C75 Project and Implementation Review

→ US/Eastern
TL 1227

TL 1227
Charles Reece (JLab), Joseph Preble (Thomas Jefferson National Accelrator Facility), Ken Baggett (Jefferson Lab), Matthew Bickley (Jefferson Laboratory), Rong-Li Geng (Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility), Sarin Philip (Jefferson Lab)
Description

The C75 project represents a change in the CEBAF gradient maintenance program, requires significant lab resources and its success is a critical aspect of the CEBAF Performance Plan (CPP, JLAB-TN-17-022) as well as the Nuclear Physics 12 GeV program. The C75 project draws on the direct NP resources of the Accelerator and Engineering division, as well as indirect resources to support procurement for the project and any required changes in the power and cooling infrastructure.

This review is called by the Director of Accelerator Operations to address the charge elements listed below. The committee shall provide immediate assessment in the form of a verbal out-brief (with supporting presentation slides) at the conclusion of the review. A final written report is to be submitted to the Director of Accelerator Operations within two weeks of the review. This report will be public and will be distributed to the Laboratory Directorate as well as Accelerator and Engineering Division leadership.

  1. Charge 1

    Does the proposed C75 system meet the requirements as defined in the CEBAF Performance Plan?

    • Will the C75 module, RF controls and power deliver an integrated gradient of 70 MeV in GDR mode?
    • Will the tunnel installation and commissioning of up to two C75 systems per FY allow for 37 weeks of CEBAF operation?
    • Is the system design robust, reliable and maintainable? Is the proposed system consistent with a 20+ year 12 GeV CEBAF program?
  2. Charge 2

    Is the C75 system specification document complete?

    • Are the cavity<->RF controls/power interface parameters clearly defined?
  3. Charge 3

    Are the resource requirements for the C75 system comprehensive and appropriately defined?

    • SRF resources,
    • Eng. resources,
    • Facilities resources
    • Operations resources (Software, commissioning support,…)
  4. Charge 4

    Have the project risks been identified and addressed?

  5. Charge 5

    Is the presented project organization and management appropriate?

    • What additional controls if any should be implemented?
Slides