[Dsg-rich] Fwd: CLAS12 Experimental Readiness Review - Final Report (fwd)

Tue Jan 3 16:01:51 EST 2017

Dear Tayler, dear all,
in order to answer to Eugene's request, I would be glad to have an
update on the status of the OSP in preparation or awaiting approval:
the one about RICH operation in the Hall and the one about RICH 
mechanical assembling. The one about RICH commmissioning in EEL-124
will follow as closely resemble the first one.
Thanks a lot, Marco.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 09:28:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>
To: silvia <silvia at jlab.org>, Raffaella De Vita <raffaella.devita at ge.infn.it>,
     Marco Battaglieri <battaglieri at ge.infn.it>,
     Marco Contalbrigo <mcontalb at fe.infn.it>, Valery Kubarovsky <vpk at jlab.org>,
     DEFURNE Maxime <maxime.defurne at cea.fr>, Stephan Aune <saune at jlab.org>
Cc: Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org>, Daniel Carman <carman at jlab.org>
Subject: Fwd: CLAS12 Experimental Readiness Review - Final Report

Happy New Year everyone! I hope you had great holidays.

Now back to CLAS12 business. 
CLAS12 ERR which we had in December wen well. The next step before we get green light to take
beam in February for KPP run is to pass Accelerator Readiness Review (ARR) next week. As part of
this review we must respond to the recommendations of ERR.

As far as the ancillary equipment is concerned none of it will be installed for the February run
but must be ready by the fall run.
Most of the recommendations of the ancillary ERR were completed but some are still in a
progress.Therefore we still need to include responses to the remaining 6 items, see pages 11-12
of the attached ERR report. Please write a few sentences in response to the recommendations
relevant to you system.
We need this tomorrow.

Thanks,

-Eugene

________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stepan Stepanyan" <stepanya at jlab.org>
To: "Eugene Pasyuk" <Pasyuk at jlab.org>
Cc: "Daniel Carman" <carman at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 8:34:12 AM
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: CLAS12 Experimental Readiness Review - Final Report

Hi Eugene,

Please coordinate drafting the responses to the ancillary equipment
recommendations with appropriate parties.

Thanks, Stepan

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
Fwd: CLAS12 Experimental Readiness Review - Final Report
Date:
Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:31:30 -0500
From:
Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org>
To:
Youri Sharabian <youris at jlab.org>, Maurizio Ungaro <ungaro at jlab.org>, Cole Smith
<lcsmith at jlab.org>, Mac Mestayer <mestayer at jlab.org>, 'boiarino at jlab.org' <boiarino at jlab.org>,
Daniel S. Carman <carman at jlab.org>, Eugene Pasyuk <Pasyuk at jlab.org>, rmiller <rmiller at jlab.org>,
Yuri Gotra <gotra at jlab.org>, Volker Burkert <burkert at jlab.org>, Valery Kubarovsky
<vpk at jlab.org>, Nathan Baltzell <baltzell at jlab.org>

Dear all,

Happy New Year!

As we discussed before, we must respond to the ERR recommendations before ARR,
meaning by the end of this week. Attached is the final version of the ERR committee
report (it is also available on ERR wiki). Please go over the recommendations of your
system, and send me and Daniel Carman few sentences response by tomorrow eob.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Regatrds, Stepan

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
CLAS12 Experimental Readiness Review - Final Report
Date:
Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:46:21 -0500
From:
Elton Smith <elton at jlab.org>
To:
Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org>, Patrizia Rossi <rossi at jlab.org>, Daniel Carman
<carman at jlab.org>
CC:
elton at jlab.org, Eugene Chudakov <gen at jlab.org>, christy at jlab.org <christy at jlab.org>,
dedward at jlab.org, 'hovanes at jlab.org' <hovanes at jlab.org>, David Gaskell <gaskelld at jlab.org>,
David Lawrence <davidl at jlab.org>, satogata at jlab.org, Brad Sawatzky <brads at jlab.org>, Vashek
Vylet <vylet at jlab.org>, jennifer at jlab.org <jennifer at jlab.org>, Ed Folts <folts at jlab.org>, Javier
Gomez <gomez at jlab.org>, Laura Gonella <laura.gonella at cern.ch>, Volker Burkert
<burkert at jlab.org>, Rolf Ent <ent at jlab.org>

Dear Stepan,

Thank you for your feedback on the draft report. We have made 
appropriate changes to the draft as indicated below. Find attached the 
final report.

Sincerely,
Elton Smith for the Review Committee.

Elton Smith
Jefferson Lab MS 12H3
12000 Jefferson Ave STE 4
Newport News, VA 23606
(757)269-7625
(757)269-6331 fax

On 12/16/16 1:42 PM, Stepan Stepanyan wrote:
> Dear Elton and the review committee members,
>
> Thanks again for very constructive and helpful review. We fully accept 
> all your
> recommendations outlined in the draft report and working towards 
> addressing
> them. We will have a separate reply on the recommendations before ARR 
> review.
>
> In the mean time, regarding the corrections, we have 2 minor things on 
> your
> comments (on top of what Daniel Carman sent separately).
>
> Firs is the comment #8 for the slow controls. Yes, it is true buttons 
> to delete alarms
> do exist. But if unauthorized user will try to use it response will be 
> "insufficient
> permissions". That restriction is on the level of the alarm database, 
> and no alarms
> can be deleted by the normal user. So, we propose to remove this comment.
Thanks for the clarification. We have removed this comment, but added a 
finding #6 summarizing the access.
>
> The second is the comment #1 of the beamline. We propose to change 
> requirement
> of having collimator position tied to FSD, to have it interlocked to 
> the tagger magnet
> PS and have alarm on it, as it is noted in comment #2 for Radation.
> While we agree it is important to have proper position of the 
> collimator at give beam
> delivery setup, we think it is incorrect to insert collimator position 
> in FSD. We will have
> interlock/alarm system on the position but we do not want to trip the 
> whole machine if collimator is not on the right position. There is FSD 
> input from our halo counters that
> will trip the beam if halo rates will become unacceptable due to 
> incorrect position and
> that itself will resolve the issue. There is no danger to any 
> apparatus from incorrect
> position of the collimator. Besides, this "plug" is a 3.9" in diameter 
> and even it will be
> bit misaligned it still will work.
We agree that an interlock is a better solution to the problem and we 
have reworded the comments in the beamline and Radiation sections 
accordingly.
>
> Best regards, Stepan
>
> On 12/9/16 5:13 PM, Elton Smith wrote:
>> Dear Patrizia, Stepan and Dan,
>>
>> Please thank everyone that participated in the review for all the 
>> effort that went into preparing for the CLAS12 ERR. It made the 
>> review process go smoothly and hopefully will benefit everyone involved.
>>
>> Find attached the Draft Report. Please pass it on to the system 
>> owners that participated in the review. We welcome any factual 
>> corrections before we issue the final report. Please provide feedback 
>> by next Friday, December 16.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Elton Smith for the Review Team
>>
>>
>>
>> Elton Smith
>> Jefferson Lab MS 12H3
>> 12000 Jefferson Ave STE 4
>> Newport News, VA 23606
>> (757)269-7625
>> (757)269-6331 fax
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CLAS12-ERR-report_final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2019940 bytes
Desc: 
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/dsg-rich/attachments/20170103/55c2df48/attachment-0001.pdf>