technical board and safety summary michael s. zisman center for beam physics accelerator &...
TRANSCRIPT
Technical Board and Safety Summary
Michael S. ZismanCenter for Beam Physics
Accelerator & Fusion Research DivisionLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
MICE Collaboration Meeting-HarbinJanuary 17, 2009
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
2
Safety (1)•High-level MICE-ISIS Safety Committee meets regularly
— a policy forum, not for detailed safety issues
•Two recent accidents, one causing lost time, have put us “on the radar” with the RAL safety group— this is not a good place to be
•MICE was asked to appoint a Safety Committee— AN, with EB concurrence, chose to use Technical Board for this
purposeo augmented by a few key people
– John Alexander (DL; PPS)– Willie Spensley (MERIT; CDM Principal Contractor)– Mike Courthold (RAL; cryogenics)– Matt Dickson (STFC Health & Safety)
•Initial task is to review PPS functionality
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
3
Safety (2)•Information on safety-related aspects of all MICE equipment must be conveyed to Andy Nichols for Safety Committee discussion— need early indication of risks, hazards, and planned operating
procedures to permit risk assessmentso most proposals can be made acceptable with proper planning
•CDM regime will continue throughout most of MICE duration— Phase 2 equipment may need specialist review
o TB will coordinate this
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
4
Technical Board•Met on Wednesday afternoon
— discussion topicso Spectrometer Solenoid statuso Summary of Coupling Coil reviewo EMR electronics purchaseo Integration tasko Review statuso Phase 2 schedule and cost-to-complete
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
5
Spectrometer Solenoid•Plans are acceptable
— expect first device to ship at end of Februaryo second one 2-3 months later
Magnet 2 cold mass assembly
Magnet 1 being disassembled
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
6
Coupling Coil•Review team included outside reviewers
— Alan Bross (FNAL, Chair)— Mike Green (LBNL)— Vladimir Kashikhin (Fermilab)— Wing Lau (U. Oxford)— Derun Li (LBNL)— Steve Virostek (LBNL)— Zian Zhu (IHEP)— Mike Zisman (LBNL)
•Review went well— technical issues are in excellent shape— manpower situation is still not comfortable— some “cash flow” problems at HIT that were slowing down
orderingo schedule shown deemed likely optimistic (11/09)
– and has already slipped a bit
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
7
EMR Electronics•U. Geneva asked permission to order some electronics in advance of commitment from INFN to build the device— conclusion was to approve purchase
o EMR design is deemed as correct one, and we will proceed with it one way or another…even if INFN cannot fund it
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
8
Integration Task•Scheme developed (Lau) for cooling channel seems to be effective— at present, there is no corresponding integration effort for the
detectors— recommend that Lau continue identifying and monitoring
integration issues for detector areao in effect, manage integration at Level 1, not Level 2
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
9
Review Status•Two reviews identified as being ready to organize
— software and DAQ
•Both have been slow to happen— will ask Rose Hayes to contact reviewers to try to set up dates
for these reviews ASAP
•Tech Board needs to be more proactive in reviewing key aspects of the project— what level of review should depend on the system being
considered and its technical and cost risks to MICEo one size does not fit all!
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
10
Phase 2 Update•Agreed with need to update cost-to-complete and schedule— need to create mechanism for doing this and updating it
periodicallyo process was initiated more than a year ago, but went idle due to other pressing issues
— may also need to prioritize tasks in view of limited time, funding and intellectual resources
January 17, 2009 Tech Board & Safety Summary: Zisman
11
Final Remarks•Focus on safety aspects is necessary and important— using Tech Board for this process will be an efficient way to
proceed
•It is important that the Tech Board be involved in discussing and approving technical decisions of MICE— we must not let urgency serve as an excuse to bypass this
mechanismo for example, target issues and decay solenoid repair plans need to be discussed and approved in this forum