Machine Advisory Committee Charter

Introduction

The Advanced Photon Source (APS) Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) is charged with providing advice on the commissioning and operation of the upcoming APS-U accelerator as well as advising on the technical design and R&D activities related to the accelerator systems and insertion devices.

The MAC reports to the Associate Laboratory Director (ALD) for Photon Sciences and meet at least once a year.

The APS is entering a critical period of construction with the upgrade of the storage ring, new feature beamlines and enhanced beamlines. The MAC is asked to assess whether the APS-U accelerator program is on a successful path. The goal of these meetings is not to duplicate specific APS-U project reviews but rather:

  • Assess the quality of the commissioning plan and its execution
  • Review progress during the transfer from APS-U to operations (TTO) and identify bottlenecks that may compromise performance.
  • Advise on follow-up actions that will help drive reliable operation at the conclusion of the APS-U project. 
  • Identify risks at the interface with other related activities and projects
  • Review final machine performance with respect to specifications 

 

The Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) will review the APS-U accelerator program, over the following four phases: 1) the period prior to the APS-U dark time; 2) the APS-U dark time removal and installation period and commissioning of systems without beam; 3) the initial APS-U commissioning with beam period required to achieve the project’s threshold KPPs, transfer to operations (TTO); and 4) the post TTO period when the new accelerator is further developed to reach objective KPPs and enters into full operation for users. 

Beyond APS-U, the MAC will generally advice the ALD on all technical designs and R&D activities related to the accelerator system and insertion devices, including periodic reviews of the strategic plans in this area. 

 

Membership 

  • A MAC Board will consist of 10-15 members, comprised of the individuals listed below. 
  • MAC members, including a Chair, will be appointed by the APS ALD and will sit for a minimum term of three years. 
  • Appointed members (from a diverse array of accelerator disciplines), serving staggered three-year terms, are renewable at the discretion of the APS ALD.

 

Responsibilities

  • Provide advice on the technical direction and execution of the APS accelerator program, Including it’s relationship to the APS-U project.
  • Evaluate the overall performance and future plans of the APS accelerator program leading up to and after completion of the APS-U project.
  • Assess impacts of changes in accelerator performance and design on the scientific direction of the APS.
  • Assist the APS with development of policies and strategic plans related to accelerator operation and development, as appropriate.
  • Submit a written report to the APS ALD and designees that includes comments and recommendations derived from each MAC meeting.

Charge specific to APS-U and TTO

The MAC is asked to consider the following particular aspects of the four phases of accelerator activities described above.  The specific charge for each meeting will emphasize aspects of the phases at hand or soon to arrive but plans related to later phases, likely to be less developed, will be presented for early comments. 

Regarding phases 1 and 2 (pre-dark time and dark time):

  • Is the APS accelerator refurbishment planned by Accelerator Operations (including RF power, ASICs, Linac, etc.) sound?
  • Are the activities planned by the APS Accelerator Operations groups, including future accelerator technology developments, appropriately prioritized, scheduled and integrated with APS-U activities? 
  • Is the plan for commissioning APS-U systems without beam sufficiently well developed?
  • Are preparations for the Accelerator Readiness Review (ARR) sufficiently well planned and carried out?
  • Are the Accelerator Operations and project resources sufficiently well identified and secured for these phases of activities?
  • Other as appropriate.

Regarding phase 3 (pre-CD-4 commissioning with beam and transfer of project systems to operations):

  • Is the commissioning with beam plan for the accelerator well developed and does it sufficiently account for Radiation Safety-related tasks (i.e. radiation surveys, etc.)?
  • Are the plans for commissioning beamlines sufficiently well understood and integrated into the accelerator plan?
  • Is the process for transferring new accelerator systems to operations well enough defined and documented? 
  • Are the Accelerator Operations, Radiation Safety and project resources sufficiently well identified and secured for these phases of activity?
  • Are accelerator operating modes during phase 3 sufficiently defined and communicated to APS staff and users?
  • Other as appropriate.

Regarding phase 4 (post-CD-4 operation):

  • Is the APS-U accelerator performance (beam quality, reliability, etc.) acceptable?  Are there areas that require improvement and further development? Are accelerator-related activities appropriately prioritized? 
  • Are the APS-U accelerator operating modes and their progression following commissioning sufficiently defined and communicated to stakeholders, including users?
  • Are the concepts for future accelerator technology development appropriate?  Are there other areas that should be considered?
  • Other as appropriate.