|
Hi,
I send this here at least for archival benefit .....
It seems that we can't keep the Magnet cold (at ~100 K) after the
magnet mapping as site office thinks that it's not safe.
Kin
-------- Forwarded Message --------
| Subject:
|
sPHENIX magnet state after magnet test |
| Date: |
Thu, 5 May 2022 11:11:53 -0400 |
| From: |
Fliller, Raymond <rfliller AT bnl.gov> |
| To: |
O'Brien, Edward <eobrien AT bnl.gov>, Mohamed, David
<dmohamed AT bnl.gov>, Chamizo Llatas, Maria
<mchamizo AT bnl.gov> |
| CC: |
Haggerty, John <haggerty AT bnl.gov>, Mills, James A
<mills AT bnl.gov>, Dunlop, James C
<dunlop AT bnl.gov>, Yip, Kin <kinyip AT bnl.gov>,
Orfin, Paul <porfin AT bnl.gov>, Than, Yatming
(Roberto) <ythan AT bnl.gov>, Hwang, Kenneth
<khwang AT bnl.gov>, Passarello, David J
<passare1 AT bnl.gov>, Galdamez, Cindy
<cgaldamez AT bnl.gov>, Hammons, Lee
<hammons AT bnl.gov>, Schaefer, Charles W
<schaefer AT bnl.gov>, Sivertz, Michael
<sivertz AT bnl.gov>, Harling, Sean
<sharling AT bnl.gov> |
Hello
Everyone,
I just got
off of a teams meeting with Steve Coleman, Lee and Sean.
There have been meetings and emails with the site office
management and lab management (Coleman and Anderson in
particular) about keeping the magnet at 100 K after the
magnet test. The voice of the site office is now much
stronger than we had originally received. Keeping the
magnet at 100K is basically a non-starter for the site
office, and laboratory management concurs. The site office
is uncomfortable with the activity that will occur after the
magnet testing while the ODH hazard exists.
We will
not be pursuing the second USI.
I have
already instructed Dave and Cindy to make the necessary
amendments to the USI for the magnet test to indicate that
the magnet will warm to 300 K after the magnet testing. I
would like to get this USI to committees next week so we can
get it over to the site office.
Sorry.
Ray
Raymond
Fliller
Associate
Chair for ESSHQ
Collider-Accelerator
Department
Brookhaven
National Laboratory
Building
911
P.O. Box
5000
Upton, NY
11973-5000
Phone:
631-344-2356
Cell:
631-960-2099
From: Edward O'Brien
<eobrien AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:35 AM
To: Mohamed, David <dmohamed AT bnl.gov>;
Chamizo Llatas, Maria <mchamizo AT bnl.gov>
Cc: Haggerty, John <haggerty AT bnl.gov>;
Mills, James A <mills AT bnl.gov>; Dunlop, James C
<dunlop AT bnl.gov>; Yip, Kin <kinyip AT bnl.gov>;
Orfin, Paul <porfin AT bnl.gov>; Than, Yatming
(Roberto) <ythan AT bnl.gov>; Hwang, Kenneth
<khwang AT bnl.gov>; Fliller, Raymond
<rfliller AT bnl.gov>; Passarello, David J
<passare1 AT bnl.gov>; Galdamez, Cindy
<cgaldamez AT bnl.gov>; Hammons, Lee
<hammons AT bnl.gov>; Schaefer, Charles W
<schaefer AT bnl.gov>; Sivertz, Michael
<sivertz AT bnl.gov>; Harling, Sean
<sharling AT bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: sPHENIX USI Write Up - Updated
Dear Dave,
I have a number of questions and comments on the USI
request memo.
In the ODH analysis document what are the Units for
Fatality rate?
Are they Fatalities/Operating Hour? The Fatality rate
units should be
stated in the ODH analysis document and the Fatality units
should appear in every table in that document. I suggest
adding a table for
the ODH threshold classification definitions for ODH 0, 1
and 2
to that document. The ODH analysis document also seems to
describe the
large LN2 dewar as having either 5000 or 6000 gallon
capacity.The numbers
should be consistent.
I would run a spell check on all documents, including the
appendices. I think
I see some misspellings in the appendices.
Improve the figures overall to make them more readable.
This includes the screen
captured calculations in the ODH analysis.
In the main document I strongly recommending adding a
summary of the ODH
analysis. If I were reviewing the USI, I would be most
interested in the
ODH analysis summary and then scrutinize the analysis in
the appendix to see if I
agree with the calculations.
I suggest using some of the figures in Russ' attached
file, slide 7-8 for instance, to show
the installation of the magnet mapping device and the
configuration of the sPHENIX detector
during cooldown and mapping (i.e. showing the magnet pole
tip doors closed).
The figure captions should contain a more detailed
description than they do. Many
reviewers will look at the figures and captions first and
detailed captions will give them
an overall first impression of the document.
We will have the magnet cooling down starting at the
beginning of August and
the testing/mapping running until the end of Oct. If we
want to put
a set of dates for the cool down and mapping I would
describe it as
cool down starting about August 1 and running until
November 1. We hope
that we can get this done in a shorter period of time but
we should ask for
permission to be cold a little longer in case the cooldown
and mapping takes
longer than anticipated.
Do we need the USI to begin the flow of 300k He to the
magnet, or just when
the He begins to cool down? If we need a USI to flow 300k
He then
we should ask for the USI to span the period
of July 15-Nov 1. When will LN2 be present in the 1008
Halls? the document should
state that. What is are definition of completion of the
magnet mapping and testing?
The definition of "USI complete" should be included in the
document.
Does the document state that BNL will require people to
have current
ODH training to enter the area while the USI is active? If
not it should be discussed.
I suggest you also mentioning how the presence of people
will be controlled
in the IR/Assembly Hall area during the USI period. Will
there be active
engineering control, or just signage? I presume signs will
be available, but
it should be mentioned.
The exhaust fan which seem vital to meeting the ODH
mitigation
requirement. How will the exhaust fan be tested? When will
the fan be tested, and how
often will it be tested? The document should discuss
this.
By the way, if I remember a similar issue correctly when
we were building PHENIX,
we will not be able to test the exhaust fan while the TPC
gas system is operational.
The pressure differential created by the exhaust fan will
be potentially
damaging to the TPC. This may affect the IRR/ARR later in
2022/23. And we will
need special protections to make sure that the exhaust fan
can not come on by accident,
for instance because of a bad ODH sensor or false alarm.
The sPHENIX gas system experts will
have to study this issue. For now lets assume that we can
solve it.
Are we sure that the 5 signatures on the P&ID drawings
are sufficient for approval? Do we
need a QA signature for instance?
In addition to submitting the documents to BHSO
electronically, I suggest
printing out a hard copy, including all appendices, and
sending that to them too.
Some reviewers may prefer a hard copy, and it is more
convenient if one
only has to open one document.
Please consider these comments when creating the next
revision. Thanks.
Ed
On 5/3/22 11:09 AM, Mohamed, David wrote:
Hello Team,
Attached are the files
that create the complete USI package which will cover the
first phase of our two-phase approach for Magnet Testing
Authorization. The USI Write up is NOT attached, it is
instead a shareable link which makes it significantly easier
for collaboration.
Please review “2 –
sPHENIX USI Warm Up Write Up Shared.docx”
(click the link), and provide your feedback within 2
days. After 2 days, no responses will be accepted as
no feedback provided and we will send the USI over for
official committee review Experimental Safety Review
Committee (ESRC) and the Laboratory Environmental Safety and
Health Committee (LESHC).
As discussed from our
previous group meeting (4/28), this USI, which covers the
magnet testing, is designed for maximum success as it states
the ODH scenario will be completely removed post magnet
testing. This means the LHe and LN2 will be completely
isolated from the magnet. A second USI (in development) will
be submitted to request the magnet remain in a “cool state”
at 100K via the LN2. The second USI will dive into the
activities being performed while cryogens are present in the
facility.
Here is a brief overview
of the attached files:
0 – sPHENIX USI
Screening.pdf The initial
screening that is performed to determine if the activity
requires further evaluation as an Unreviewed Safety Issue
(USI).
1 – sPHENIX USI
Evaluation.pdf The
evaluation questionnaire that is performed which determines
if the activity is indeed a USI.
2 –
sPHENIX USI Warm Up Write Up Shared
Section 2 of the USI Evaluation, this is the description of
the proposed activity. << This is what you are
being asked to provide feedback on.
3 – 3105M0084CAL Rev
B.pdf This is the ODH
analysis. It is a quantitative analysis on the cryogens
anticipated to be used (LHe and LN2) and identifies the
space as an ODH 0 after mitigations.
4 – sPHENIX Cryogenic System
P&IDs.pdf These are the schematics for the
cryogenic distribution system which will be utilized for
sPHENIX.
Please feel free to contact me if there
are any questions.
Your feedback is much appreciated,
Dave M
|
