Safety systems (AL3) and systems relevant to Safety Steve Hutchins with thanks to: Karl Gunnar Lindell, Rui Nunes, Silvia Grau, Henrik Nissen, Patrice.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Emergency Evacuation Zayed University, Dubai Campus.
Advertisements

André Augustinus 15 March 2003 DCS Workshop Safety Interlocks.
André Augustinus 16 June 2003 DCS Workshop Safety.
Learning from a recent incident
LHC UPS Systems and Configurations: Changes during the LS1 V. Chareyre / EN-EL LHC Beam Operation Committee 11 February 2014 EDMS No /02/2014.
H2 Safety Review - response paul drumm MICE VC, March 29 th,2006.
Title Month Year John Richmond
Tomasz Ladzinski GS/ASE. LASS Annual Maintenance & Tests General Principles Each winter shutdown preventive maintenance of EIS takes place. It is followed.
The Detector Safety System for LHC Experiments Stefan Lüders ― CERN EP/SFT & IT/CO CHEP03 ― UC San Diego ― March 27 th, 2003.
HSE Preliminary General Requirements for FCC layout and air management A. Henriques & M. Widorski on behalf of the HSE Unit 17/12/2014 FCC I&O Meeting.
Christophe Delamare EDMS Accelerator Consolidation Workshop GS/ASE activities.
Patrick Thornton, SNS/FPE June 9, 2008
LHC HARDWARE COMMISSIONING SAFETY TRAINING DAY S. Claudet (AT-ACR-OP) With great help from G. Lindell (Safety commission) CRYOGENICS.
IEFC Workshop 2011 David Mcfarlane Superintendent for SPS EN/MEF/ABA 1.
May Exp-Area meeting1 Safety Systems Installation status Flammable Gas Detection System Fire Detection System in SG8 ODH Detection System CO2 Detection.
CV activities on LHC complex during the long shutdown Serge Deleval Thanks to M. Nonis, Y. Body, G. Peon, S. Moccia, M. Obrecht Chamonix 2011.
Data management in the field Ari Haukijärvi 2nd EHES training seminar.
CLIC CES Webex 12 Nov Summary: – Set of fire safety measures defined in CERN Safety Report – Proposed Structure for CLIC/ILC Fire Safety Report Fabio.
Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011 EL-HADIDY – EG – S5 – 0690 Mohamed EL-HADIDY Dalal HELMI Egyptian Electricity Transmission Company Egypt EXAMPLES OF.
Consolidation of access systems for the injector Complex ATOP days 4-6 March 2009 P. Ninin & R, Nunes in behalf of the PS and SPS access project teams…
Joint ILC/CLIC Safety document ► Incentive for this document:  Share effort to define a coherent safety protocol for future linear colliders.  Insure.
CERN Safety Alarm Monitoring Presented by Luigi Scibile ST division / MO group.
Event Management & ITIL V3
André Augustinus 16 September 2002 Safety issues.
LHC ACCESS SYSTEM 1Authors: P, Ninin, S. Grau & LHC access team EDMS: Access System during the LHC Injection tests P. Ninin, S. Grau - TS/CSE Workshop.
© 2010 Delmar, Cengage Learning Instructor Resources for Lesson E Managing the Risk.
LHCb SLIMOS training Responsibilities of the SLIMOS Safety Systems Reaction to alarm and emergencies Contacts, useful phone numbers Hands on session SLIMOS.
Gas Coordination Panel 24/08/2004 Flammable Gas Installation Requirements, Interlocks, etc. F.H.
Operational tools Laurette Ponce BE-OP 1. 2 Powering tests and Safety 23 July 2009  After the 19 th September, a re-enforcement of access control during.
CLIC CES Meeting 14 jan 2009 A resume table for fire safety in LHC, and a possible scheme for other machine – part 1 CERN –SC Fabio Corsanego.
TS Workshop, Archamps, May 24 – May 26, 2005 The LHC Access System Status report – May 2005 P. Ninin & the Access project team TS/CSE.
LHC Fire & Gas Detection Rui Nunes ST/AA/AS. Rui Nunes ST/AA/AS - STTC 21 Feb 2000 Project Goals Install in LHC –Fire Detection –Flammable Gas Detection.
Status Report from LHC Safety System Task Force Emmanuel Tsesmelis / TS-LEA on behalf of the Task Force LEAF 11 May 2007.
Geo-localisation in CERN’s underground facilities CERN has recently deployed a digital radio network, based on TETRA technology, to be used by the Fire.
Eric Thomas - Safety systems for LHC experiments 1 Safety Systems for LHC experiments Baseline specifications – Additional needs – Actions taken.
Thickness of the Kamaboko Tunnel Shield Wall under Different Assumptions Ewan Paterson Technical Board June 23,
1 Confined Space Safety 2 Why Are Confined Spaces Dangerous? Hazards are not obvious Lack of ventilation Difficult for: –Employees to exit –Rescue teams.
ST/MAforLHC April 2003Sixth ST workshop1 Summary of ST/MA deliverables for LHC Luigi Scibile for the ST/MA group.
Thomas Otto, Safety Officer, TE Dept. Evacuation at Point 5 Summary of Facts 11th LSC, Thomas Otto, TE Safety Officer3 13:26One ODH alarm.
6 July 2000CSAM Team1 CERN Safety Alarm Monitoring Invitation to Tender Strategy CERN Safety Alarm System Supervisory Board 3st meeting CSAM project team.
2 IMPACT - THE FIRE PERMIT = Hot Work Permit 3 Welcome ! This course is linked to the use of IMPACT, so it is assumed that: You know how to use IMPACT.
Task Force on Safety of Personnel in LHC underground areas following the sector 34 accident of 19-Sep-2008 Status report LPC 07/05/2009 B. Delille, S.
ALICE Pixel Operational Experience R. Santoro On behalf of the ITS collaboration in the ALICE experiment at LHC.
For more info:
Review of Safety Systems for the LHC Experiments & Experimental Areas Emmanuel Tsesmelis / TS-LEA LEMIC 20 March 2007.
ATC/ABOC Days, 22 January 2007 The safety electrical networks at CERN Anne Funken, TS-EL.
Johan Bremer, 22th-26th September 2008 Cryogenics Operations 2008, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 1 CRYOGENICS OPERATIONS 2008 Organized by CERN Safety aspects.
Overview of the main events related to TS equipment during 2007 Definition Number and category of the events Events and measures taken for each machine.
The Software for the CERN Detector Safety System G. Morpurgo, R. B. Flockhart and S. Lüders, CERN IT/CO.
LHC Performance Workshop Chamonix 2009 Ralf Trant Laurette Ponce Summary of Session 02 Safety.
EUROnu Costing Workshop May 2011 Beta-Beam Costing Exercise Elena Wildner, CERN 25/05/11 1 EUROnu Costing Workshop, CERN May 2011.
INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES AND UPGRADES Presented by: Fernando Baltasar dos Santos Pedrosa in the name of the four LHC experiments.
AB/CO Review, Interlock team, 20 th September Interlock team – the AB/CO point of view M.Zerlauth, R.Harrison Powering Interlocks A common task.
TS workshop 2004U. Epting, M.C. Morodo Testa - TS department1 Improving Industrial Process Control Systems Security Uwe Epting (TS/CSE) Maria Carmen Morodo.
Conclusions on UPS powering test and procedure I. Romera Acknowledgements: V. Chareyre, M. Zerlauth 86 th MPP meeting –
CERN Jan 2006 Specific safety Issues for 2006 compared to 2004 P. Cennini AB Safety Requirement in case the Installation activities are going on.
External Data and DIP Oliver Holme 18 th January 2008.
CV works in the non- LHC accelerator complex during 2008 and plans for 2009 ATOP days 2009.
Fire and Oxygen Deficiency Detection Systems Risk Analysis S. Grau GS-ASE-Alarm Systems R2E Workshop, Tuesday Session 2: Equipment inventory,
MEDICIS Safety Alarms Systems
Safety Systems for ALICE
CENF – Personnel Protection System Preliminary Study
CENF – Personnel Protection System Preliminary Study
HEL – Safety aspects Christelle Gaignant
HSE rules & regulations
Helium spill in LHC tunnel
M.Tavlet, H.Taureg - ALICE
HL Consolidation Day Analysis of needs from BE-ICS
Presentation transcript:

Safety systems (AL3) and systems relevant to Safety Steve Hutchins with thanks to: Karl Gunnar Lindell, Rui Nunes, Silvia Grau, Henrik Nissen, Patrice Bossus, Hill Bont, Gerard Antoinet, Dimcho Indzhov, Alain Dumur AL3 are those system which require immediate intervention from rescue team, Safety systems are those that are relevant to prevent or reduce risks. LHC AL3 systems: Automatic fire detection, oxygen deficiency monitoring, flood alarms, flammable gas alarms, emergency phones (“red phones”) and lift alerts, evacuation alarms and emergency stops…

The old LEP era alarms system lacked detailed information transmission, the transmission paths were not completely redundant and it was becoming difficult to operate reliably. Given the extra detection systems that were needed for the LHC, the CERN Safety Alarm Management system was specified and calls for tender were invited in 2000 (CERN-ST and EDMS ). LHC AL3 systems are spread over 8 of the 33 geographical CSAM zones detectors at CERN, covering surface building and underground areas. The CSAM system monitors the status of every alarm and communicates the information over two separate communications systems to the CCC and SCR. The information is also redistributed to local display terminals for use in an intervention, replacing the local hardwired synoptic panels that the pompiers had relied on for years. The reliability and operability of the CSAM system is therefore essential, the system as it is today manages these tasks well but like any electronic network, requires regular and thorough maintenance and consolidation as technology evolves. Without the detailed alarm information, in an emergency the pompiers must locally interrogate the PLC controlling the zone, which would be time-consuming, making their task harder than it was in the days of LEP.

Part of the CSAM architecture as implemented, Detectors- PLCs- separate Communications channels (tnet and gen services net)- servers-information distributed to CCC and SCR (pompiers). The alarms are grouped in 33 different geographical zones.

CSAM System Following operational experience of the system the GS-ASE group have identified several improvements to increase the operational reliability of the system: 1. The central server is a unique node; its failure would stop the collection and distribution of the alarm details, therefore a backup server will be installed as a “hot spare”. 2. Data transmission delays over a loaded network may cause data to arrive out of sequence, possibly creating errors in the controls program. To remedy this the controls software will be migrated to newer versions which will improve the performance of the system and the communication between machines, and a dedicated communications network will be installed, to be operational in This dedicated safety network was originally requested for the CSAM system, but was dismissed for cost reasons. Each alarm is wired to a local copper system on the secure PLCs of the zone: This is the core of the system, the pompiers will always receive an AL3 alarm indication for the area and will go onsite to identify the source locally.

Feature implemented but not currently used: alarms can be put into maintenance, hors service or in test mode. Could be useful during tests and maintenance work but needs a procedure and a service to be responsible for it.

2 nd feature not generally implemented : CSAM system identifies specific alarms, the location of which can be shown on the system display, but detector locations have only been implemented for point 18. This information would facilitate the arrival of the team to an incident. Including this information is a large task, requiring resources currently not available. The system is also capable of storing specific information on a room or building (specific risk or consigne), which the pompiers would appreciate, but no resources are available for this either.

Automatic Fire Detection Installed fire detectors are sensitive to radiation. The detector heads for the tunnel are located in REs to avoid damage, but they are sampling air from the tunnel through piping. The annual test results are recorded. The Pompiers react to all Fire alarms although these are mostly unexplained fire alarms (over 300/year). Since more occur in shutdown time than operation, they are probably linked to human activities. There is no automatic trigger of an evacuation in the case of a fire alarm in the tunnel; this is manually activated by the pompiers after on site investigation or by any person present on site. All Fire detectors are tested every year. Although the testing conditions are realistic and performed to standards, it would be instructive for the fire service to perform simulated electrical fires in the LHC, under normal ventilation conditions to observe the sensitivity and response times of a fire. This could also be made into a training exercise.

ODH detection ODH detection is installed throughout the LHC tunnel. A single ODH detection raises a level 3 alarm, two adjacent heads in alarm will also trigger an evacuation in the zone and some adjacent zones (matrix) The evacuation trigger matrix is not completely finalised, and so remains to be fully implemented. A recent review by Gunnar Lindell (EDMS ) identifies some limited underground areas where ODH risk exists but there are no ODH detectors installed: some are linked to the Helium ring line in service areas and experiments. These represent a very small percentage increase over the installed system and will be installed immediately.

Helium loss The experience of the sector 3-4 incident showed that the ventilation sectorisation of the LHC is critical in the case of helium loss. In the worst of cases it would need to contain pressure waves in defined channels allowing work in areas close to powering tests. This could be implemented by a containment wall that will allow the ventilation in one direction but stop the helium wave in the other, forcing the helium to be flushed out by the ventilation. The wall itself would not be helium tight but would resist the pressure wave driving the gas forwards for a few minutes, hence giving personnel in the protected area enough time to react normally to the ODH alarms. This question and others are being reviewed by the taskforce on accessibility of the LHC following the sector 3-4 incident…

Safety Information Panels Shutdown mode: machine is sectorised and different hazards will exist in different sectors and change on daily basis. This information is coordinated and transmitted by , but not displayed at the pit-heads or underground. Safety Information panels were proposed and specified many years ago, and could provide a means of informing people before going underground of the risks around their foreseen workplace; but they were never delivered. Safety information panels would make it possible to inform users of any local alarms, the status of adjoining sectors etc. (cryo conditions, transport restrictions, power testing plans, the need to evacuate an area at a certain time, x-ray tests…) These panels would complement the access control system which only interlocks for beam safety.

Conclusions: Overall, the required LHC safety systems are in place and perform well, despite some shortcomings. The very few missing ODH detectors are to be installed. CSAM single failure points will be eliminated with the introduction of the new network. The “CSAM - test mode” should be used as soon as possible. The taskforce results might entail more actions on safety and safety related systems.