Accelerator Project Mats Lindroos Head of Accelerator May 19, 2015

Accelerator News The annual review of ESS went well, see next slides ESS will become an European Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) with the target date for transition set to 1 September 2015 The decision on when and how ESS transits to the ESS site will be taken in the coming weeks Work has started on an ES&H manual for ESS, please give input to Lali A publication Board for the ESS accelerator collaboration is being set in place, details to follow by mail and at the next TB by John Weisend 2

Accelerator Technical performances 3 Design Drivers: High Average Beam Power 5 MW High Peak Beam Power 125 MW High Availability > 95% Key parameters: ms pulses -2 GeV mA peak -14 Hz -Protons (H+) -Low losses -Minimize energy use -Flexible design for mitigation and future upgrades Spokes Medium β High β DTLMEBTRFQLEBTSource HEBT & Contingency Target 2.4 m4.6 m3.8 m39 m56 m77 m179 m 75 keV 3.6 MeV 90 MeV 216 MeV 571 MeV 2000 MeV MHz MHz The scope contingency for the accelerator project consists of the RF sources and installation costs (after 2019) for the high beta-part of the linac The fully equipped cryomdoule for the high-beta linac are IK contributions and are not part of the scope contingency. The infrastructures needed for the construction of these are only available during ESS construction.

Accelerator Selected technologies ESS ADPARTNERS

Accelerator Division 2015 Mats Lindroos Head of Division BEAM PHYSICS Håkan Danared – GL Mohammad Eshraqi – Deputy GL Renato De Prisco Ryoichi Miyamoto Marc Munoz Christine Darve Yngve Levinsen SPECIALIZED TECHNICAL SERVICES John Weisend II – GL Wolfgang Hees - Deputy GL Frithiof Jensen Anton Lundmark Evangelia Vaena Matthew Conlon Georg Hulla Walter Wittmer CRYOGENICS SECTION Philipp Arnold – SL Xilong Wang Jaroslaw Fydrych John Jurns Xiaotao Su (50%) Ali Farsian VACUUM SECTION Peter Ladd – SL Marcelo Juni Ferreira Hilko Spoelstra Giobatta Lanfranco RF Anders Sunesson – GL Morten Jensen - Deputy GL Rihua Zeng Rafael Montano RF SOURCES SECTION Morten Jensen – SL Chiara Marrelli Rutambhara Yogi Stevo Calic POWER CONVERTERS SECTION Carlos de Almeida Martins – SL Göran Göransson BEAM INSTRUMENTATION (Incl. Safety, 3p) Andreas Jansson – GL Thomas Shea - Deputy GL Benjamin Cheymol Irena Dolenc Kittelmann Hooman Hassanzadegan Lali Tchelidze Cyrille Thomas Hinko Kocevar Maurizio Donna Viatcheslav Grishin Michal Jarosz (oPAC) Charlotte Roose (oPAC) Luigi Esposito Duy Phan INTEGRATION David McGinnis - GL Stephen Molloy – Deputy GL Eugene Tanke Nikolaos Gazis Håkan Danared – Deputy Head of Division John Weisend II – Deputy Head of Acc Projects David McGinnis – Chief Engineer Lali Tchelidze – Safety Steve Peggs (C) Caroline Prabert - Personal Assistant Gunilla Jacobsson - Divisional Planning A. Solveig Aas - Team Assistant ENGINEERING SECTION Stephen Molloy – SL Aurélien Ponton Enric Bargalló Edgar Sargsyan Inigo Alonso 58 employees ( ) New staff during 2015 in orange G.Jacobsson

High Level Master Schedule There are many “close critical path” in the project, notably RFQ, DTL, Cryomodules and RF systems

EVM Graph Behind Schedule (small variance for SV) & Under Budget 31/12/201331/12/201431/01/201528/02/201531/03/201530/04/2015 Earned14,709,40131,902,07234,081,19536,218,38139,725,51941,555,714 Actuals14,709,40132,562,93034,878,61235,533,40837,955,48939,250,707 Scheduled14,709,40132,457,79034,162,00637,255,02640,061,04942,620,253

EVM Graph - Comments Schedule variance = Earned Value – Planned Value The schedule variance from Jan to Apr 2015 (-1,1 M€) is mainly due to: -0,6 M€  due to delay in CPI/Thales prototyping design, 704 System for Uppsala Test Stand (WP08) M€  some fluctuation split in all the RF System WP due to some detailed re-plan introduced for the annual review (WP08). This has no impact on the final delivery date or on the beam delivery milestone M€  minor slippage and delays (WP’s 16, 17) and need for minor replanning activities (WP’s 15, 16). Behind Schedule (small variance for SV) Behind Schedule (small variance for SV)

EVM Graph - Comments Cost Variance = Earned Value – Actual Value The cost variance from Jan to Apr 2015 (+2,3 M€) is mainly due to: +0.9 M€  Cost variance due to no actuals for In Kind work. Will be fixed next month (NCFE WP03) +0.4 M€  Late invoices from CNRS (Spoke WP04) +0.7 M€  Late invoices from CEA (Elliptical WP05) +0.5 M€  Effect of re-planning of Vacuum and Beam Delivery system (WP12 and WP06) +0.7 M€  Effect of re-planning of Beam Instrumentation (WP07) +0.2 M€  Salary fluctuations in the whole Project -0.7M€  Invoice from Uppsala University received in April for period Jan- Mar resulting in adding -185 k€ to the CV last month for Test Stands (WP10) -0.4 M€  Some discrepancies due to invoices for on-going 2014 contract booked on the old PCC i.e. WP8 at the place of WP17 (Power Converters WP created on Sept 2014) Under Budget

Accelerator – Overview of ESS Procurement Plan 21 procurements identified – 1 procurements <200,000 EUR – 20 procurements >200,000 EUR 10 CablingRF systems CryogenicsVacuum Power converters The Table doesn’t include procurements done by in- kind partners Additional procurement for interface regions (<200 k€) will be added as soon as in- kind negotiations are completed

Annual review, General recommendations Very positive, impressive progress since We have now a real project with the right atmosphere. ESS is now a rolling machine, which will reach its target. ESS is defining also for future projects how to deal with in- kind. A very impressive progress in this area. Schedule is very tight, but not impossible. More than 100 people have joined ESS in the last 12 months. Technical problems are finding solutions We are seeing an increase in the amount of detail to deal with (this is very positive!!). Operation begins to be an integral part of the overall project. 11

Annual review – Accelerator 1 TOP 10: Expedite as much as possible the formal design review process across ACCSYS: both the horizontal WP reviews and the vertical integrated system reviews. In addition, consider adding a safety and QA rep to the design review committee and tracking all actions post-review until completion. We endorse the established process of the so-called Vertical Reviews followed by Critical Design Reviews. Ultimately, the goal is to get all requirements for IK contributions established and TAs signed before the end of this year. TOP 10: "Get your hands dirty!" -- the ESS/AD should start establishing some technical credibility and developing the technical workforce by getting their hands on relevant hardware systems as soon as possible. We endorse the so-called "Blinky Light Test", the rf test stand and the opportunity of early integration of the ion source, its control system and the beam diagnostics. Also, the Uppsala test stand should be used as an opportunity to train staff. 12

Annual review – Accelerator 2 Add risk assessment and risk impact to the overall risk register. This will help focus on the high impact risks and also provide an assessment of the adequacy of the 50M€ scope contingency. Add risks with positive impacts to the registry. For example, the new modulator topology under development may save costs. Another example is the proposed use of large-grain Niobium sheets for cavity fabrication. Consider writing the Technical Addenda at a high level while referencing the ACCSYS DOORS requirements database. 13

Annual review – Accelerator 3 Consider the following to optimize ACCSYS organization for executing a large science project – Review the authority of the Work Package Leaders to ensure it is adequate to successfully execute their scope of work – Employ centralized common project tools across ESS (Lund and in-kind partners) to minimize to the extent possible the institutional boundaries between ESS partners. – Liberally use telecons to improve communication and coordination amongst all the ACCSYS institutional partners. – Add a high-level ESH person to AD. The AD Head should be able to delegate some of his functions to this person. For example, procurements of hazardous materials, such as compressed gas cylinders. Also, this person would help AD Head to review and approve various AD activities, e.g. test facilities operations start. 14

Annual review – Accelerator 4 Investigate options to improve the commissioning plan (and schedule) particularly as it applies to the low energy front end. Review the ACCSYS spares policy and strategy. Some of the proposed spares may be spares needed for manufacturing, not for operations. We think that they should completely separate the diagnostic and the interlock functions of the BLMs. The hot cooling water should be seriously evaluated. It seems that this idea has many caveats, including risk for personnel accidents and shorter lifetime of expensive components, such as klystrons. We doubt that it is really environmentally friendly. 15

Reserve slides 16

Control Change Boards (CCB) & control flow for ACCSYS 17 ESS governance ESS Board / STC CEO / ESS CCB ACCSYS Mngt Team CCB-A CCB-B CCB-C’ via ACCSYS (deputy) Project Leader weekly minutes, actions & ACCSYS Control Log via CEO status report at meeting, ACCSYS Control Log ACCSYS TB Collaboration board CCB-C reports delegates, approves ACCSYS Project Leader via EPG and through CEO Quarterly 1-2/year via ACCSYS (deputy) Project leader