1. LERF Readiness Review: Charge
LERF Cryomodule Test Facility Overview
November , 2018

2. Charge 1
Has the potential risk to CEBAF (including Cryogenics) operations due
to LCLS-II cryomodule commissioning in the LERF been identified and
minimized? Are there additional mitigation measures that can reduce
this risk? Is the level of risk acceptable?
This is addressed across the three presentations (Cryo Process and Controls, Remote Commissioning/Operations/Controls, LERF Cryomodule Testing OSP).
As you will see the team is working with the JLAB cryo group to minimize the risks to the cryo system while operating CMs in the LERF.
Similarly we are working with the CEBAF controls group, JLAB IT division and the SLAC Accelerator controls group in developing a secure remote access plan with both engineered and administrative controls.
Kevin Jordan LERF Readiness Review 12-Nov-2018

3. Charge 2
Is the Cryomodule Commissioning OSP complete and comprehensive?
Are the roles and responsibilities well defined for both local and remote
personnel, including operational and support staff?
Mike Drury will address this in the LERF CM Testing OSP.
In addition this is discussed in Wes’s and Curt’s presentation.
Kevin Jordan LERF Readiness Review 12-Nov-2018

4. Charge 3
Is the "Safety Assessment" document complete and comprehensive? Is
the hardware and software ready for safe and effective operation?
This is discussed in the overview presentation and in LERF CM Testing OSP.
Additional assessment for radiation was completed last year
The Rad Group Doc: RCD-DEP-18#002 dated Jan 2018
All in place safety aspects (PSS, ODH etc.) for the LERF are up to date and complete.
Kevin Jordan LERF Readiness Review 12-Nov-2018

5. Charge 4
Are the Cryomodule Commissioning OSP and Safety Assessment doc-
uments consistent with Accelerator and LERF Operations Directives
(AOD and LOD) and the Lab Accelerator Safety Envelope (ASE),
Final Safety Assessment Document (FSAD) and ESH&Q manual?
This is addressed in the overview presentation and the LERF CM Testing OSP.
Kevin Jordan LERF Readiness Review 12-Nov-2018

6. Charge 5
Are the remote access rules of engagement well defined, appropriate
and comprehensive? Are the remote roles and responsibilities defined,
appropriate, and understood by local and remote staff.
These are discussed in both Remote Commissioning/Operations/Controls, LERF Cryomodule Testing OSP.
Wes presents the infrastructure, both engineered and administrative controls
Mike will discuss the roles and responsibilities.
Our guidelines for remote access was to follow the requirements in the LOD. We either meet or exceed the LOD requirements.
Kevin Jordan LERF Readiness Review 12-Nov-2018

7. Charge 6
Is the Cryomodule Commissioning scope of work well defined? Is the
plan and scheduling process compatible with the CEBAF and cryogenic
operations and scheduling process
Mike will present the CM scope of work. For the most part it is similar to what we have done for the last 25+ years when commissioning cryomodules.
The work is well known and the procedures/processes defined.
As will be presented all cryogenic work that may impact CEBAF is scheduled during CEBAF down periods.
Kevin Jordan LERF Readiness Review 12-Nov-2018

8. Charge 7
How are configuration and process changes tracked and managed? Is
the mechanism for planning, reviewing, authorizing and scheduling
tasks, new or old, appropriate and understood by local and remote
staff? Is there a change management process?
All work, tests and changes will be managed through the ATLis system.
Any tests/work proposed remotely will have a JLAB sponsor that writes the ATLis
Software changes local or remote will follow the respective Labs guidelines for version control (and kept in CVS/GIT).
All changed will be eloged.
Kevin Jordan LERF Readiness Review 12-Nov-2018

9. Summary
There is still some work to do but we will be ready to cool down in January
Kevin Jordan LERF Readiness Review 12-Nov-2018