1. ESS RFQ PROJECT RISKS Anne-Catherine CHAUVEAU 14 January 2016

2. Identification Rating Pre- Mitigation Disposition Rating Post- Mitigation Risk ID Risk Label LevelTreatmentMitigation Strategy / main actionsLevel ("As a result of...")("There is a risk that...") Organization / Specific managerial aspects M1ERIC finalisation Unknown admistrative process with potential impact on-going call for tenders and schedule 32 MAJOR Mitigation Mitigations at management level (see Management RR) 16 MAJOR M2Time schedule reduction Procurement financial offers should be higher than expected 32 MAJOR TransfertAdditional cost to be transfered to ESS M3 Time schedule reduction of RFQ contract No single manufacturer able to sustain the schedule constraint 32 MAJOR TransfertDelay to be tranfered to ESS M4 Time schedule reduction of RFQ contract Auxilairies + Tuner + couplers contracts nor reaching RFQ contract on target time (from schedule point of view) 64 SEVERE Mitigation Set sub-critical contracts as priority in order to put them outside the critical path : ressources allocations, special adlinstrative procedure, pre- selection of bidders. Close follow-up of adminstrative durations 32 MAJOR M5 Time schedule reduction > End plate final assembly no RF tested (only dummy finger tested) End plate RF specification not achieved (with final components) 16 MAJOR Transfert Delays and additional cost to be tranfered to ESS M6 Time schedule reduction > No final vacuum system integrated and tested @ Saclay Vacuum system performance not reaching its specifications (RFQ vacuum integrity still tested ) during validations at Saclay 16 MAJOR Mitigation Delays and additional cost to be transfered to ESS if issues arise after shipment. 16 MAJOR M7 Time schedule reduction > No final vacuum control system integrated and tested @ Saclay Vacuum control system not reaching its specifications during validations at Saclay 16 MAJOR Mitigation Mitigation : Vacuum CS partially tested on 1 or 2 sections Transfert : Delays and additional cost to be tranfered to ESS to correct problem after shipment 8 MINOR M8 Time schedule reduction > Cooling system FAT only, no SAT (leak test, skid performance test) Cooling system performance not reaching its specifications during check-out at Saclay 32 MAJOR Mitigation Mitigation : Water loss of pressure simulations in FAT (new in contract), Transfert : Cooling system assembly and leak test to be performed directly by ESS / Delays and additional cost to be tranfered to ESS to correct problem after shipment 32 MAJOR M9Only partial tests at sacaly More manmpower needed in Lund to finish CEA contribution 32 MAJOR Mitigation Change contract approach (with limitation in ressources according to intial cost) + all correcivtes cost to be supported by ESS => Cost & fee 32 MAJOR M10 Accelerator System team not stabilized. Engineering process not stable External RFQ interfaces not frozen in due time (CDR2) to finalize Tech Specs 64 SEVERE Mitigation CDR2 before manufacturing with high priority interfaces specification. Interface specification reviewed both by CEA and ESS 8 MINOR No mitigation  With the tight schedule, final end plates will not be tested in Saclay Mitigation : Water loss of pressure simulations in FAT Issues discovered in Lund will take longer to solve Cooling system performance not reaching its specification first time Auxilairies + Tuner + couplers contracts not reaching RFQ contract on target time (from schedule point of view) Procurement financial offers should be higher than expected because of shorter manufacturing time No single manufacturer able to sustain the schedule constraint of 20 months More CEA manpower needed in Lund to finish CEA contribution. Overcost Set sub-critical contracts as priority in order to put them outside the critical path (ie: tuner prototype) No mitigation  WP2: ESS RFQ RISKS LIST (PAGE 1) | PAGE 2 Change contract approach with limitation in ressources according to intial cost and correctives cost to be supported by ESS

3. Identification Rating Pre- Mitigation Disposition Rating Post- Mitigation Risk ID Risk Label Level Treatme nt Mitigation Strategy / main actionsLevel ("As a result of...")("There is a risk that...") Individual components performance C1Beam Dynamics design issues … RFQ RF design does not match the all the performance requirements 32 MAJOR Mitigation CDR0 has reviewed all design topics / Qualification plan / Bead pull / 16 MAJOR C2 Peak power very high, design based on SP2 under installation, Couplers not reaching specifications (800 kW) 64 SEVERE Mitigation The couplers will be tested on the test cavity / One coupler spare / Additional windows spares / Qualification plan (progressive steps) 32 MAJOR Procurements P1 Not enough applicants, over cost from tenderers, bad tendering process tenders process not conclude in due time 32 MAJOR Mitigation Anticipate as much as possible call for tenders even if specifications are not completely defined. The markets are closely followed. 8 MINOR P2 Several company to deliver the auxiliairies parts, technological challenges (SS/Cu brazing), process qualification to reach, manufacturing schedules slippage Auxiliaries parts (esp. RFQ ports) to brazed delivered too late to RFQ manufacturer 32 MAJOR MitigationClose follow-up of manufacturers, Enhanced QA4 MINOR P3 Manufacturing workload and internal bad arbitration from the manufacturer RFQ manufacturer late delivery32 MAJOR Mitigation Define precise steps with the manufacturer to follow process dates We will request frequent meetings with manufacturer to follow process. Higher delivery penalties / incitations Market survey (Industry proper selection) 16 MAJOR P4ESS issues Vacuum and its control system not delivered on time by ESS 16 MAJOR Mitigation Enhance communication with vacuum and control teams. If possible, the pump used for all anticipated tests during prototyping and RFQ assembly will be identical to the final pumps in order to prove mechanical adjustment. Send 3D to vacuum team ASAP 16 MAJOR Manufacturing process MP1 Bad behaviour of materials during brazing, senstive and new process for the selected company Difficulties to perform RFQ sections brazing 64 SEVERE Mitigation Check brazing experience prior to tender approval / Follow up process during manufacturing / Brazing process qualification / Cu Spare parts / Brazor expert is working with us to help on and follow brazing procedure. 16 MAJOR MP2 Difficult manufacturing process (ceramic window brazing …) No manufacturing acceptance of Couplers (leaks, conditioning barriers, …) 64 SEVERE Mitigation One coupler spare + Manufacturing process with validation steps (NOT considered in current risk analysis : 2 or 3 spares in option / pre-serie qualification inc conditioning / Contract provisions) 32 MAJOR Acceptance A1RF archs damaging critical parts of the cavityRFQ compromised during conditioning64 SEVERE Mitigation Progressive RF power ramp / Cleanliness cautions during manufacturing and assembly at Lund / RF expert for conditionning 16 MAJOR One coupler spare + Manufacturing process with validation steps. The couplers will be tested on the test cavity. Manufacturing process issues for the couplers (ceramic window) Couplers not reaching specifications because peak power is very high WP2: ESS RFQ RISKS LIST (PAGE 2) | PAGE 3

4. | PAGE 4 PROJECT RISKS SUMMARY No “RED” level risks after mitigation Most risks concern the time schedule as it contains no margin. Most critical technical part is the coupler because it is a complex part and the power required is very high. RISKS LEVEL BEFORE MITIGATION RISKS LEVEL AFTER MITIGATION

5. Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives Centre de Saclay | 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex T. +33 (0)1 69 08 xx xx | F. +33 (0)1 69 08 99 89 Etablissement public à caractère industriel et commercial | RCS Paris B 775 685 019 | PAGE 5 CEA Saclay/Irfu projet ESS | DATE