ASW 2020 Plenary Session Accelerator Safety Program Management

  • Slides: 23
Download presentation
ASW 2020, Plenary Session, Accelerator Safety Program Management Small Accelerator Commissioning at a Large

ASW 2020, Plenary Session, Accelerator Safety Program Management Small Accelerator Commissioning at a Large Accelerator Facility R May Deputy Director, ES&H This material is based upon work supported by the U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under contract DE-AC 0506 OR 23177 Accelerator Safety Workshop, Argonne National Lab September 2020

ANL ASW 2020 • • The Upgraded Injector Test Cave Background Recognition of additional

ANL ASW 2020 • • The Upgraded Injector Test Cave Background Recognition of additional uses Path to becoming an “accelerator” Hiccups along the way Commissioning and Operations Summary 2

ANL ASW 2020 Upgraded Injector Test Facility (UITF) UITF Accelerator Readiness Review 3

ANL ASW 2020 Upgraded Injector Test Facility (UITF) UITF Accelerator Readiness Review 3

ANL ASW 2020 • Background • Upgraded Injector Test Stand (UITF) started it’s life

ANL ASW 2020 • Background • Upgraded Injector Test Stand (UITF) started it’s life as a test stand for CEBAF photo-gun technology • It was known by Injector Test Cave (ITC) -Laser induced electron emission from a strained Ga. As cathode -Facility tested: Thermionic Gun, Ti-Sapphire gun, and polarized electron gun configurations along with various optics -Later configurations have electrons sharing polarization aspects with photons from laser • ITC was not an accelerator according to CEBAF SAD and ASE -ITC was an accelerator component test stand • Principle research topic - lifetime measurements of high polarization strained-superlatltice gallium arsenide at beam current >1 milliamp • Electron production and transport had no acceleration components and operated with energy up to the bias voltage on the gun • We have several other test stands that look at • RF and SRF performance at the cavity and the cryomodule level • Diagnostic and safety component performance • Electron Gun testing and performance 4

ANL ASW 2020 • Background, cont’d. • Accelerator component test stands are analyzed in

ANL ASW 2020 • Background, cont’d. • Accelerator component test stands are analyzed in the SAD since they present certain accelerator-specific hazards and use many of the same protection devices as an accelerator -Except that, in an accelerator, those are considered Credited Controls and required by an ASE • From a configuration management perspective, the controls were effectively the same as an accelerator -Engineered controls in UITF are managed by the same group that manages CEBAF Credited Controls • Even though ITC was analyzed in the SAD and used accelerator Credited Controls, it was treated essentially as an RGD and operated under an “operational safety procedure” or OSP - the CEBAF standard Work Control Document 5

ANL ASW 2020 UITF circa 1995 in the “Test Cave” This what the “Injector

ANL ASW 2020 UITF circa 1995 in the “Test Cave” This what the “Injector Test Cave” looked like. The Injector Test Cave was made from shielding components and some fixed-in-place shielding associated with the decommissioned proton synchrocyclotron and beam lines that were at the heart of the Space Radiation Effects Lab (SREL) facility. SREL was decommissioned in the late 1970 s. Note the CEBAF standard Run/Safe Box in use; same design and purpose today. 6

ANL ASW 2020 • Background, cont’d. • A component test stand is a sandbox

ANL ASW 2020 • Background, cont’d. • A component test stand is a sandbox for accelerator engineers and scientists! • As component technology improves – smaller footprint requirements, better efficiency, improved performance (precision, accuracy) – it start’s to become evident that was a test stand could become an accelerator with just a little more work and money …your young men will see visions and your old men shall dreams • Everyone sees what can be – not what is • Two questions naturally arise: -Can we do this? -What’s it going to take? 7

ANL ASW 2020 • Recognition of additional uses UITF circa 2019 in the former

ANL ASW 2020 • Recognition of additional uses UITF circa 2019 in the former “Test Cave” now “UITF Cave 1 and 2” Oh, what we can make with a little more resources. This is just waiting for someone to build it! • PEPPO (Polarized Electrons for Polarized Positrons) run in the CEBAF injector during CEBAF down time -Move to UITF decouples this from CEBAF maintenance • HDIce target can be tested at very low current with polarized electron source • Accelerating component testing 8

ANL ASW 2020 • Path to becoming an “accelerator” • This is an interesting

ANL ASW 2020 • Path to becoming an “accelerator” • This is an interesting discussion for scientist and engineers; what makes an accelerator? -Is it the act of imparting kinetic energy to electrons in excess of that provided by the gun bias voltage ~ 150 to 300 Ke. V? -Well… yes, but it’s quite a bit more! • The 420. 2 C requirements for what makes an accelerator are clear -approved accelerator safety envelope (ASE); -safety assessment document (SAD); -clearly defined roles and responsibilities for accelerator activities -including those for training and procedures; -un-reviewed safety issue (USI) process -configuration management -an accelerator readiness review (ARR) program that ensures facilities are adequately prepared for safe commissioning and/or operations; and 9

ANL ASW 2020 • Path to becoming an “accelerator”, cont’d. • You may hear

ANL ASW 2020 • Path to becoming an “accelerator”, cont’d. • You may hear along the way, “But wait, I got along for 15 years with a lot less formality… or I only want to go to 10 Me. V, and that's really nuthin…” • Best to start with the good news -The SAD already did a very good job of assessing hazards, even “acceleror based” hazards for the components -JLab has a mature USI process -The safety systems for radiological and operational safety are already “lab standard” and in use at the other JLab Accelerators -The lab was already operating two accelerators and had a solid operations discipline (defined roles and responsibilities) • It isn’t that big of a leap to bring the best of the lab operational experience and culture over to UITF • The question is always one of economy of scale… 10

ANL ASW 2020 • Path to becoming an “accelerator”, cont’d. • Then start with

ANL ASW 2020 • Path to becoming an “accelerator”, cont’d. • Then start with the next steps – ask yourself three questions -Can this really be made to work, are we sure we’re not fooling ourselves? -Can it be made to work safely? Are the controls and infrastructure we are using now for our other accelerators translatable for this use? Are there any unresolved challenges? -How will we operate it? What will be our paradigm? • The three questions became a series of internal reviews what some would call IRRs -The third review actually had some outside “eyes” - Petra Grivins from FRIB -A prophet is not without honor except in their own hometown… sometimes it helps to have someone from “outside the lab” deliver the news 11

ANL ASW 2020 • Path to becoming an “accelerator”, cont’d. • These three reviews

ANL ASW 2020 • Path to becoming an “accelerator”, cont’d. • These three reviews took place over the span of about a year • Each had a well defined charge and a series of questions -Principal Scientist (and visionary) for UITF partnered with Accelerator Safety Experts at JLab -At each review the questions were crafted with sensitivity to 420. 2 C requirements -A focus was placed on configuration management – particularly when it came to the need for credited controls -Roles and responsibilities for accelerator activities became a principal focus in the third review -Heavy reliance on internal subject matter experts • Documented results with a progressive process for resolving open questions from previous reviews • Interestingly, the economy of scale question seems to get worked out in the many discussions around these three questions. 12

ANL ASW 2020 • Hiccups along the way -Shielding -Beam current devices • The

ANL ASW 2020 • Hiccups along the way -Shielding -Beam current devices • The UITF is located inside the “Test Lab” at JLab -On-going battle for square footage -Evaluated on the basis of limited information -Decided in advance how much room the UITF would have -Rad. Con asked to determine if it was possible to function that way • Never a happy place for Rad. Con to be… • The early 420. 2 paradigm of a reasoned combination of active and passive measures to provide radiation protections is still used but it’s not well defined (most likely intentionally) • This is where clearly defined and management approved facility shielding design criteria becomes pretty important – or it becomes a never-ending discussion on what can be made to work 13

ANL ASW 2020 • Hiccups along the way, cont’d. -One intended use of the

ANL ASW 2020 • Hiccups along the way, cont’d. -One intended use of the UITF was very low-current polarized beam for HDIce target studies -Shielding limitations pointed to the need for a Credited Control in the form off a beam current monitor to limit beam current inside UITF shielding -Low-current happened to be below the threshold existing CEBAF beam current monitors -It looked like development effort was required for new technology and the design, fabrication, and testing of an engineered credited control was in the near future • We have a Conduct of Engineering Manual (Co. EM) which details the process for the design, testing, fabrication, and certification of a Credited Control • Co. EM requires very robust (resource intensive, time consuming, documentation heavy) -A USI evaluation was conducted because we did not have a credited control where one would be needed in relatively short order. 14

ANL ASW 2020 • Hiccups along the way, cont’d. -In the end, more shielding

ANL ASW 2020 • Hiccups along the way, cont’d. -In the end, more shielding was fabricated and installed and a combination of area isolation and interlocked radiation monitors were used to ensure the shielding design goal is met. 15

ANL ASW 2020 • Commissioning and Operations -The Principal Scientist crafted a Commissioning Plan

ANL ASW 2020 • Commissioning and Operations -The Principal Scientist crafted a Commissioning Plan and the JLab Accelerator Safety Experts crafted an ARR Plan • The ARR plan was based off the ARR plan used for 12 Ge. V Commissioning and Operation although that was essentially a 4 Phase plan executed over about 3 years • Since FNAL recently conducted a “small scale” ARR using internal reviewers only, we made a similar request to our Site Office. • The Site Office provided comments on the plan which we incorporated and concurred in the “all internal review” • The commissioning plan was reviewed by the Accelerator Division (AD) Safety Officer, AD Deputy Director, and AD Director. • The ARR plan was review by the Safety Configuration Management Board (the ‘USI review board’) and the Lab Director • The Lab Director was not comfortable with an “all internal” ARR and suggested that we obtain the services of an external reviewer • We asked John Quintana (from the Lab Director's former digs) if he would Chair the ARR and we are ever so glad he said yes 16

ANL ASW 2020 • Commissioning and Operations - We also received a call from

ANL ASW 2020 • Commissioning and Operations - We also received a call from an Accelerator Safety Expert from another facility that requested a “seat at the table” as an observer • Never pass up a request like that – after checking with the Chair, we quickly adjusted the ARR Plan to incorporate Jessica Malo from PPPL for additional help! -The ARR was a single review designed to provide us with recommendation related to for both Commissioning and Operation -We felt a single ARR that addressed both was reasonable and the Site Office concurred • Without a doubt, the external reviewers brought a tremendous perspective and fresh eyes to the ARR -Be sure to invite someone who is willing to bring a “wire brush” -It will do nothing but help refine and strengthen your programs 17

ANL ASW 2020 • Commissioning and Operations • What made the ARR successful -A

ANL ASW 2020 • Commissioning and Operations • What made the ARR successful -A good plan that provides up-front evidence that the organization has mature USI process, solid SAD document, facility–wide configuration management, mature CAS process -Energetic, curious, and brutally honest reviewers -Sufficient Time in-the-field with people who will operate UITF Day 1 schedule 18

ANL ASW 2020 • Commissioning and Operations • What made the ARR successful -Able

ANL ASW 2020 • Commissioning and Operations • What made the ARR successful -Able to show that mature processes from other accelerators at JLab effectively adopted 19

ANL ASW 2020 UITF - adopting consistency with CEBAF and LERF Slide courtesy Tom

ANL ASW 2020 UITF - adopting consistency with CEBAF and LERF Slide courtesy Tom Oren UITF Accelerator Readiness Review 20

ANL ASW 2020 Approval to Commission UITF Accelerator Readiness Review 21

ANL ASW 2020 Approval to Commission UITF Accelerator Readiness Review 21

ANL ASW 2020 Approval to Operate UITF Accelerator Readiness Review 22

ANL ASW 2020 Approval to Operate UITF Accelerator Readiness Review 22

ANL ASW 2020 • Summary • What made it possible to commission a Small

ANL ASW 2020 • Summary • What made it possible to commission a Small Accelerator at a Large Accelerator Facility -Systematic approach that capitalizes on previous experiences with accelerator construction and startup -Good integration of lessons learned from the larger facility • Some lessons learned scale well and others don’t – find the right balance by collaboration -An accelerator safety team with solid experience, good working relationships with scientific colleagues and Site Office staff -SAD and ASE development and management -Good IRR and ARR process -Mature CAS, USI process -Good internal and external review all along the way 23