Accelerator Experimental Review
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
1 Small Experiment/Big Test Plan Review Process OPS
<2017-06-21 Wed 07:49> 1.1 Criteria to be considered a Big Test Plan/Small Experiment
The Director of Accelerator O perations will decide if a proposal or test plan/ATLis is required to go through the following process beyond the nominal ATLis approval process. In general a non-NP programmatic related beam test plan that requires modification to the CEBAF/LERF accelerator or off-normal CEBAF/LERF configuration will likely be required to go through this review process. In addition, engineering runs for PAC approved NP experiments in CEBAF/LERF will also be required to go through this approval process. 1.2 Step 1: Technical Readiness Process (TRP)
The technical readiness process is in place to establish that the technical support groups have a firm understanding of the scope of work, are ready to perform the work and recommend that the tasks associated with the experiment be scheduled. There is no defined duration for this process, it may take just one meeting or it may take many meetings (months).
It is a proponent driven process, it is the responsibility of the experimental proponent to call the meetings and work through the identified issues and actions items. Readiness to proceed with the next step of the process resides with the Technical Readiness Chair who shall work with technical groups involved in making that determination.
Committee
Group leaders of all impacted CEBAF systems
Operations Group Leader or Designee
Operability or Operations Leadership representative
If beam required, Source owner or Designee
Technical Readiness Process Chair
The Director of Accelerator Operations will designate a TRP chair.
First meeting
Outline the proposed experiment/test-plan
Provide details on:
Changes required to CEBAF Hardware and Software (scope of work)
Changes to nominal CEBAF beam operation
Known concerns at this point
The proponent and the committee will develop a path forward towards technical sign-off, this path forward will include:
meeting frequency
required attendees (additions and subtractions from the initial meeting)
Calling subsequent meetings is the responsibility of the proponent
Subsequent Meetings
Called by the proponent
Technical Readiness Chair or designee must be in attendance
Provide a short email summary of the meeting and the progress to the Director of Accelerator Operations.
Address actions items from previous meetings
Continue to develop the integrated task list, installation and deinstallation schedule
Group updates on planning progress
Develop new action items
Final meeting
Establish that the proposed task list is complete and all responsible parties sign-off on the work.
Changes to CED are identified: a unique workspace developed for the experiment has been established (if needed).
Establish that the integrated task list/schedule is sufficiently well known to allow for an Operations readiness review.
The required access time and conditions (Controlled, Restricted, 2K vs 4K,…) is well known for work.
The required interruptions to CEBAF/LERF operations are identified.
Potential conflicts with nominal shutdown work are called out.
Chair submits a letter via email of technical readiness to the Director of Operations. Letter should include:
Details of the scope of work
Proposed schedule for installation
Proposed schedule for de-installation
1.3 Step 2: Scheduling and TRP Acceptance
Installation Scheduling
Operability leadership, TRP chair and the proponent will work on integrating the installation tasks into the CEBAF schedule. Minimizing impact to the approved CEBAF program.
Runtime Scheduling
The Director of Accelerator operations, operability leadership, TRP chair, and the proponent will schedule the experiment.
Charge 1
If scheduling of the work proves to be difficult due to incomplete scope of work or integration of tasks, the TRP will be reconvened and the process will start over to address the issues identified during the scheduling process.
Charge 2
The proponent, TRP chair and Operability leadership will assess the installation and preparation work and will inform (via email) the Director of Operations when preparations are sufficiently mature. At this point the experiment is ready for an Operations Readiness Review (next step).
1.4 Step 3: Operations Readiness Review (ORR)
Step 1 (TRP) must be complete for holding the Operations Readiness Review. Installation of the experiment (Step 2) may be on-going at the time of this review, but should be on-track for successful completion within two weeks of the ORR.
The Director of Operations will arrange for the ORR once the proponent, TRP chair and Operability leadership have communicated that the preparations for the experiment are sufficiently mature.
Committee
Technical Readiness Process chair
Operations Group Leader or Designee
EHS&Q representative
RADCON??
Operability Representative
TBD
Chair
The Director of Accelerator Operations will designate a chair.
Charge Items
The charge for the ORR will be customized by the Director of Accelerator Operations for each experiment, but is likely to include the following charges.
Charge 1
Are the roles and responsibilities well defined?
Charge 2
Is the propose experiment within the FSAD/ASE limits?
Is an RSAD needed?
Charge 3
Is the beam plan well developed? Is the use of beam time effective? Is the beam time estimate correct?
Charge 4
Is the decommissioning plan complete? If not, return to TRP.
1.5 Step 4: Execute 1.6 Step 5: Decommission 1.7 Step 6: Publish tech-note