type of tasks, it will be based on work dose planning to decide what is remote, partially remote or what is involving human intervention. - Follow up question by F. Pedrosa - ***Criteria is a perception or a value?*** - Answered by C. Ahdida - It will be done by the work dose planning and the particularity of each activity. It will depend on the status of the environment in every moment. - Follow up question by F. Pedrosa - ***Where do you consider the limit to consider to be remote?*** - Answered by J.L Grenard - Once the operation is in the forbidden area. It’s the dose rate of the object that defines if the people can enter or not. - Answered by Yann: 100mSV/h is the value of the prohibited area. - Follow up comment by J-L. Grenard - ***this value in other facilities like ISOLDE is also under consideration depending on the intervention.*** - Answered by C. Ahdida: All the critical positions can be examined. When there is human intervention, they can also studied individually. - Comment from F. Pedrosa - ***As it is a new installation, by design there are some objects that should have to be defined to be remotely handled from design.*** - Answered by J.L Grenard - They are working on making some things remote handling like disconnections of things. The limit is not there because there are technical difficulties and it’s not an easy design. ## Safety Systems - M. Dole :::warning Information that has been requested: • Location and requirements of the smoke extraction • Fire doors/dampers locations • Safety matrix and interlocks ::: ***Comment from M.Averna – Is it okay to have the fire safety racks located on the second floor as a discussion was held with the fire brigade and they would prefer to have them on the ground floor?*** - Answered by R. Kallada – A further discussion has been had this Mattias and he confirms that having them in the proposed location is okay. - Question from M. Dole – If there a need for a remote HMI (Human Machine Interface) (Tableau de Rapport) close to the entrance? - Answered by M. Averna – If the fire team see no issues with placing it on the second floor then it can likely be placed there instead. - Follow up question from F. Pedrosa - ***Is this like a panel that was requested in BA80 where there are triggers for the ventilation and the status of the detection, or is this something different?*** - Answered by M. Averna – it’s the status of the detection, this is the panel where the fire brigade would usually (reflect?) upon the recognition - Comment from M. Dole – it would provide information on the status of the detection so you could see in which room the fire has been detected - Comment from M. Averna – when the fire brigade intervenes they already have the location of the alarm level 3 so this information could be redundant. :::info 29. Action [R.Janardhan] – ***Define in the fire safety concept what the decision was and how it was made regarding the location of the fire safety racks. Define if a Tableau de report is required at the entrance.*** ::: :::info 30. Action [M.Dole] –***Hold a discussion on the fire detection safety system*** ::: ***Question from JL. Grenard – Now that we have a layout of all safety systems wanted to implement – who provides the integration?*** - Answered by M. Dole – we need help from project team for the integration and integrate together - Answered by M. Averna – project integration and EN-AA need to put in correct location - Follow up comment from JL. Grenard – ***There was some discussion at LS3C on the integration of AA systems for various places so it’s something we need to follow*** :::info 31. Action [J.L Grenard] – ***Investigate how to assist in integrating the safety systems*** ::: ***Question from C. Ahdida - slide 5 & 7– what are the arrows shown on the image?*** - Answered by M. Dole - its where you have a reader and you need to badge your card/dosimeter - Follow up question from C. Ahdida – ***Why do you have reader at emergency exit?*** - Answered by M. Dole – A misunderstanding between where the emergency exits are located :::info 32. Action [O.Rios, R.Janardhan] – ***Provide information on where the locations of the emergency exits are in the service building*** ::: ***Comment by C. Ahdida - slide 5 – The yellow area shown is a limited stay area with the need for an operational dosimeter. The access coming from building 911 to building 754 will be RP controlled. There isn’t RP control going from the yellow area into the red area e.g. with the n_ACT lab.*** :::info 33. Action [M. Dole]– ***Modify the layout of the access map and integrate Building 911 into the image on slide 5 (Safety Systems Presentation)*** ::: ***Comment from F. Pedrosa – slide 13 –it is mentioned that the fire compartment doors are normally open – which of these doors are normally open?*** - Answered by M. Dole – For now we don’t have information on this, if there are any doors which are normally open then we will interlock them directly - Answered by R. Kallada– to maintain dynamic confinement all of the doors should be closed - Follow up question from M. Dole – ***Do we need to monitor position of these doors – if they are open/closed?*** - Answered by R.Kallada – The doors should be self-closing :::info 34. Action [O. Rios, R.Janardhan, C.Ahdida, O. Pinto] - ***Define if we need to monitor the position of the fire compartment doors in the service building - whether they are open or closed*** ::: ***Question from D. Gomez - A door needs to be installed to gain access to the roof, in certain places you have mentioned you cannot install a SUSI and something else would need to be installed instead, in that case would it have an impact on the installation of the door?*** - Answered by M. Dole – For now we don’t know the impact that it would have but if as an example we have a safety integrated level function which regulates the entrance to the room then we would have to install specific devices on the door. - Follow up question from F. Pedrosa - ***Asking for double doors e.g. one for the fire function and one for the access function?*** - Answered by M. Dole – We don’t know for certain but for now, no. - Comment from JL. Grenard – Please look for a door that can fulfil multiple functions e.g. fire rated, keeping confinement and granting access – the service cell will have this form of door. ***Question from D.Hunt – If you pretended there was no access system (e.g. an electrical failure) – what layers of protection do you have which would prevent someone from entering? Do you have a mechanical mechanism e.g a form of mechanical interlock with the door?*** - Answered by JL. Grenard – We shouldn’t reinvent something, other facilities have similar configurations so we should look at how existing service cells are doing this Follow up question from C. Ahdida – ***Can we get a recommendation from the service cell design study company?*** - Answered by JL. Grenard – yes, e.g. the shielded doors we have for the service cell are locked with pins :::info 35. Action [JL. Grenard]– ***Assess what mechanical mechanisms for preventing access to hot areas are used in ICEDA*** ::: ***Question by R. Kallada – What information do you need for the fire doors underground other than what is provided in the fire safety concept?*** - Answer M. Dole- We need the position of fire doors and fire walls - JL Grenard – The location of the confinement walls should come from Richard and they are linked to position of the experiment and the configuration of the muon shield. If you are okay with an accuracy of location within 5m then this is already defined in the functional specification for the confinement walls. - R. Jacobsson – There is a proposal to put it between the first and second magnet in which a decision needs to be made but this would be plus or minus 1m. We have a current integration layout drawing of BDF-SHiP and if there are no show-stopping problems then this should become the baseline. :::info 36. Action [R.Jacobsson] - ***Share the integration layout drawing of BDF-SHiP with M.Dole*** ::: ## Electrical Infrastructure - E. Cano ***Question from F. Pedrosa – the DIRS and DICS are now online, there are a lot of problems with the FPs that don’t exist. As we have a facility that we are still defining a lot of things, how can we do it?*** - Answered by M. Liu - to provide an estimate as best as possible, as a lot of the racks have no information about the volume, therefore they would need to have an approximate number of the km of cable that they want for the request. - Follow up comment from F. Pedrosa – ***The FP is a mandatory field, so without this information it can’t be submitted.*** - Follow up comment from JL. Grenard - ***It is mandatory for EN-EL to provide the naming convention of the racks based on the table we have. The users should start being able to provide the right naming convention according to EL. So, EN-EL should start filling up one of the extremities*** - Answered by J. Blanc – Today is EN-EL giving the names but it has never been their responsibility. There are ongoing discussions with EN-ACE on who should be the responsible. - Answered by E. Cano – there is a document used in NACONS on how to name a rack, for this project they should follow the same convention name. The user is the responsible of creating the rack name. As the project is not in a very advanced phase, I could talk to my control colleagues if a ticket without the naming could be accepted. :::info 37. Action [E. Cano] – ***Check how the requests (DIC, DEC, DIF, DIR) can be done even if the FP names still aren’t defined.*** ::: - Answered by F. Pedrosa – It’s just a point on how to do it, in NACONS they had to go back to the excel files - Answered by M. Fraser – Some flexibility is needed. Giulia is already trying to change this extract functionality because we need some flexibility. ***Question from M. Fraser – As the pc for the spectrometer magnet will be in ECN3, connected to the pulsed network. Is this being considered already?*** - Answered by M. Liu – Yes, they would need to be in the pulsed network. Pablo already shared 2 documents regarding the PCs needed in ECN3 and the rest in ECN3. - Follow up question by M. Fraser – ***In terms of infrastructure what are we talking about?*** - Answered by F. Pedrosa – the power input comes from BA82, but the PCs are locally connected in ECN3 but their power will come from BA82. If there are more than 2 we will need a switchboard. ## Optical Fibre Infrastructure - J.Blanc No questions or comments ## Interface Between SHiP and the Target Complex - P. Diaz :::info 38. Action [P.Santos, J-L.Grenard, B.Martinez]: ***Hold a confinement wall discussion to redesign the chicane to make it work. We need to have a separated meeting. Also on how we manage to better integrate the target complex with the experiment*** ::: ***Question from S.Kamugasa (survey) - for alignment- have you considered to install a little hatch in the confinement wall to allow line of sight between TCC8 and ECN3 and with alignment purposes.*** - Answered by JL. Grenard: it’s included in the specification of the confinement wall. Anna already introduce it in her talk. The design of the confinement wall is not defined yet. - Answered by A.Huncikova – she already introduced it in her presentation. ***Comment by R.Jacbosson – They are 2 drivers that might change the experiment’s position:. Today there are 3 muon shield magnets (including the SND magnet) in ECN3 and, to facilitate the muon shield magnet design, the full experiment together with the target complex might be displaced upstream to keep as much as possible the muon shield magnets in TCC8. However, the SND magnet shall stay in ECN3 to ensure the top and bottom access for the SND detector insertion, aspect that is not fully yet engineered. Therefore, the design of the services at the TCC8 step can’t be defined yet.*** ## Alignement Infrastructure and Strategy - A. Huncikova **During presentation:** Question from A.Huncikova regarding slide 12 – ***We cannot use retroreflective targets for the measurement of the BDF target as they cannot withstand the radiation. Would it be an issue from a physics perspective if we used targets with more randomised surface shapes that we would place on the front face of the target?*** - Answered by R.Jacobsson – It shouldn’t be an issue for physics even if its located in the centre of the beam - Follow up question from R.Jacobsson - ***Would it be located at the centre of the target and therefore be the first thing that the beam would see?*** - Answered by A.Huncikova – Yes it would be located on the front of the target vessel on the Inconel. To be seen for the size and if it would be placed in the centre of the beam or offset. As we have a laser tracker with a scanner we also wouldn’t have a need for the spheres to be reflective anymore. - Comment by JL.Grenard – This investigation is ongoing and this is just one of the options we are looking at currently. - Follow up question from C.Ahdida – ***You would only need to do this alignment check once? Can you realign the target?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – You can only realign when replacing with a new target. However it would also be nice if we were to remove the target (even if its not broken) and then reinstall the same one, to be able to then see if it is sitting in the correct location. We can see then if the floor has sunk or other changes - Answered by A.Huncikova – The main goal is to be able to measure the target after the lifetime, so we then know how to position and pre-align, align and install the new target. :::info 39. Action [A.Huncikova, R.Ximenes] : ***Discuss which reference could be used for the alignment of the target and their respective location.*** ::: **After Presentation:** ***Question from F.Pedrosa – You mentioned that you MADX point will change – do you have any specific requirements that should be taken into account already or do you just need to know the result at the end?*** - Answered by A.Huncikova – No, when the MADX even changes slightly we will get some differences in the rotational matrices for the transformation of the coordinate system in the last digits, but its currently accurate enough for us but looking forward its more for colleagues in the future to avoid confusion. The whole calculation is mostly done but we just need to change the coordinates of the new MADX file and release it. - Follow-up question from F.Pedrosa – ***Will this be part of the engineering alignment process?*** - Answered by C.Vendeuvre – its not a part of the engineering alignment process but it is compatible with it. Our requirements have been given to the MADX so the MADX provided today is fully compatible with the survey. The experiment has a few points in the MADX too so it is somehow compatible with engineering to alignment, but we don’t have the layout yet. As it is for LS3 work, Guilia has started to work on LS3 versions of layouts but not much progress has been made yet. Question from F.Pedrosa – ***Assuming that the floor doesn’t move equally, how much can we do after installation to correct for this?*** - Answered by A.Huncikova – we would have a nominal position, if everything needs to be realigned we would measure the real position, find the optimal trajectory and then realign to the new nominal position. - Comment from F.Pedrosa – this is only possible under the assumption that you can realign objects. In this case the target and muon shield are fixed and there isn’t much that you can do. You would observe that the target and muon shield would both be moving down and perhaps not at the same rate. - Comment from A.Huncikova – this is why we want to know what has been included in the 1cm target tolerance, additionally the 1cm should be over 20 years and since we replace the target every 5 years we should be able to realign it then - Comment from JL.Grenard – We need to agree on what position we will give to each equipment for installation and whether we would need to prepare certain equipments for a sunken floor location. Some of this is available within the alignment procedure document that Anna has developed - Comment from R.Jacobsson – we are not looking at a muon shield which can be jacked up and will now be movable, this also means most of the detectors up to the spectrometer can be moved however the spectrometer magnet wont be movable. SHiP isn’t an experiment which is sensitive to 5mm of movement :::info 40. Action [R.Jacobsson] – ***Give the positions of the equipment for installation and information on which equipment may have to be “sunken” into the floor, additionally for components that cannot be moved, give the sinking tolerances that could be acceptable.*** ::: ***Question from R.Jacobsson - Do we foresee a scenario where the target sinks but the target complex doesn’t?*** - Answered by JL.Grenard – This isn’t a realistic scenario. The question mark we have is around how the target complex as a whole moves in relation to the beam dilution monitors in the upstream part of TCC8 and the junction of ECN3. - Comment from R.Jacobsson – the beam height can be adjusted so we can re-find the centre of the spectrometer magnet. - Comment from A.Huncikova – for NA-62, the movement was only 2mm, we will be more due to the increased weight however its not expected that the position of the target will not dramatically change its position with the MHS. The last beam dilution magnet should be very well aligned as it’s the last point which gives direction to the beam that then we should also align very well the last two beam dilution monitors as we can then know the final position of the beam well. - Comment from R.Jacobsson – the heaviest part of BDF SHiP will be in the middle around the target complex so we could compensate any sagging that may occur in the middle through correct the beam position and then, if needed, during a long shutdown perform a bigger intervention. - Comment from L.Nevay – at the end of the beamline we can move the magnets down but the last vertical dipole is quite upstream but can tolerate a shift in the aperture. We can move the last quadrupoles and vertical dipole but retain the aperture. We want to be within 5mm of the magnetic centre of the quadrupoles. Even if we do this with steering, we still want to be in a good position and not create background. - Comment from L.Nevay - the last magnet, the target and the spectrometer are all fairly symmetric so if there was a 10mm sag you could keep the beam centre and end up with 20mm offset as maximum in the spectrometer and if that is problematic we could then balance it :::info 41. Action [A.Huncikova]: – ***Confirm the timespan that the 1cm sinking of the current installation was over 20 years*** ::: ***Question from L.Nevay - Will the temperature at the front of the target not be very hot?*** - Answered by M.Parkin – Its surprisingly cold as there is the helium flowing on the internal base but we would have to check this. - Comment from L.Nevay – we will definitely operate without the dilution at low intensity and the beam will move around so even if something is placed directly in the centre we will touch it. We now are investigating having a mask just upstream of the target and the idea is to protect the edge of the target so anything inside of that aperture would be touched with the beam as the target isn’t that big so if something (alignment tool) is on the front face it will definitely be touched by the beam. ## Target Complex Civil Engineering - :::warning ***Important points:*** - The retention basin decision might have a big impact on the services integration in the underground facility. - All the big changes in design must come before sending the project to the consultant. It’s better to be conservative giving wide margins than trying to optimise and changing things after. ::: ***Question from M. Averna - slide 6- For the moment, there aren’t much information about all the services location, having precise location is complicated, can you have reservations within technical areas for the services? Is it already implemented? In less than 6 weeks it will be very complicated that the groups are able to finalise it.*** - Answered by J-L. Grenard – This is the idea, to put openings with respect to the foreseen services. It’s a risk with the timeline but this is the best it could be. - Answered by D. Rodriguez - The biggest issue is that there are going to be made. If they need to pass some services after, there is always the possibility of creating an opening, but this option is not ideal. ***Question from M. Averna -What is the height of the building that it’s considered right now? This height will have an impact on the fire safety.l*** - Answered by J-L. Grenard – It will have the height of the service cell. - Answered by D. Rodriguez - At the moment it’s 12m - Follow up question by M. Averna: ***We are already beyond the 8ms so it is already included. How much in beyond are we trying to go?*** - Answered by JL. Grenard: 1m or 0.5m more maybe. It’s dependant on how we manage to optimise the height of the service cell. - Answered by D.Gomez – In any case, this needs to be defined by the end of the year. :::info 42. Action [J-L. Grenard] - ***Fix the height of the service cell and the building by the end of the year 2025.*** ::: ***Question from C. Ahdida - About the green roof. Is there a possibility that there will be a decision about the retention basin in the North Area soon? Is the green roof impacted by this decision?*** - Answered by D.Gomez: I think that we should do the green roof anyways. It’s a better solution not only environmentally but in terms of insulation. We will need to give new retention measures anyways. If we obtain the common retention in the NA then we could be able to reduce the foreseen individual retention. For the moment is better to treat the water of the building ourselves so we are independent. - ***Comment by JL.Grenard: We are having a very challenging design timelines. The integration hasn’t been finalised but the civil engineering design consultant has to be launch now.*** ***Comment by J-L. Grenard - decoupling the works in TCC8 is the way to go. They are different type of works and it would be a nonsense to include it.*** - Answered by D.Gomez: The drainage system in the underground is the only thing that might have an impact is the consultant design. The excavation inside ECN3 will be included in the mandate on the CE consultant. ## Target Complex Integration - B. Sutil ***Comment from B.Sutil - For the TCC8/ECN3 and B.911 models, the C.S. is indeed 2705, but for B.754 the C.S. is 2706. However,  some of the models are being received in 2705 and then I move them to 2706.*** ***Question from F.Pedrosa – As we will have all the consultants doing their own integrations – Is it defined in which coordinate system they should work in and frequency they should be providing their models*** - Answered by B.Sutil – For the frequency, no. For the coordinate system, currently we are working in 2705 and will remain like this until the beamline is frozen - Comment from F.Pedrosa – this should be defined in the contract immediately to ensure we get regular models - Comment from D.Rodriguez – In the civil contract they receive 2 per phase - Comment from F.Pedrosa – Another thing that needs to be decided is in which format we receive the federated model as if it is in CATIA then certain people need to convert it so we need to make sure that the consultants are the ones responsible for the conversion so they can identify any problems there might be and they should specify a list of what has changed with respect to the previous model :::info 43. Action [J-L.Grenard, D.Rodriguez, F.Dragoni, N.Zaric] – ***Define the frequency of when models are provided by contractors for integration.*** ::: ***Question from C.Ahdida - Concerning the smoke extraction, there are several discussions ongoing with FIRIA and EN-AA as well as CV that for the target complex we might not need a dedicated smoke extraction but from an integration perspective its better to keep it there and then it can always be taken out afterward?*** - Comment from N. Zaric – this isn’t correct, the smoke extraction system is the same one that we use for the regular ventilation system so we are using the same ducts. (Showing slide 19) it is one duct that is used for air extraction from the target area and there isn’t enough space for a second duct so we would extract the smoke with the same one. The temperature rating would be the only difference. ***Question from L.Nevay - So currently we use the coordinate system 2705 which is defined around the T10 target, will we be defining a new coordinate system based on BDF and then translate everything at the end?*** - Answered by B.Sutil – yes, once the beamline is frozen and most other components are set we can then migrate to the new coordinate system. - Follow-up question from L.Nevay – ***Is the reference not the front face of the target and in that case, it is already set so we could start to move everything across?*** - Answered by B.Sutil – Yes but just in case we still have slight adjustments it had been decided that we would wait so that we wouldn’t have to change everything again. - Comment from P.Diaz – the experiments transversal position is fixed but the longitudinal position is still open. Until the beamline is fixed, we will continue to work in 2705. Once completed we will move to CBDF which the translation matrix has already been worked out. - Comment from B.Sutil - this shift should be relatively easy and fast as once we have the macro we can shift from 2705 to 0 and then from 0 to CBDF. - Comment from A.Huncikova – in the first slide of the alignment presentation there is a link to a document on the transformation parameters for the coordinate system. As soon as the final MADX file has been received, the matrices will be cross checked and then its ready to move across. ***Comment from JL.Grenard - We now have a milestone fixed by SCE for having inputs for the design consultancy work so ahead of this there are a set of integration meetings where we discuss how to progress on the definition of the interface on the space reservations to root the pipes and ventilation ducts etc*** ## ACTION'S SUMMARY :::danger ***Timelines:*** * **Short: 17th of March - TSAC 2 committe** * **Medium: 15th of April** * **Long: IEFC September 2026** ::: | Action Number | Assigned | Action |Timeframe| | ------------- | -------- | ------ |--------| |1 |[M. Parkin]| To put the spikes rate during commissioning explicitly in the failure scenarios of the rate. Formalizing the ranges| Short |2 |[M. Fraser]| follow up the interlock together with the requirements of SHiP as well.| Short |3 |[M. Parkin]| Obtain the LOCA calculation for normal intervention, not only for the worst case scenario.| Short |4 |[HSE - R.Janardhan, O.Rios] |perform evaluation of pump and filter locations within the FIRIA study once a proposal has been given from the vacuum vessel design study|Short |5 |[F.Pedrosa] |Look at the installation plan and timeline of components for BDF.| Short |6 |[M. Liebsch, O.Pinto, C.Ahdida]|Input from Rad protection needed on the allowed spacing between the metallic plates (slide 11 MHS Presentation).|Short |7 |[M. Liebsch, O.Pinto, C.Ahdida] |In slide 12 (MHS Presentation) – Check with radiation protection if they can have a plate below (the yellow part) that can be changed.|Short 8| [M. Liebsch, O.Pinto, C.Ahdida] | Sit with RP to check where the gaps are absolutely required and then assess how shielding could be added downstream to compensate.|Short 9| [M.Liebsch] |Test with the prototype, how the MHS behaves for different fields and how it demagnetises.|Medium 10 |[D.Rodriguez] |It has to be studied whether something has to be done to the floor to prevent sinking during civil engineering or after. This has to come from the study that is going to happen now.|Medium 11| [C. Vendeuvre, A. Huncikova, R. Jacobsson, L.Nevay, J.L Grenard]| To study the different alignment needs per subsystem.|Medium 12| [R. Jacobsson, P.Santos]| Provide a magnetic field map of the muon shield for the 2 configurations. | Medium 13| [M.Liebsch] |Consider the superconducting magnet in the study of the shielding design. Do they need to lock them?|Medium 14 |[M. Liebsch]| Study how the two effects play out with the super conducting and normal conducting magnets.|Medium 15| [C.Ahdida] |Discuss with tritium communities around what issues they are having with tritium release.|Medium 16| [C.Ahdida, O.Pinto]| Any discussions on tritium release and the vacuum system should ensure that Jean-Louis and the design study focusing on the vacuum pump is kept in the loop|Medium 17 |[G.Cnudde, D.Rodriguez]| Hold a discussion on what to do regarding the sump network for TCC8 and gain a better understanding of how we should manipulate the area|Short 18| [M.Dole] |Schedule a meeting to discuss on if a SIREN system is needed before dismantling the underground area|Short - completed 19| [C.Ahdida]| HSE requirements regarding the pressure cascade have to be finalised.|Short 20| [C. Ahdida]| Make a statement about degraded modes in the pressure cascade document.|Short 21| [E.Cano, M. Dao R.Janardhan , O.Rios, N.Zaric]| Hold a dedicated discussion on the placement of the UPS batteries.|Short 22 |[M.Fraser, B.Goddard, W.Weterings]|(2 weeks) Update and release the WBS. Matt, Bren, and Wim to make a proposal of a table of the people that need to fill the information.| Medium 23 |[B. Goddard] | Organise a meeting in September 2026 with the IEFC and SPSC designated reviewers to check the draft of the TDR|Long 24| [G.Banks, R.Xiemens, J.L Grenard]| (Addressed by Matt) Discuss the boundaries and the limits of the FFMEA scope.|Short 25 |[G.Humphreys] |Provide the revised numbers for the heat load going into the proximity shielding|Short 26| [C.Ahdida]| Check that using the demi water from BA82 to cool the MHS coil doesn’t lead to any water activation issues|Short 27 |[N.Zaric]| conduct a pro and con evaluation of the different smoke extraction fan choices in respect to temperature and efficiency.| Short 28 |[C.Ahdida, JL.Grenard, C.Duran]| Define together how to protect the workers from the radiation during the transportation of the target and detail the exposure values.Fully develop the transportation sequence.|Short 29| [R.Janardhan] |Define in the fire safety concept what the decision was and how it was made regarding the location of the fire safety racks. Define if a Tableau de report is required at the entrance.|Short 30 |[M.Dole]| Hold a discussion on the fire detection safety system|Short 31| [J-L. Grenard]| Investigate how to assist in integrating the safety systems|Medium 32 |[O.Rios, R.Janardhan]| Provide information on where the locations of the emergency exits are in the service building|Short 33| [M. Dole] |Modify the layout of the access map and integrate Building 911 into the image on slide 5 (safety systems talk)|Short 34 |[O. Rios, R.Janardhan, C.Ahdida, O. Pinto] |Define if we need to monitor the position of the fire compartment doors in the service building - whether they are open or closed|Medium 35 |[JL. Grenard] |Assess what mechanical mechanisms for preventing access to hot areas are used in ICEDA|Short 36| [R.Jacobsson] |Share the integration layout drawing of BDF-SHiP with M.Dole|Short 37| [E. Cano]| Check how the requests (DIC, DEC, DIF, DIR) can be done even if the FP names still aren’t defined.|Short 38 |[P.Santos, J-L.Grenard, B.Martinez]| Hold a confinement wall discussion to redesign the chicane to make it work. We need to have a separated meeting. Also on how we manage to better integrate the target complex with the experiment.|Short 39| [A.Huncikova, R.Ximenes] |Discuss which reference could be used for the alignment of the target and their respective location. |Short 40|[R.Jacobsson]|Give the positions of the equipment for installation and information on which equipment may have to be “sunken” into the floor, additionally for components that cannot be moved, give the sinking tolerances that could be acceptable.|Medium 41|[A.Huncikova]|Confirm the timespan that the 1cm sinking of the current installation was over 20 years|Medium 42|[J-L. Grenard]|Fix the height of the service cell and the building by the end of the year 2025.|Short 43|[J-L.Grenard, D.Rodriguez, F.Dragoni, N.Zaric]|Define the frequency of when models are provided by contractors for integration|Medium