PSB Lock Out Test, Follow-Up AP. Bernardes-/EN-STI, K PSB Lock Out Test, Follow-Up AP.Bernardes-/EN-STI, K.Boonroy/HSE-SEE, D.Hay/EN-ACE, C.Mugnier/TE-EPC, S.Ugidos/EP-DT Acknowledgements: W.Andreazza/BE-BI, JP.Burnet/TE-EPC, L.Coralejo/TE-ABT, A.Day/HSE-RP, P.Demarest/TE-VSC, T.Dobers/EN-ACE, G.Dumont/HSE-RP, JA.Ferreira Somoza/TE-VSC, S.Fumet/EN-HE, JC.Guillaume/EN-EL, M.Haase/BE-RF, T.Masson/TE-ABT, V.Montabonnet/TE-EPC, A.Newborough/TE-MSC, H.Sabri/EN-CV, J.Tassan-Viol/BE-BI

Outline Introduction Status Proposal for PSB machine access Next steps Conclusion 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Machine oriented approach Transversal Activity approach Introduction Focus on the 2 first cases 3 cases with 3 different approaches are proposed for the “PSB tests”: Machine oriented approach PSB (machine) Access and electrical state of the machine (EYETS, YETS, TS, LS2)  Electrical hazard mapping, training, habilitation PSB Period approach Intervention on the PSB (machine) PERIOD 2 (EYETS, YETS, TS, LS2)  Lock-out procedure, definition of roles and responsibilities? Work package New Injection Region 1L1 (LS2)  Lock-out procedure, definition of roles and responsibilities? Transversal Activity approach 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Introduction Mission : Select 3 cases where electrical safety is critical and where the lock-out procedure needs to be clarified Define a pilot methodology and apply it to the 3 selected cases Identify the groups concerned, contact them and clarify with them the lock-out steps based on the electrical hazard assessment Write the operational procedures with the groups contribution If the procedures are approved they should be followed on field when applicable, feed-back should be collected from groups Present feed-back of the results and the procedure at the LS2 Committee of April 2017 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Outline Introduction Status Proposal for PSB machine access Next steps Conclusion 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Status Electrical Hazard assessment Done for the PSB (machine): Electrical equipment group owners for the PSB machine BE-BI BE-RF EN-EL TE-ABT TE-MSC TE-VSC Main PSB machine non electrical equipment contributors for YETS, EYETS, LS: EN-ACE EN-CV EN-HE HSE-RP 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Status Electrical Hazard assessment done with the equipment owner or the activity responsible: Inventory of the accessible live parts Inventory of the main activities taking place close to accessible live parts To be done: Check through EDMS of each hazard assessment presentation by the different groups  Summary to be presented at the LS2 committee 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Status Main Difficulty: No updated layout available. Each group has corrected/completed the layout No central data base for electrical network. Schematics are a mixture of EN-EL and TE-EPC data bases EN-EL TE-EPC Electrical hazard assessment and electrical schematics will not be valid anymore after significant changes on the PSB machine (After LS2) 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Status In an ideal world! Central data base for mechanical and electrical layout to contain verified and updated information required for lock-out purposes (as done today for the magnetic elements of the LHC and SPS-LHC transfer lines) Through this data base it could be possible to select an equipment or area and to identify which equipment should be lock-out before intervention What to do meanwhile? 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Outline Introduction Status Proposal for PSB machine access Next steps Conclusion 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Proposal for PSB machine access To access the PSB (machine) – What? Define a network separation pre-requisite for “general access” and make sure it is approved by all the groups concerned (applicable (E)YETS, LS) Network separation of all equipment with accessible live parts Network separation of all equipment with non accessible live parts if groups already do it systematically Make clear which equipment remain switched OFF during (E)YETS, LS Machine oriented approach PSB Access and electrical state of the machine (EYETS, YETS, TS, LS2)  Electrical hazard mapping, training, habilitation Objective: Get the same minimal electrical state of the PSB at each EYETS, YETS, LS during general access --> Avoid confusion and human errors 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Proposal for PSB machine access Network separation is not a lock-out ! The absence of voltage is not checked and the equipment is not grounded. The PSB (machine) can not be considered in a safe state to perform electrical work or non electrical in the surroundings of accessible live parts! The groups remain responsible for requesting there lock-out before their intervention!  No work in the shadows of a network separation or a lock-out made for another activity! 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Proposal for PSB machine access To access the PSB (machine) – Who? The facility coordinator can request the Network separation pre-requesite for general access if a procedure is approved by all the groups (First step). The groups remain responsible for requesting their lock-out before the intervention! Network separation could be done at EN-EL level when possible (quicker procedure, less possibility of human errors) Network separation for access Objective: Clarify responsibilities and make official/optimize good practices 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Proposal for PSB machine access To access the PSB (machine) Advantages Disadvantages Electrical state for (E)YETS, LS of the machine is defined and approved by all groups concerned. The approach remains every time the same and is official Equipment owners can not power the equipment without the facility coordinators agreement (during general access only!) No more confusion about “Shut-down” and “YETS” Special cases need to be defined from the beginning (Example: BE-RF commissioning during LS2) No powering without planning  Improve electrical safety and planning Procedures need to be checked before (E)YETS and LS Electrical safety is introduced in the planning just like radiation protection. Facility coordinator knows the state of the machine 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Proposal for PSB machine access To access the PSB (machine) – How? The Facility coordinator of the PSB machine request a network separation request) based on procedure approved by the groups and keeps the paper until the end of the general access First-Line and EN-EL The facility coordinator of the PSB owns all the network separation requests sheets “General Access” can start Equipment owners or activity owners perform their own lock-out procedure before intervention at the equipment level as usual! 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Outline Introduction Status Proposal for PSB machine access Next steps Conclusion 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Machine oriented approach Transversal Activity approach Next steps Machine oriented approach PSB (machine) Access and electrical state of the machine (EYETS, YETS, TS, LS2)  Electrical hazard mapping, training, habilitation PSB Period approach Intervention on the PSB (machine) PERIOD 2 (EYETS, YETS, TS, LS2)  Lock-out procedure, definition of roles and responsibilities? Work package New Injection Region 1L1 (LS2)  Lock-out procedure, who is concerned, who does what? Transversal Activity approach Not started but very similar to case 2 Assessment done. Proposition to be discussed. Well advanced. Feed back from groups needed 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Outline Introduction Status Proposal for PSB machine access Next steps Conclusion 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee

Great collaboration from all the groups! Thank you very much!!! Conclusion Electrical Hazard assessment done (to be circulated in EDMS) The procedure was slow because of layout and data base issues Difficult to keep this information updated without a centrally maintained mechanical and electrical database as reliable source of information (as is existing today for LHC) Proposal for PSB machine access done. Please provide feed-back! Proposal for PSB machine electrical work still to be discussed Great collaboration from all the groups! Thank you very much!!! 30 June 2017 LS2 Committee