1. Hydrogen System Update Video Conference 19 th January 2012 S Watson

2. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Outline i.Introduction ii.Safety Review outcome iii.Current progress + photos iv.Next 6 months 2

3. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Introduction –Steve Watson –Took over from Matt Hills in October 2011 –Current Hydrogen System team is: –Steve Watson – work package manager (100%) –Phil Warburton – controls, electrical and safety (50%) –Mike Courthold – cryogenics and safety (20%) –Stef Holland – mechanical design (3 month placement, 50%) –Nigel Sage – mechanical design (2 month contract warrant) 3

4. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Safety Review outcome Recommendations –Director-level safety responsibility –Prof David Wark, RAL PPD –Tertiary containment –Argued our original stance that secondary containment plus elimination of ignition sources is acceptable –Safety Integrity Level re-assessment –Current undergoing review of assumptions to downgrade to SIL 1 –Fire strategy –Fire strategy needs review to improve prospects of saving equipment in event of a fire 4

5. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Current progress 5 Purge gas bottle store Hydrogen bottle store Gas panel Transfer line Test cryostat Pump enclosure Vent system Turbo pumps

6. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Test cryostat 6

7. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Gas panel 7

8. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Valve frame and hydride bed 8

9. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Hydrogen bottle store 9

10. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Vacuum pipework 10

11. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Purge gas bottle platform 11

12. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Next 6 months - schedule –February/March- Helium verification testing - Review actions completed -April/May- Hydrogen testing -15 th May- Hydrogen testing completed -May/June- Decommissioning of R&D system - AFC integration commences 12

13. C&S Review 12 th October 2011 Next 6 months - risks –Manpower restrictions/key staff availability –Operational expertise needs to be developed urgently –Commissioning has been slow due to manpower restrictions –Safety review recommends major design changes before R&D testing can commence –Rejection of tertiary containment argument would result in major schedule upheaval –Fire procedure review may require unforeseen expenditure to protect plant –Hydride bed –Existing model may have deteriorated during storage, manufacturer defunct –Potential new suppliers have been identified but discussions at very early stage 13