SAD/ASE Lessons Learned

A Safety Re-Assessment at Jefferson Lab

in Accordance with DOE-O-420.2B

Phil MuttonAugust 13, 2008

Background

• 2002 Current version Rev 5 (ASE is included in JLab FSAD)• 2005 Accelerator Safety Order (ASO), DOE-0-420.2B

– 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– 2nd draft: accident scenarios tabulated and controls

identified, but scenarios and controls not well “connected.” ASE basis (rationale) incomplete

– 3rd (hopefully final) draft: review in progress

FSAD Revision 6

• Follows guidance in ASO guide, DOE-G-420.1-2• 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

ASECredited 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 6Are 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