1. WU1 - Management S. Gammino (INFN)

2. WU1 Management and TDR preparation: overview and criticalities 2 The WP6 aim is to define the best design of the Warm Linac: 1)Ion Source and LEBT 2)RFQ 3)MEBT 4)DTL 1,4 are under INFN responsibility (LNS+LNL) 2 under CEA-IRFU, 3 under ESS-Bilbao

3. WU1 Management and TDR preparation: overview and criticalities 3 - Increase of beam brightness - How and where to chop the beam - Is the present 5 m long RFQ too long? - MEBT options (no MEBT, short MEBT like now, longer one incorporating chopper and/or collimation) - Finalizing the DTL structure - Need for collimation - Diagnostics

4. Ion Source 4 Well established know-how is available at INFN- LNS and at CEA-IRFU, but the team able to do that in Saclay is strongly engaged in other projects and the role in Ion Source design and construction will be a minor one. The possibility to use the CEA testbench for specific tests will be defined in the next months. Beam brightness: tests have shown that it is feasible Reproducibility: not a problem Ripple: 2.5% is close to the best value Stability: 2.5% to be checked over 3 months

5. Ion Source 5 Criticalities: major problems with manpower, room availability and funding from INFN (to be recognized as in-kind contribution), need to learn more about SCC and halos Additional manpower not available in 2011, INFN staff members not available full time for ESS, minor contribution from PhD students. Status: one post-doc hired in March, a second one will arrive in September, a technician will arrive after a selection (expected in October), no problems for manpower during P2B phase.

6. RFQ 6 Well experienced team in Saclay, but engaged in other ongoing project (IPHI, IFMIF,…). The involvement in these projects is a problem, but it guarantees important basis (contact with companies, availability of similar expertise…) Problems: thermomechanical calculations resulted to be more complex than expected, the evaluation of a shorter RFQ (requested from the Tech. Adv. Committee) is not straightforward and only preliminary answers are available.

7. RFQ 7 Criticalities: a standardized file for beam distribution from the source is not yet available, need to have a good matching to RFQ, human resources are not always available when needed, thermomechanics is an issue to be defined ASAP, brazing procedures are not impossible but still a criticality (until done), delay in IPHI tests (spring 2013?). Status: analysis of the different length will be completed (hopefully) before the deadline of the second version of TDR

8. MEBT 8 Matching RFQ-DTL, diagnostics, final chopping are the major duties of the MEBT. Criticalities: This part has been heavily changed in the last 6 months, so the major need is the stabilization of the design, with ICD and optimization of the drawings Status: well defined, with requirements document available, a decision for the components to be built in the P2B phase is to be taken after the drawings and costing are available

9. Drift Tube Linac (not in the scope of AIR) 9 A major change of requirements occurred, with the increase of the transition energy from Warm Linac to SC Linac. The DTL studies done at INFN for similar problems have been useful in the ADU phase. Criticalities: Similar to Ion Source & LEBT, major problems with manpower, staff members involved in other projects, funding from INFN, additional problems may come from sinergies with CERN, not yet established Status: will be presented during the second day, to give a complete view of the WP6 progress

10. TDR preparation 10 Some changes to the first version of the Technical Design Report are necessary and the comments of AIR reviewers will be decisive for such update. Indeed the documentation that was forwarded one week ago is valuable as guideline for the TDR. The technical drawings which are in preparation will complete the TDR. The time lapse needed for the technical drawings seems still long, but considering that some technical decision are not yet confirmed (e.g. for the RFQ), it is evident that during the summer, the pressure on the technical drawings staff will be increasing

11. Comments 11 It seems that the achievements asked by the ADU phase can be accomplished provided that a boost in manpower availability is obtained for the last 6 months. For beam production and low energy transport, the need of extensive tests was clearly requested by the TAC, being reasonable the chosen solution and achievable the goals. Some key aspects for RFQ and DTL are questionable and TAC has placed some question marks, AIR may help to solve them by looking in details. MEBT progress is the most relevant, but technical aspects are to be checked.