1. Goal: in view of LS2/LS3/HL-LHC – evaluate possible life-time constraints in IR3/7 radiation levels equipment damage and respective lifetime considerations identify/discuss possible show-stoppers - if any optimization measures to be implemented investigate (further) optimization measures for collective dose during interventions

2. Loss analysis (totals, time, sharing): scaling is linear with luminosity, Run2 ~ 2012 to be further studied: slope, scaling, dosimetry Observed dose asymmetry R-/L-side on magnets to be monitored carefully. FLUKA calculations (benchmarked with BLMs): 1MGy / 40fb-1 up to LS3  MBW/MQW Monitoring: coordinated effort combining calculations and measurements (BLMs and doses) Essential to collect data in 2015/2016 to refine predictions Cable samples in place, what about connectors? Part-1: Environment & Tools - Highlights

3. Activation: Up to 5x more in LS2/3 than LS1, and up to 35x in HL- LHC LSx -> limitation for long interventions in IR7. Similar to hot areas in the injectors Robotics: No industrial solution exists that fits a number of CERN needs -> require in-house development Good tests with survey, leak detection in SPS Data transmission bottleneck so far -> 4G required (to be deployed in the full tunnels, IT: 2015+) priority on the high-rad areas! Part-1: Environment & Tools - Highlights

4. Lifetime: No known lifetime issues until LS3 for the equipment itself. But cables/connectors (profibus) problems encountered already in LS1? Concern for collimator: once there is an issue on one - likely on many (may not only be due to radiation…). Ongoing investigation on roller screw issue Situation of spares Exchanged in case of problems. Part-2 : Equipment Groups & Impact

5. Radiation doses and interventions: General awareness and worry about dose to intervening personnel. Difficult environment, not generally optimized for speedy and easy intervention. Dose from environment General interest and support for robotics solutions. Good results for survey – to be developed, Encouraging test for vacuum leak detection. Intervention optimization and minimization. Example for collimator alignment: tolerances (fewer interventions), mechanical issues to improve. Part-2 : Equipment Groups & Impact

6. Preventive actions: LS1 intervention to improve the future situation. Vacuum pumping consolidation. Absorbers for MBW MBW shielding gains a factor of almost 3 Planned programs for further improvements. Absorbers for MQW, MQW ‘refurbishment’. Part-2 : Equipment Groups & Impact Operation: Relaxed pressure baseline for vacuum (<1E-8mbar) will reduce number of interventions. Humidity, ozone: supposed to be ok Regular flushing (~7d) due to access to points 6 and 8.

7. Cables, Lights, Fibres: New lights: radiation hard power-supply, light reduced to 40% after 100kGy -> neutron tests pending positions can (possibly) be further optimized Cables are sampled (representative + high-dose) connectors are not (follow-up? c.f., profibus case) Optimization measures already included Full cable exchange would be a dramatic intervention (radiation + access limitation) DC (and WCC) cables expected as not being an issue Optical fibers are fully qualified open question concerning resistance of ducts/cables Part-2 : Equipment Groups & Impact