Review of TDR Chapter 10 “ Upgradeability ”

1. Review of TDR Chapter 10“Upgradeability” • Staffan Näsström • with thanks to • F. Plewinski, G. Trehern, P.Henry, B.Fredriksson

2. FINDINGS - 1 • General Findings: • There are two categories of changes to the baseline: options(i) that would facilitate future upgrades rather than preclude them and • future upgrades(ii) that do not require any facilitating measures to the baseline design. • A list of (i) and (ii) is missing from section 10.1. “introduction” • Text will be added to 10.3.4 “Irradiation” and 10.3.5 “Ultra cold neutrons” • Some references are lacking (Marked with ??) • The chapter is well written and provides many practical/non-speculative suggestions as to how to extract the maximum amount of Neutron Science from the ESS facility over it's lifetime. The focus on expanding the Science potential of ESS is correct (GT) TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

3. COMMENTS - 1 • This chapter might have either potential positive or negative effect for ESS depending of the wording in the TDR (SN,PH) • There should be more than two categories of possibilities when it comes to describing upgrades (SN) • Each section is contributed by the relevant division – science, accelerator, target, CF, etc. It is a little lacking in coherence in this draft and interfacing on common upgrade subjects (PH) • Needs to be checked for consistency and English as it is clear each section has been written by different nationalities (PH) • Section 10.1 Introduction • The opportunities to be described in the chapter are not identified (PH) TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

4. COMMENTS - 2 • Section 10.2 Neutron Science • High reliability mode should be stressed – it would have a significant impact on the type of science that ESS can excel at and is an interesting option.(PH) • Feeding several instruments from a single beamport will add capacity and may need to be expanded upon as to how it would be implemented and some idea as to how many beamports this could be possible for.(PH) • Increasing number of available beamports from 22 in initial design crucial to expansion capability as cannot be back-engineered – the current 5 degree option gives 48 possible beamports.(PH) • Transmitted beam use is of limited value for public instruments but could be used for testing and training purposes, which should be stressed (PH) • Second target station section suggests we are building a non-optimised source and, if we wait, we could build an optimised source with the 100 musec proton pulses. This could be a dangerous way of open up for a waiting situation (PH) • I

5. COMMENTS - 3 • Section 10.3 Target Station • This section clearly lays out possibilities and provides placemarks for extra sections. (PH) • The second target station needs to interface with 10.2 sub-editor to provide coherence (PH) • Section 10.4 Accelerator • Compressor ring(s) would require significant changes to the accelerator due to H- requirement but neutrino option is interesting for the longer term and could be stressed more.(PH) • Discussion stresses higher power options to be preferred.(PH)

6. COMMENTS - 4 • Section 10.5 CF • There is little in this section giving specific examples of upgrade paths, just provision of extra capacity. That will no doubt be stressed in chapter 7(PH) • The ESS signature building would provide added value how? If this is suggested then it must be described in a few sentences (PH) • There is no mention of the on-going computational needs for neutronics that will be required at the facility, and especially for studies of upgrade possibilities. ESS must plan for this expansion either at DMSC or elsewhere. (GT) • The impact of cost objectives on the TDR is on-going. We should remember to return to this upgrade chapter and review it for impact (GT) • Section 10.6 Conclusions • To be re-written in the next draft

7. 1. Does the chapter meet the requirements of the TDR Mission Statement? • Yes, globally. However, it would benefit a lot in the conclusion of a distribution of options proposed according: • cost criteria (the one to be paid now and the one to be paid once the upgrade is decided) (FP)

8. 2. Does the chapter adequately cover the entire area of its topic? • This chapter is quite complete. • It should mentioned nevertheless: • Non scattering usages of ESS are only complete for “neutrino factory” and planned (for v3 for UCN and irradiation ports) though others shall be mentioned, such: • irradiation beam ports for various type of radiations (from high energetic protons, to fast and epithermal neutrons, gammas etc…) • isotope production (technological usage or medical usage) • … • In addition, these activities could be potential source of funding. (FP)

9. 3. Is the content relevant to supporting the decision to proceed to construction? • Yes, as it can be decoupled. • No, as it doesn’t put clearly what kind of “additional reasonable effort” it would worth to ask for future.

10. 4. Is the content of the chapter properly balanced in length and in the depth of detail? • This shall be homogenized: some parts are much more detailed than others (from numbers to general ideas).

11. 5. Does the chapter adequately address interfaces to other related systems described in other chapters? • Most of the necessary interfaces affected by the potential upgrades are listed, non-consistently along this chapter, which reflects the effort put to this TDR from each division.

12. 6. Are there duplications or inconsistencies within the chapter, and/or between related chapters? • Yes • E.g irradiation beam ports are mentioned in Chapter 3 “Target Station” • Have not gone through all the TDR to track inconsistencies.

13. 7. Does the chapter adequately address all phases of the ESS life cycle? • Not really, to have a complete assessment of potential upgradeability, we shall list: • effort requested during design phase, • additional costs for manufacturing and installation (commissioning of the “baseline” does not seem to be impacted by options for future upgrade) • estimate the duration of R&D and the duration of shutting down the facility (user point of view) to upgrade it (included new “ramping up” period) • have a brief opinion of impact of decommissioning phase.

14. 8. Are risks and potential risks properly addressed and handled? • R&D efforts for each options are difficult to estimate but could be relatively ranked in between them.

15. 9. Are there some especially positive features that should be promoted and strengthened for the construction phase, and which would improve the TDR if emphasized more? • The following positive point shall be emphasized: • ESS has lots of potential for improvement.

16. RECOMMENDATIONS • Define more alternatives for upgrades (Internally) e.g.- Upgrades independent of Baseline Design- Upgrades/options that take advantage of the technical development without any additional change or costs in Baseline Design- Upgrades/options that through wise requirement settings result in no extra costs in Baseline Design- Upgrades/options that through wise requirements settings result in minor extra costs in Baseline Design- Options that effect the Baseline Design with extra costs and major changes (SN, BF)Harmonize the wording of the introduction and conclusions and separate clearly the different kind of options (SN,GT) • Write the chapter in a way that does not give readers the opportunity to utilize the content to postpone decisions or avoid taking decisions (SN,PH) • Introduce the information in the text that systems engineering work is about to start to pave the way for upgrades by setting the requirements wisely for the whole facility (SN, BF) TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012