1. Kick-off Objectives according to TIK The main objective of the kick-off meeting is to confirm the mutual understanding of the Scope of Work specified herein, including the applicable specifications. In particular the partners shall: Present and review the project plan, schedule and work breakdown structure (the baseline proposals), Introduce the key resources and team members, Review the risk register and establish an agreed prioritization of risks Complete the milestone definition list Make a technical presentation of the proposed solution, Present management plans as applicable. The participants shall take the minutes of the meeting and record the action items. 1

2. ESS Project Team, Project Management Communications Reporting Risk Management 2

3. WP Organization Chart 3 Work Package Manager Moderator & Reflector Systems Daniel Lyngh Work Unit Lead Engineer Moderator & Reflector Plugs Marc Kickulies Anders Olsson Calc Markus Andersson CAD Matteusz Pucilowski CFD Work Unit Lead Engineer LH2 System Jesper Ringner Lead Engineer Cryoplant John Jurns Prof. Hans Quack Support Teams: Target Station John Haines PM Eric Pitcher (dep.) Shielding & Physics Gunther Mührer GL Neutronics Luca Zanini GL Alan Takibayev Konstantin Batkov Esben Klinkby Materials Yong Joong Lee Monika Hartl Target Safety Systems Linda Coney Planning Anders Ingels Cryogenics Phillip Arnold Support Teams: Target Station John Haines PM Eric Pitcher (dep.) Shielding & Physics Gunther Mührer GL Neutronics Luca Zanini GL Alan Takibayev Konstantin Batkov Esben Klinkby Materials Yong Joong Lee Monika Hartl Target Safety Systems Linda Coney Planning Anders Ingels Cryogenics Phillip Arnold

4. Communications Contracts, Schedule, Finance, Change Requests->WPMgr Technical queries, tests, interfaces, regulations etc ->WULE Document Approval, Respective WULE + WP MGR – Top Level Drawings/Documents – Interface Drawing/Documents – Procurement Specifications/Datasheets – Test Procedures – Etc. 4

5. Communications Technical Queries – JIRA – Requests for Neutronics analysis – Request for interface information/Agreements Document Transmittals – CHESS CAD Models – Ennovia/CHESS 5

6. Status meetings A status meeting shall be held every month during the whole duration of the project. Status meetings may be held at the ESS or partner’s premises or over the telephone/video conferencing facilities available. The purpose of the meeting is to review progress, risks, review/decide on change requests and discuss upcoming activities and potential challenges. The Partner is responsible for carrying out the SoW in a timely manner, fully in accordance with the time schedule referred to above. The Partner shall provide a written progress Monthly Status Report at least 3 working days in advance of the meeting. The Parties shall take the minutes of the meeting and record the action items. 6

7. Split Scope of Work Responsibilities Neutronics Analysis (LZ) – FZJ provides models, ESS returns radiation/streaming/heat data Lifetime Assessments (YY) Ortho-Para Catalyzer Project (YY) – Catalyzer type and sizing Control System – LH2 System and Plugs (not cryoplant) Remote Handling Systems – Interface at Wire connection Cryoplant – Engineering and expediting 7

8. JIRA Purpose? Communication follow up of actions – Technical queries – Follow up of actions – Reminders of things to be done later or now – Archive of closed discussions/actions – Priorities Who? ESS: Daniel, Jesper, Marc, John etc Juelich: Yannick, Marcel, Hans? How? JIRA Training session – Slides Dashboard 8

9. JIRA 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. Monthly Status Report Achieved actions past period (technical description) Meetings held Change status proposed/issued/agreed Planned actions coming period Resources update Risk update Progress Plan Update To be issued by Wednesday after the last Sunday of the month. 13

14. Proposed meeting/reporting schedule 15/16 Report DatePreliminary Meeting Date 2015August2/9-154/9 10:00 Skype/Vidyo September30/95/10 Lund October4/106/10 10:00 Skype/Vidyo November2/127/12 Juelich December30/124/1-16 10:00 Skype/Vidyo 2016January3/28/2 Lund February2/34/3 10:00 Skype/Vidyo March30/34/4 Juelich April27/429/4 10:00 Skype/Vidyo May1/67/6 Lund June29/61/7 10:00 Skype/Vidyo 14

15. Other Meetings Bi-weekly meetings with Neutronics team vidyo/phone, Luca to propose time. 15

16. Risks Management 16 IdEventCauseImpactActivityRisk owner 52 Problems to weld Cold and thermal moderator tanks in planned aluminium alloy. Same for PBW Welding issues due to material properties Design not being possible to weld Party to do welding not skilled or competent to do the type of welding Redesign of moderarot vessels at a late stage or potentially that several tanks will need to be welded before one can be produced correctly. WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP4 Monolith SystemsDaniel Lyngh 53 Problems with routing of collinear pipes for MR systems Design of pipes too complicated Routing of piping into monolith impractical Difficult requirements on insulation of pipesRedesign of piperouting and pipes. WP8 Physics, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector SystemsDaniel Lyngh 31 Moderator reflector systems performance does not meet expectations from the scientific users NSS is not clear on their interface requirements on WP3 Neutronic simulations are not correct Concept cannot be translated into a practical engineering designProject delay, cost increase and bad will. WP8 Physics, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems Günter Muhrer 37 Unacceptable ortho fraction in the liquid hydrogenUnder-sized ortho to para hydrogen converter Varying performance of the moderator and therefore the scientific results of the data are questionable WP8 Physics, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems Günter Muhrer 33 Late changes in functional requirements for building requiring re-design.Late baseline change requestsRework, schedule delays and higher costs WP5 Fluid Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP1 Management and Administration, WP2 Target Systems, WP7 Controls, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP8 PhysicsJohn Haines 6 Lack of design progress (simulation/optimization time and prototyping) Poor communication within the project or towards inkind partners Poor overall design integration within target Poor alignment regarding design and requirements/limitations between Target and other ESS projects Delays in building up staff resources while waiting to align staff with in-kind partners Late design changes that cause increased cost and delay WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP7 ControlsJohn Haines 2 The target project scope is split into many independent items Drive to involve in-kind partners, who may be interested only in small pieces of our scope Unnecessarily complicated interface management and considerable delays WP4 Monolith Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP7 Controls, WP2 Target SystemsJohn Haines 22 Failure to define coherent project goals and sufficient interface requirements Lack of timely decisions Lack of processes Mismatches between different projects or between work packages in the target project WP5 Fluid Systems, WP7 Controls, WP8 Physics, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP1 Management and AdministrationJohn Haines 4 Some components do not meet technical or quality requirements Quality lacking from specifications Poor collaboration with suppliers or InKind partners Design changes entailing increased cost and schedule delays WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP7 Controls, WP2 Target Systems, WP4 Monolith SystemsJohn Haines 19 We do not get the in-kind partners we would like to use in time Poor planning/strategy Lack of reaching out to potential partners Poor planning prior to meeting partners Lack of influence on ESS top level strategy Preferred partner is not able to contribute to TS Use of additional time for interaction between in-kind personnel and ESS, which leads to shortage of resources and delays. WP4 Monolith Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP1 Management and Administration, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector SystemsJohn Haines 20 Difficulty securing in-kind contribution partners causes schedule delays Inability of some institutes to participate in direct discussions on potential in-kind efforts (at the direction of their governments) Some systems are not attractive to research institutes, e.g. bulk steel shielding, water cooling systems,... First choice options not possible, having impact on quality and schedule WP2 Target Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP6 Remote Handling SystemsJohn Haines 16 EDD's show unexpected results, either bringing the basline aproach or the EDD into question Poorly prepared EDD's (validity, purpose, detailed planning) Simulation and databases used not sufficient Late design changes, causing schedule delays and cost overruns Wasted budget if EDD is inadequate or proven to be useless WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP7 Controls, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP8 Physics, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP6 Remote Handling SystemsJohn Haines

17. 46 Schedule delays associated with underperformance in 2014 work will not be recoverable Slower than planned hiring Slower than planned securing of in-kind partners Decsion on moderator concept delayed to harness huge performance gain Failure to meet critical milestones such as first-bem-on-target and Target Project Completion WP8 Physics, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP7 Controls, WP2 Target Systems, WP1 Management and Administration, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP5 Fluid SystemsJohn Haines 50 Reliability and availability requirements impact component costs The reliability for the Target System is set to 99.99% and availability 99%. It is difficult to estimate reliability and maintenance durations for first-of-a-kind components such as those planned for much of the Target Station. High availability and reliability requirements can impact component costs. WP2 Target Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP7 Controls, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP4 Monolith SystemsJohn Haines 25 Lack of supplier base hinders a good quote Insufficient support from procurement Late start on suppliersPossible higher cost and schedule delays WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP7 Controls, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP6 Remote Handling SystemsJohn Haines 8 In-kind partners do not deliver full scope or on time Lack of clarity in in-kind agreements Lack of involvement with and oversight of in-kind partners Inappropriate selection of in-kind partners to perform the stated scope Exceeding budget, delaying schedule and/or lower quality or performance (technical scope) WP4 Monolith Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP2 Target SystemsJohn Haines 9 Roles, responsibilities, accountabilites, and authorities definition not clarifiedLack of communications from ESS and Target management Creating inefficiency and lack of motivation within the project WP8 Physics, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP7 Controls, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP1 Management and AdministrationJohn Haines 51 New design ideas during final design threaten the time schedule. The design concept provided to the In-Kind Partner needs to be elaborated during the Final Design. During this elaboration there is a risk that major modifications are suggested. Major modification to the concept design can cause aditional design work that threatens the time schedule. WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP5 Fluid SystemsJohn Haines 36 Inadequate budget identified for Target Station scope Budget and schedule is fixed Cost estimate made early in the design TS cannot deliver according to stakeholders expectations WP5 Fluid Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP7 Controls, WP2 Target Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector SystemsJohn Haines 3 Licensing frame for ESS target station is not well defined, or is changed Lack of regulatory framework for ESS type project in Sweden The external safety requirements (SSM) are changing after PDR impacting TS in an unanticipated manner. Licensing requirements modification requiring re-design WP8 Physics, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP7 Controls, WP2 Target Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP5 Fluid SystemsJohn Haines 32 The system testing and integrated systems test phases are too short before "hot" commissioning Insufficient project planning and underestimation of execution time for cold commissioning test phase.Project delay, cost increase and bad will. WP5 Fluid Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP8 Physics, WP1 Management and Administration, WP7 ControlsJohn Haines 42 Incompatible controls or missing controls or additional/unplanned responsibilities for TSS Improperly understood or defined interfaces between Target controls-ICS Gaps, double coverage and/or inability to understand interface(s) WP7 Controls, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP2 Target SystemsLinda Coney 43 Early information transmitted to CF is wrong. Early construction requries information to be transmitted to CF before the Target Station design is fully matureHigher cost, schedule delays. WP7 Controls, WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP8 Physics, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP2 Target Systems Magnus Göhran 10 Raw materials (Steel, W, Be) market price fluctuation might be unfavorable at the point of purchase No supply strategies for raw materials Poor timing in placing orders Cost increase. Opportunity: Thorough market development and strategic procurement can reduce costs WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP2 Target Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems Rikard Linander 34 Solution for the open monolith situation is not suitable or too challenging. Requirements for an open monolith situation are unclear or too conservative (unrealistic) Failure to meet specification. Operations and maintenance cost as well as maintenance schedules are higher/longer than expected. WP3 Moderator and Reflector Systems, WP6 Remote Handling Systems, WP5 Fluid Systems, WP4 Monolith Systems, WP2 Target Systems Rikard Linander 17