Deferred Proposals: Proposals that have been deferred must be resubmitted as a revised proposal to a future PAC. The revised proposal must address the issues and concerns raised by the previous PAC. Unlike letters-of-intent, a deferred proposal has established a claim to a physics measurement. However, a deferred proposal must be updated within one year or it will lose this claim.
Rejected Proposals: For a previously rejected proposal to be resubmitted to the PAC, the resubmittal must address the comments and concerns of the original PAC in a substantive way. The TAC is responsible for recommending to the Director whether the resubmittal fulfills this requirement. The Director will decide whether to have the PAC review the 'new' proposal. A proposal based on a previously rejected proposal is a 'new' proposal; rejected proposals have no claims on a physics measurement.
Appeal: The decision to reverse a PAC recommendation or rating rests solely with the Laboratory Director. If a spokesperson(s) wishes to appeal the recommendations of the PAC, they must do so in writing to the Director, who will review the situation.
Jeopardy: Experiments that are not run within three years after approval (or within three years after commissioning of the Hall if they were approved before Hall operations began) must present an update to the PAC in order to remain on the list of approved experiments. This policy is intended to ensure that the ratings of all approved experiments reflect their scientific priority. It recognizes that experiments elsewhere or theoretical developments can affect the priority of experiments at Jefferson Lab.
Withdrawn: With PAC18 we introduce a new category of "withdrawn" for proposals that were approved by a previous PAC, haven’t been run within three years of approval or the start of physics in the hall, and whose authors chose to withdraw the proposal rather than defend it at a jeopardy review. Withdrawn proposals shall be considered part of the public domain, and by withdrawing the proposal the authors have given up any "intellectual property rights" they have to the physics it covers. Any interested party, including the original authors may submit a new proposal covering the same physics to a future PAC.
Regular or Major Experiment Decision
A "Major Experiment" is any approved experiment that:
- takes more than one month to install,
- involves a Jefferson Lab expenditure for preparations greater than
$250K, and/or
- involves unusual resource requirements as determined by the
appropriate Hall leader or the Technical Advisory Committee.
Following the adoption of the PAC recommendations by the director, the Physics Division will meet and identify those experiments that will require major installation effort. Any experiment so identified must have completed a formal readiness review prior to March or September 1 to be considered for the corresponding scheduling cycle. Jefferson Lab would prefer to schedule these experiments a year in advance, and will generally attempt to schedule the beginning of their installation phase coincident with the a major accelerator shutdown. Spokespersons for these experiments are encouraged to request their readiness review with this lead time in mind.
******************************************************************
The following information [Sections IV(R) to X(R)] is for regular experiments only.
Information for major experiments is located in Sections IV(M) to X(M).
******************************************************************
V.(R) | Design and Construction |
| |
Design phase: (as required)
- complete preliminary equipment design
- PESAD development & review
- document EOE and RSAD
- complete detailed equipment design
- final safety analysis document ESAD
|
| |
Construction phase: (as required)
- complete preliminary equipment design
- PESAD development & review
- document EOE and RSAD
- complete detailed equipment design
- final safety analysis document ESAD
|
VI.(R) |
Scheduling your Experiment for Beam Time |
| | Radiation Budget Estimate |
| |
A completed "Radiation Budget Estimate" (a critical part of the experiment's radiation safety assessment document) must be available to the NPES for any experiment desiring to be scheduled. This estimate is produced by P. Degtiarenko of the Radcon group; spokespersons must provide him with their updated beam requirements lists and other information about the experimental conditions as needed for these estimates. A minimum of one month lead time is necessary for the production of the radiation budget estimate. |
| |
Call for Requests for Beam Time (Nominal Annual Timeline) |
| | In carrying out its charge, the Nuclear Physics Experiment Scheduling Committee (NPES) will consider the physics priority of each experiment, together with the long-term goals of the research program, the accelerator's ability to deliver the beams desired reliably, the availability and reliability of the necessary experimental apparatus, the time necessary to mount each major experiment, and other constraints as appropriate. An effort will be made to schedule complete experiments whenever this is deemed technically feasible. |
| | Request for Scheduling |
| |
Experimentors request scheduling of their experiments to the NPES
|
| | Schedule discussed with users |
| |
The schedule is discussed with users prior to being finalized. (See timeline). It is published on the web, typically with the next 6-9 months "firm" and the following 6 months "tentative." |
| |
Liaison Physicist/EH&S Coordinator |
| | Once an experiment has been scheduled, the Physics division will assign a Liaison Physicist/EH&S Coordinator. This individual is responsible for coordinating interactions between the laboratory and the experiment collaboration with particular emphasis on equipment staging and installation in the hall, and on the completion of the necessary EH&S reviews of the equipment and procedures that will be used for the experiment. |
| | In all situations where base equipment is modified or new equipment is
introduced into the halls, the Hall Leader will decide if that equipment is
to be a temporary or permanent modification. The decision rendered
determines the degree of the Hall Leader's EH&S responsibility. |
VII.(R) |
EH&S Review of your Experiment |
| | Internal Reviews |
| |
For the base equipment, the process is more complex and it is the Hall Leader's responsibility to ensure the satisfactory completion of each phase of the review process as part of the commissioning of base equipment. That review includes
all EH&S reviews as well as the required documentation.
Required EH&S Documentation
Four major EH&S documents are required as part of the review process
for each experiment: an Operational Safety Procedure (OSP); Conduct of
Operations
(COO); Radiation Safety Assessment Document
(RSAD); Experiment Safety Assessment Document
(ESAD).
Because much of the equipment in the experimental halls will be used for
many experiments, we have designed the EH&S portion of the review process
to minimize unnecessary duplication of safety analysis and documentation.
We define four types of experiments based on the degree to which they use
existing, reviewed, documented equipment:
- Experiments using major new apparatus must generate a new
Operational Safety Procedure or OSP
- Experiments using only the existing (base) equipment "as is" can use the
Hall's basic OSP
- Experiments requiring temporary modification of existing (base)
equipment must only provide a temporary update to the basic Hall OSP
- Experiments requiring permanent modification of existing (base)
equipment must provide a permanent update to the basic Hall OSP
The initial (commissioning) experiment for each experimental hall is, by definition, of the first type. The commissioning process will be used to establish the base equipment and to refine its documentation and operations procedures for subsequent experiments. Subsequent experiments that use the equipment that has already been commissioned are type 2, 3 or 4, as appropriate. Experiments that require major new apparatus go through the same cycle as the initial equipment.
The COO addresses an experiment's policy, procedures and documentation. The RSAD addresses radiation and activation issues associated with the delivery of beam to an experiment. It also addresses decommissioning plans for the target and beam-activated components as appropriate. The ESAD describes identified hazards of an experiment and the measures taken to eliminate, control or mitigate them. The variations on these documents and their content for the four types of experiments are outlined in Table 1.
Responsibilities:
COO and RSAD:
The development of the COO and RSAD are the responsibility of
the experiment spokesperson for all experiments of every type. The
Liaison Physicist and EH&S Coordinator
assigned by Jefferson Lab to the experiment will assist in the preparation
of these documents and in the review
process they must undergo.
Generally, Jefferson Lab recommends the use of nominal hall COOs with minor
modifications to your experiment, as appropriate. Nominal hall COOs are available
for Halls
A,
B, and
C.
ESAD: : Jefferson Lab assigns primary responsibility for the development of the ESAD based on whether it will use our base equipment alone or, alternatively, will modify or add to the base equipment or use entirely new equipment. This approach allows us to conduct EH&S reviews using a modular approach which simplifies the process where possible.
Commissioning Experiment. For the commissioning experiment, which defines the base equipment for a hall, the bulk of the responsibility for the development of the ESAD and for the resolution of issues and concerns raised during the EH&S review process falls squarely upon the appropriate hall manager. It is the hall manager's responsibility to ensure the satisfactory completion of each phase of the review process for the experimental equipment as described in this document as part of the commissioning of the base equipment.
Subsequent Experiments. For subsequent experiments that use only the established, reviewed base equipment, the ESAD need only be a simple, one-page document that references the base equipment ESAD and the RSAD for the intended experiment. Responsibility for the ESAD in this case rests with the experiment spokesperson, while the hall leader will have permanent responsibility for maintaining the documentation for the base equipment.
In all situations where there are modifications to the base equipment or new equipment introduced into the halls, the hall manager will decide if that equipment will be a temporary or permanent modification.
Base Equipment Modification. If the modification is temporary, the primary responsibility for the development of the ESAD belongs to the spokesperson, and the ESAD shall be reviewed by the hall manager prior to submission to the review process. If the new equipment will be a permanent or long-term addition to the base equipment, the hall manager's EH&S role will be expanded. If the modification will be permanent, although the responsibility is a joint one, the hall manager is responsible for incorporating the appropriate documentation into the base equipment files. This collaboration requires very close and continuous coordination between the hall manager and spokesperson to share the design, safety analysis, installation, training, documentation, and review responsibilities as appropriate.
New Equipment When an experiment requires a completely new apparatus, the primary responsibility for development of the ESAD and for the resolution of issues and concerns raised during the EH&S review process is placed on the experiment spokesperson. In concert with the manager of the hall where the new apparatus will be located (not a joint responsibility as it is with modified equipment), the experiment spokesperson is responsible for all required operational procedures, certifications, and reviews. If the new equipment will be removed at the conclusion of the experiment, the experiment spokesperson is also responsible for decommissioning. In all cases the host division has the responsibility to ensure that the experimenters and the Jefferson Lab staff understand their respective responsibilities.
RSAD:The Radiation Safety Assessment
Document (RSAD) is produced by the Radiation Control (Radcon) Group
after:
a) completion of beam requests
b) discussion of other radiation issues
Contact person is Vashek Vylet
Prior to installation, the spokesperson must establish with the Liaison Physicist and EH&S review coordinator the schedule of reviews for the installation phase. Equipment built outside the Laboratory must have a final acceptance review, at Jefferson Lab or at the construction site, before its installation at the experiment. The spokesperson and the Liaison Physicist and EH&S review coordinator jointly establish the place and the time of these reviews.
For equipment built in its operating location, the spokesperson, the Liaison Physicist and EH&S review coordinator, and the equipment's builders must establish a review schedule.
Before beginning installation of equipment, the spokesperson or designee must produce all written installation procedures at the request of the Liaison Physicist and EH&S review coordinator or the EH&S review committee chair.
| VIII.(R) |
Running the Experiment |
| |
Preparation for Running
Complete COO
TAC Review of COO
New Equipment Installation
Pre-Op Checkout
Jlab Equipment Safety Review
Experiment Readiness Certificate (ERC) Issued
Allocation of Computational Resources
Physics Division Associate Director Approval
to Run
The readiness of the experiment to begin commissioning activities is determinedby a final review by the Associate Director of Physics. As part of that review, the completion of all reviews is verified and the resolution of issues and concerns raised during the review process is certified. Formal certification is in the form of a signed Experiment Readiness Certificate (ERC).
Commissioning the Experiment
Running the Experiment
Commissioning and running the experiment are carried out by the hall collaboration following the guidelines and rules in the Conduct of Operations developed for the experiment and read and signed by the participants
| IX.(R) |
Post Data-taking Activities: Decomissioning of Equipment |
| |
Deinstallation
Decommissioning of Equipment
Experiment Feedback
Shortly after the data-taking phase of the experiment has been completed, the spokespersons will be asked to provide feedback to the laboratory management in the form of an experiment summary report, identifying problems that were encountered during the execution of the experiment and their recommendations for future improvements. The JLab Experiment Summary Report is available in both PDF and Postscript form (pdf | ps)
|
X.(R) | Analyze, Present and Publish |
| |
- Allocation of post run computational resources
- Data Reduction & Analysis
- Presentation & Publication of Results
|
******************************************************************
The following information is for major experiments only.
Information for regular experiments is located
above.
******************************************************************
IV.(M) | Planning Milestones and Reviews for Major Experiments
Meeting with Hall Leader & Engineers to:
- Plan and engineer experiment including plans for design and construction of equipment
- Establish milestones (may include subsystem reviews)
- Submit preliminary beam request forms
- Name a Liaison Physicist/EH&S Coordinator
This individual is responsible for coordinating interactions between the
laboratory and the experiment collaboration with particular emphasis on
equipment staging and installation in the hall, and on the completion of
the necessary EH&S reviews of the equipment and
procedures that will be used for the experiment.
In all situations where base equipment is modified or new equipment is introduced into the halls, the Hall Leader will decide if that equipment is to be a temporary or permanent modification. The decision rendered determines the degree of the Hall Leader's EH&S responsibility.
|
V.(M) | Design and Construction
Design phase: (as required)
- complete preliminary equipment design
- PESAD development & review
- document EOE and RSAD
- complete detailed equipment design
- final safety analysis document ESAD
Construction phase: (as required)
- complete preliminary equipment design
- PESAD development & review
- document EOE and RSAD
- complete detailed equipment design
- final safety analysis document ESAD
|
VI.(M) | Scheduling your Experiment for Beam Time
Radiation Budget Estimate
A completed "Radiation Budget Estimate" (a critical part of the experiment's radiation safety assessment document) must be available to the NPES for any experiment desiring to be scheduled. This estimate is produced by P. Degtiarenko of the Radcon group; spokespersons must provide him with their updated beam requirements lists
and other information about the experimental conditions as needed for these estimates. A minimum of one month lead time is necessary for the production of the radiation budget estimate.
Call for Requests for Beam Time
(Nominal Annual Timeline)
In carrying out its charge, the Nuclear Physics Experiment Scheduling Committee (NPES) will consider the physics priority of each experiment, together with the long-term goals of the research program, the accelerator's ability to deliver the beams desired reliably, the availability and reliability of the necessary experimental apparatus, the time necessary to mount each major experiment, and other constraints as appropriate. An effort will be made to schedule complete experiments whenever this is deemed technically feasible.
Note: Major Experiments usually require reviews prior to the regular call.
Request for Scheduling
Experimenters request scheduling of their experiments to the NPES
Schedule discussed with users
The Schedule is discussed with users prior to being finalized. (See timeline.) It is published on the web, typically with the next 6-9 months "firm" and the following 6 months "tentative."
Liaison Physicist/EH&S Coordinator and Accelerator Liaison
Once an experiment has been scheduled, the Accelerator division will assign an Accelerator Coordinator for the experiment and the Physics Division will assign a Liaison Physicist/EH&S coordinater. These individualsare responsible for coordinating interactions between the laboratory and the experiment collaboration with particular emphasis on beam requirements, equipment staging and installation in the hall, and on the completion of the necessary EH&S reviews of the equipment and procedures that will be used for the experiment.
|
VII.(M) | EH&S Review of your Experiment
Internal Reviews
For the base equipment, it is the Hall Leader's responsibility to
ensure the satisfactory completion of each phase of the review process as part of the
commissioning of base equipment. That review includes all EH&S reviews as well as the required documentation.
Required EH&S Documentation
Four major EH&S documents are required as part of the review process
for each experiment: an Operational Safety Procedure (OSP); Conduct of
Operations
(COO); Radiation Safety Assessment Document
(RSAD); Experiment Safety Assessment Document
(ESAD).
Because much of the equipment in the experimental halls will be used for many experiments, we have designed the EH&S portion of the review process to minimize unnecessary duplication of safety analysis and documentation. We define four types of experiments based on the degree to which they use existing, reviewed, documented equipment:
- Experiments using major new apparatus must generate a new
Operational Safety Procedure or OSP
- Experiments using only the existing (base) equipment "as is" can use the
Hall's basic OSP
- Experiments requiring temporary modification of existing (base)
equipment must only provide a temporary update to the basic Hall OSP
- Experiments requiring permanent modification of existing (base)
equipment must provide a permanent update to the basic Hall OSP
The initial (commissioning) experiment for each experimental hall is, by definition, of the first type. The commissioning process will be used to establish the base equipment and to refine its documentation and operations procedures for subsequent experiments. Subsequent experiments that use the equipment that has already been commissioned are type 2, 3 or 4, as appropriate. Experiments that require major new apparatus go through the same cycle as the initial equipment.
The COO addresses an experiment's policy, procedures and documentation. The RSAD addresses radiation and activation issues associated with the delivery of beam to an experiment. It also addresses decommissioning plans for the target and beam-activated components as appropriate. The ESAD describes identified hazards of an experiment and the measures taken to eliminate, control or mitigate them. The variations on these documents and their content for the four types of experiments are outlined in Table 1.
Responsibilities:
COO and RSAD:
The development of the COO and RSAD are the responsibility of
the experiment spokesperson for all experiments of every type. The
Liaison Physicist and EH&S Coordinator
assigned by Jefferson Lab to the experiment will assist in the preparation
of these documents and in the review process they must undergo.
Generally, Jefferson Lab recommends the use of nominal hall COOs with minor
modifications to your experiment, as appropriate. Nominal hall COOs are
available for Halls
A,
B, and
C.
ESAD: Jefferson Lab assigns primary responsibility for the development of the ESAD based on whether it will use our base equipment alone or, alternatively, will modify or add to the base equipment or use entirely new equipment. This approach allows us to conduct EH&S reviews using a modular approach which simplifies the process where possible.
Commissioning Experiment. For the commissioning experiment, which defines the base equipment for a hall, the bulk of the responsibility for the development of the ESAD and for the resolution of issues and concerns raised during the EH&S review process falls squarely upon the appropriate hall manager. It is the hall manager's responsibility to ensure the satisfactory completion of each phase of the review process for the experimental equipment as described in this document as part of the commissioning of the base equipment.
Subsequent Experiments. For subsequent experiments that use only the established, reviewed base equipment, the ESAD need only be a simple, one-page document that references the base equipment ESAD and the RSAD for the intended experiment. Responsibility for the ESAD in this case rests with the experiment spokesperson, while the hall leader will have permanent responsibility for maintaining the documentation for the base equipment.
In all situations where there are modifications to the base equipment or new equipment introduced into the halls, the hall manager will decide if that equipment will be a temporary or permanent modification.
Base Equipment Modification. If the modification is temporary, the primary responsibility for the development of the ESAD belongs to the spokesperson, and the ESAD shall be reviewed by the hall manager prior to submission to the review process. If the new equipment will be a permanent or long-term addition to the base equipment, the hall manager's EH&S role will be expanded. If the modification will be permanent, although the responsibility is a joint one, the hall manager is responsible for incorporating the appropriate documentation into the base equipment files. This collaboration requires very close and continuous coordination between the hall manager and spokesperson to share the design, safety analysis, installation, training, documentation, and review responsibilities as appropriate.
New Equipment When an experiment requires a completely new apparatus, the primary responsibility for development of the ESAD and for the resolution of issues and concerns raised during the EH&S review process is placed on the experiment spokesperson. In concert with the manager of the hall where the new apparatus will be located (not a joint responsibility as it is with modified equipment), the experiment spokesperson is responsible for all required operational procedures, certifications, and reviews. If the new equipment will be removed at the conclusion of the experiment, the experiment spokesperson is also responsible for decommissioning. In all cases the host division has the responsibility to ensure that the experimenters and the Jefferson Lab staff understand their respective responsibilities.
RSAD:The Radiation Safety Assessment
Document (RSAD) is produced by the Radiation Control (Radcon) Group
after:
a) completion of beam requests
b) discussion of other radiation issues
Contact person is Vashek Vylet
Prior to installation, the spokesperson must establish with the Liaison Physicist and EH&S review coordinator the schedule of reviews for the installation phase. Equipment built outside the Laboratory must have a final acceptance review, at Jefferson Lab or at the construction site, before its installation at the experiment. The spokesperson and the Liaison Physicist and EH&S review coordinator jointly establish the place and the time of these reviews.
For equipment built in its operating location, the spokesperson, the Liaison Physicist and EH&S review coordinator, and the equipment's builders must establish a review schedule.
Before beginning installation of equipment, the spokesperson or designee must produce all written installation procedures at the request of the Liaison Physicist and EH&S review coordinator or the EH&S review committee chair. |
VIII.(M) | Running the Experiment
Preparation for Running
Complete COO
TAC Review of COO
New Equipment Installation
Pre-Op Checkout
Jlab Equipment Safety Review
Experiment Readiness Certificate (ERC) Issued
Allocation of Computational Resources
Physics Division Associate Director Approval
to Run
The readiness of the experiment to begin commissioning activities is determinedby a final review by the Associate Director of Physics. As part of that review, the completion of all reviews is verified and the resolution of issues and concerns raised during the review process is certified. Formal certification is in the form of a signed Experiment Readiness Certificate (ERC).
Commissioning the Experiment
Running the Experiment
Commissioning and running the experiment are carried out by the hall collaboration following the guidelines and rules in the Conduct of Operations developed for the experiment and read and signed by the participants.
|
IX.(M) | Post Data-taking Activities: Decomissioning of Equipment
Deinstallation
Decommissioning of Equipment
Experiment Feedback
Shortly after the data-taking phase of the experiment has been completed, the spokespersons will be asked to provide feedback to the laboratory management in the form of an experiment summary report, identifying problems that were encountered during the execution of the experiment and their recommendations for future improvements.JLab Experiment Summary Report is available in both PDF and Postscript form (pdf | ps).
|
******************************************************************
The following information is for both regular and major experiments.
******************************************************************
X.(M) | Analyze, Present and Publish |
| |
- Allocation of post run computational resources
- Data Reduction & Analysis
- Presentation & Publication of Results
|
[ Jefferson Lab Home Page |
User/International Liaison Office
]
content by User Liaison Office
maintained by webmaster@jlab.org
updated October 7, 2010
|
