SAD/ASE Lessons Learned A Safety Re-Assessment at Jefferson Lab in Accordance with DOE-O-420.2B Phil Mutton August 13, 2008

Background 2002 Current version Rev 5 (ASE is included in JLab FSAD) 2005 Accelerator Safety Order (ASO), DOE B –Establish accelerator-specific safety requirements –Distinguish from other supplementary safety and health requirements (e.g., Worker Safety and Health Program) –Clearly document analysis, controls, and basis for accelerator safety envelope 2006 M&O contract awarded to Jefferson Science Associates 2007 DOE and Independent reviews of current FSAD 2008 FSAD Revision 6 Project –Update FSAD to Rev 6 will achieve ASO compliance

Final Safety Assessment Document (FSAD) Revision Project Findings with respect to the ASO Update FSAD and Accelerator Safety Envelope (ASE) –we are here (8/12/08) Final review and approval of FSAD/ASE Next steps: –Revise USI Process –Train staff on FSAD and USI Process

Current FSAD (rev 5, 2002) Largely conclusions –Limited description of the analysis itself –Does not describe accident scenarios Limited description of controls or rationale for them Too much detail of less relevant (industrial safety) topics Accelerator Safety Envelope (ASE) includes non- accelerator related parameters (e.g. FEL laser parameters) Basis for the ASE is not described

The Project to Update the FSAD Update FSAD – a learning exercise: –Reorganize per ASO, and address specific omissions, etc., noted by third party reviewers –1st draft: clearer, but accident scenarios and rationale not apparent in many areas –2 nd draft: accident scenarios tabulated and controls identified, but scenarios and controls not well “connected.” ASE basis (rationale) incomplete –3 rd (hopefully final) draft: review in progress

FSAD Revision 6 Follows guidance in ASO guide, DOE-G Updates and expands description of relevant features and controls (Personnel Safety System, shielding, beam dump cooling, cryogenic systems…) Eliminates industrial safety aspects Adds a table of accident scenarios, identifies bounding cases Lists Credited Controls vs. other controls (defense in depth) Refines ASE details and describes ASE basis Includes Shielding Policy

Controls All credited controls were in place, but were not identified as such in the existing SAD - added in rev 6 Several administrative controls were inadequately documented (unclear or not readily traceable to requirements: –Surveillance of engineered controls –Excavation controls (near accelerator) –Training –Maintenance

If I were to do it again… Don’t assume the update is just an “adjustment” –for us this was a re-analysis Be more self-critical of existing (pre-ASO) SAD Spend more time up front to understand expectations behind the ASO and guide –Collaborate with reviewers/approvers on document organization (for a better first draft) Start with a clean sheet of paper –Organize the logic –Do the analysis –Document the analysis

Organize the Logic Risk Matrix Accident Scenarios ASE Credited Controls Defense in Depth Controls

Organize the Logic Design the document for ease of use –Lay out risk matrix –Define criteria for control levels –Map out the accident scenarios (~45) – start building the table –Design the controls tables, credited (~25) and defense in depth (~30) –Design the ASE layout –Map controls to ASE basis –Outline the body of the document for easy cross referencing to tables

Do the Analysis Define assumptions – fixed shielding (e.g. underground) Populate accident scenarios, controls and ASE tables Perform calculations, modeling, etc. Identify or prepare supporting analysis documents Document the Details Insert re-usable text into the new outline as appropriate –eliminate details not relevant to the analysis Add new analysis and description details to support conclusions, provide rationale, etc.

JLab FSAD Rev 6 Are we there yet? Ease of Use? –FSAD Rev 6 ~100 pages. I thought this rev would be shorter (Rev 5 was ~95 pages) How to judge what should be in a SAD vs. Reference documents? Does it address the “audience?” –safety analysts, USI reviewers, operators, managers, engineers, scientists, and technicians? Success will to be judged by the document users