Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
TCC8 and ECN3 water retention
→
Europe/Zurich
Agenda: Evaluate actions on TCC8 and ECN3 retention volumes
Rahul proposed presenting the ECN3 water retention volume calculations first and then moving on to the open actions from the previous meeting.
The minutes are divided into two parts for TCC8 and ECN3
TCC8
The cooling water for the MHS comes from BA82.
- Nikola reported a maximum leak volume of 1000 L from proximity shielding and MHS coil
- New pipes lines will not have any issues as they are checked with x-ray for leaks and weak points.
- Old pipes in GHN300 is could have leakage issues
- Double walled pipes: Jean-Louis mentioned that this is not the preferred solution as these pipes make it difficult to detect leaks.
- Claudia mentioned that RP has the values of Tritium and Beryllium-7 in the the water. However, Pavol needs to calculations before providing any information.
- The radiological risk also depends on the volume, hence small leaks should not pose issues when mixed with industrial water.
- For areas outside the target area, such as B754, the leak volume is not precisely quantified. Different leaks have different response times from 15 minutes to 24 hours.
- Handling of the industrial water from TCC8 (non radioactive area) is currently unclear. To be discussed further.
ECN3
- Rahul presented the retention volume estimate. Volume = 5 m3
- Oriol mentioned that this would be circulated as a technical note or in the fire safety concept
- Pavol raised the issue of toxicity of LS fire.
- Guillaume described the current ECN3 retention procedure: Pump is used to move the water to the surface and released to industrial drainage network.
- In the future, ECN3 floor will be water-proofed with resin coating, firefighting water will be collected by the existing underground drainage. At low points,
- In case of fire, pump can be stopped by CFRS to allow retention of firefighting water underground.
- At low points : collection point and connexion to the drainage in the cable trench and raised edge around the spectrometer magnet pit to avoid flowing in the pit
- Can the upstream TCC8 target area retention volume and ECN3 volume be collected together? No, this is not recommended due to different risks in each area.
- Pavol agreed and added that legislation requires analysis and assessment of impact of the release to drainage networks.
- Can the ECN3 manhole volume be extended? Current volume is unknown. Inspection team (Mohammed Yahyaoui) does not have information about this.
- Proposed solution: Water from ECN3 is pumped to the retention volume (10 m3) of B 754. 0
- Water level has to be monitored. Water will be tested from this retention volume before being released into the wastewater network.
- In case of emergency in B 754, existing water from these retention volumes have to be pumped out into 1 m3 containers and stored at RWTC as doen for CNGS.
- Jean-Louis mentioned the authorities questioning the LINAC water handling procedure
- CFRS can manually stop the sump pumps before intervention
- The operational procedure should be specified in a safety file.
- Open Action: Rahul to follow-up with environmental group about the toxicity that an LS fire can release into the water networks
- Open Action: Pavol to perform calculation on the radiological risk of allowing water into drainage networks
- Open Action: Gemma to follow-up on the leak management actions and volumes for other areas
- Open Action: Guillaume to evaluate the placement and design of target area retention volume
- Open Action: Guillaume to follow-up on the water handling for the spectrometer magnet pit. Currently, the pit sits below the drainage network.
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.