Fusion Engineering and Design 58–59 (2001) 925–932

European Union ITER (EU-I) balance of plant design andcost reduction

Felix Alonso Zabalo a,*, Tren Fisher b

a IBERTEF, (Empresarios Agrupados), C/Magallanes, 3, 28015 Madrid, Spainb NNC, (Booths Hall), Chelford Road, WA 1680Z Cheshire, Knusford, UK

Abstract

The design and cost reduction study develop a conceptual site layout, building and plant system design for thereduced cost ITER (EU-I). This new EU-I conceptual design, that is not a scaling down of the FDR, is used toperform a cost estimate. The study has been focused on the design aspects that may result in the best potential costsaving. The scope covers the site layout, Tokamak Building and BOP system such as study state electrical power, heatrejection, liquid distribution, hot cell and waste treatment. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: EU-I; ITER; Generic site; Hot cell system; Waste treatment

www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes

1. Introduction

Once the ITER FDR review concluded, the EUFusion Plan concentrated on the growth of a newdesign, EU-I, aiming for half cost reductionfactor.

To achieve it, target areas for cost saving wereidentified. Balance of plant buildings and systemswere cost relevant items. EFET perform a costreduction study on layout, building and systemsdesign.

The purpose was to develop a conceptual de-sign for the EU-I balance of plant (BOP) (sitelayout, buildings and plant systems) for the re-duced-cost EU-I as a first design step to the ITER

FEAT machine. The design and performance datafrom reduced technical objectives/reduced costEU-I Tokamak machine was used as basic inputfor the balance of plant conceptual design.

The main objectives were:� Rationalise and simplify site layout and opti-

mise land use.� Optimise building space.� Potential relocation of space and equipment.� Reduce building (Tokamak) embedding.� Reduce tools performance and system

downsizing.� Highest use of standard and trade equipment.

Design aspects that may result in future costsavings have also been considered.

As a result, thought of a different conceptualdesign of plant balance for the EU-I, was devel-oped rather than scaling down the ITER FDR inthe design. A cost estimate for the balance ofplant was calculated.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-91-309-8053; fax: +34-91-591-2655.

E-mail address: faz@empre.es (F.A. Zabalo).

0920-3796/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S0920 -3796 (01 )00583 -X

F.A. Zabalo, T. Fisher / Fusion Engineering and Design 58–59 (2001) 925–932926

2. Site layout analysis

The EU-I site layout comprises the following:� Separation and segregation of functions and

systems for safety, operation and maintenancereasons as well as housing in the same buildingsystems and components with similarrequirements.

� Optimisation of movement of personnel foroperator access and maintenance, including re-mote handling and dismantling.

� Provision for Tokamak assembly operation,site fabrication of large components and con-struction access on site.

� Capacity for accommodation of future systemand component expansion, as well as the possi-bility of deferring systems and buildings for fullDT (deuterium– tritium) plasma-pulsed andsteady-state operation.

� Economic optimisation of cables, pipe runs,circulating water, tunnels and galleries to theminimum practical length.

� Simplification, downsizing of components andcentralisation of BOP systems that result inreduced building layout.The resulting overall site layout proposed for

EU-I is shown in Fig. 1.For comparison purposes Fig. 1 shows the site

layout dimensions for EU-I, against ITER RTO/RC and FDR EDA in dotted lines.

The EU-I site layout proposed requires an areaof land of approximately 101 000 m2 in compari-son with 323 000 m2 of ITER FDR and 175 010m2 for RTO/RC ITER.

The proposed site layout for EU-I is based on ageneric site with a fairly flat topography in theenclosed area. Geological and hydrological condi-tions have not been considered during this phase.Site seismicity is assumed to be below the limitwhere seismic isolation bearings would be re-quired to protect the Tokamak from large seismicforces.

The proposed layout should allow adaptationto local site conditions without major changes. Ingeneral, and in accordance with the FDR concept,the electricity network and switchgears are as-sumed to be on the west side and the cooling sink(tower and basin assumed, but could also be lake,

river, etc.) on the east side. The administrative,scientific and technical support and the visitor andpersonnel access area are located in the southpart. Maintenance, heavy loads, assembly anddismantling, and radioactive waste disposal accessare on the north side. The building arrangementproposed is based on a Tokamak island thatallows the relocation of this concept, complyingwith requirements of local conditions. The exter-nal BOP buildings and tunnels are interconnectedin such a way that they can be easily adapted todifferent host country conditions.

Land use and construction have been opti-mised, considering that the assembly and opera-tion phases, and particularly the DT phase, arenot concurrent and some systems and buildingscould be deferred.

The site allows the expansion of systems whichmay be required in the future such as the hot cell,radwaste, cryoplant cold boxes, cryoplant com-pressors and magnet power conversion buildings.

To optimise costs, a more compact layout thanthe FDR layout has been proposed for EU-I. TheTokamak island concept has been used. This com-pact design is proposed to reduce the cost ofbuildings and optimise construction. In addition,shorter distances will also reduce system costs.This will allow the system centralisation andtherefore a reduction of the number of compo-nents, as well as shorter distances for pipes, ca-bles, tunnels, etc. As a result, electrical andmechanical losses (voltage drops, pressure drops,heat losses, cryogenic losses, etc.) will generate anadditional collateral benefit.

A star configuration has been chosen, consider-ing the Tokamak Building as the centre point. Inaddition, the buildings which constitute the Toka-mak island concentrated most of the auxiliarysystems and services, facilitating both integrationand segregation of functions. Following this crite-rion, the tritium and vacuum systems located inthe tritium building are on the east side, togetherwith the cryoplant services (near the tritium build-ing). The electric power and conversion systems,which include the plasma heating equipment, areon the west side, to facilitate the interfaces withthe electrical termination area of the TokamakHall. The services and control building that

F.A. Zabalo, T. Fisher / Fusion Engineering and Design 58-59 (2001) 925–932 927

Fig

.1.

F.A. Zabalo, T. Fisher / Fusion Engineering and Design 58–59 (2001) 925–932928

houses the auxiliary services (cooling water, ser-vice air, chilled water, etc.) is located to the southof the Tokamak hall below ground level. Thecontrol room, system diagnosis, technical supportroom and viewing room are located in the samebuilding, above ground level. All these areas arebasically clean areas. The radioactive systems andcontrolled areas are basically on the north side,where the hot cell and radioactive waste are lo-cated, directly connected by corridors to theTokamak Building, in order to reduce the dis-tance between Tokamak and the maintenance anddismantling rooms. The access and control build-ing of the controlled area is located on the north–east side.

3. Tokamak building design strategy

The proposed Tokamak Building general ar-rangement reflects the following design strategies:� Recognition of the research and development

function of the project. Consequently the lay-out will enable future additions in systemcapacity.

� Building columns are positioned to providebest access to ports and provide clear circum-ferencial navigational route around theTokamak.

� The Tokamak Building is designed for deliveryof assembled VV/Tokamak segments from theVV assembly area located immediately to thenorth. The Tokamak segments will be deliveredto the cryostat pit from above, using the maincrane.

� The arrangement is such that future construc-tion for Tokamak repair or decommissioningcan be achieved.

� Radiologically controlled areas will need to bedeveloped so that they have a clear confi-nement/shielding boundary, in order to facili-tate maintenance, remote handling, HVACdesign, access control, and personnel exposure.

� To reduce costs it is proposed to excavate thenuclear island site to a common level, with theTokamak Building being less deeply embeddedthan previously for FDR. The commonlevel allows access from other buildings. The

routing of services is simplified and kept to aminimum.

� The building is designed to withstand a seismicevent (horizontal ground motion of 0.2 g(TBC)). Seismic isolation from adjacent build-ing has been considered.

� Selected areas of the building are able to with-stand internal overpressures.

� The building interior provides adequate clear-ways for movement of the maintenance casksand cask transporters.

� The building provides the necessary shieldingand segregation to safeguard personnel againsthazards and conditions during machine opera-tion and maintenance.Figs. 2 and 3 show two sections and a represen-

tative elevation of the Tokamak building.In order to minimise resultant seismic loads it is

good practice to embed the building. However, toreduce excavation costs the divertor port vaultfloor level is aligned with ground level.

This results in the need to excavate—14 mbelow basemat.

Although there is a need to house a number ofsupport systems in the various vaults, it is theinteraction of the Tokamak size and its mainte-nance at the divertor, equatorial and upper portvault levels that determines the overall width ofthe building.

Above the upper vault the crane hall width isdetermined by the initial build requirements i.e.installation of VV segments. Consequently, accessto the cryostat pit is required. The hook approachrequires the crane hall to be somewhat wider thanthe cryostat pit, based on the layout it is conve-nient to make the crane hall width common withthe port docking inner corridor diameter.

The overall width of the building is 62.7 mreducing to 45 m at the crane hall.

The NBI cell is located at the north end of thebuilding. The NBI cell is extended beyond theequatorial port access corridor to allow NBImaintenance casks to access the injector sourcemodules.

The crane hall will be extended to envelope theNBI area.

The overall length of the building is 78.133 m.

F.A. Zabalo, T. Fisher / Fusion Engineering and Design 58–59 (2001) 925–932 929

4. Plant systems

4.1. General

The conceptual design of the EU-I BOP sys-tems proposed hereinafter is the result of a designand cost optimisation analysis of the FDR. Thebasic criteria for the design proposed has beendownsizing, simplification and centralisation. Thishas a dual effect: lower cost of BOP system itselfand less volume of the housed building which alsoreduces the building cost.

4.2. Steady state electric power networkconceptual design

The Steady State Electric Power Network(SSEPN) provides electric power at requiredvoltages to all electrical loads of systems, compo-nents, buildings and site of the EU-I plant, exceptfor magnet and auxiliary heating loads.

The SSEPN is constituted by three main sys-tems: the Switchyard, Power Distribution Systemand Emergency Power Supply.

The proposed design simplifications are:

Fig. 2.

F.A. Zabalo, T. Fisher / Fusion Engineering and Design 58–59 (2001) 925–932930

Fig. 3.

� Approximately 50% in power reduction foreach transformer, number of short-circuit reac-tances and number of plant power factor com-pensation capacitors.

� Single control building for the 400 and 220 kVswitchyard.

� Reduction of the number of plant Medium andLow Voltage Load Centres.

� Reduction of the number of cables.� Diesel generators have been reduced in number

and power rate from four 11 kV units to three6.1 MVA units

� A single switchyard comprising both 400 and220 kV sections with a single commonbuilding.

� Four MV switchgear buses instead of eight(four pairs).

4.3. Heat rejection system

The Heat Rejection System (HRS) integratesthe Circulating Water System (CWS) and theCooling Tower System (CTS). The main functionof the HRS system is to remove the heat from theblanket primary first wall, director/limiter, neutralbeam injector, chemical and volume control, com-ponent, cooling water, chilled water and cryoplantcompressors.

The main areas proposed for simplification areas follows:� Both systems (CWS and CTS) have been sized

for a capacity significantly lower than requiredfor FED ITER.

� The number of circulating water distributionlines is reduced due to centralisation of servicesand less cooling loops in client systems.

F.A. Zabalo, T. Fisher / Fusion Engineering and Design 58–59 (2001) 925–932 931

� The configuration proposed for the EU-I re-quires two penstocks, one distribution pen-stock, from the CTS to the service building,and one return penstock from the service build-ing to the CTS. In the FDR design two pairs ofpenstocks are required.

� The number of cooling towers has been re-duced from 3 to 2. The arrangement of the cellsin each tower allows heat load modularity andeasy expansion for DT phase.

� The number of pumps for each CWS subsys-tem has been optimised taking into account theoperational requirements during HD and DTphases and enabling sufficient performance incase of unavailability due to pump singlefailures

4.4. Liquid distribution systems

The liquid distributing system comprises thecomponent cooling water, chilled water, steam,condensate, demineralised fire protection water,sanitary sewage water.

The proposed design for these systems focussedon downsizing, centralisation of services and sim-plification. The number of components and loadshas been considerably reduced from the FDRdesign. Pipe lengths and layout between compo-nents has been reduced as much as possible.

4.5. Hot cell system

The main components to be inspected and re-paired inside the Hot Cell are divertor cassettesand blanket modules, ICH modules, ECH mod-ules and plugs.

The main activities in the Hot Cell are dustcleaning, tritium removal, decontamination, leaktesting, storage and maintenance, waste process-ing and HVAC.

A considerable reduction in the number ofcomponents to be inspected and repaired has beenestimated so an equivalent reduction in the hotcells and service systems may be accomplished.

In addition, auxiliary systems such as wasteprocessing and HVAC system has beendownsized.

In accordance with the new hypothesis, theHot Cell building can be reduced from approxi-mately 244 000 m3 for the FDR down to 112 000m3.

It is proposed to align the different floor levelsof the hot cell building with the levels of theTokamak Building to allow easy transportation ofcasks.

4.6. Waste treatment

The low level waste processing system has beendesigned in the EU-I for an annual quantity valueof approximately 3300 m3 per year. This is aconsiderable reduction from the FDR (�50%).

Owing to the low waste volume and treatmentfrequency expected, it is not advisable to havepermanently installed treatment equipment in thewaste building for sporadic operations, such asspent ion exchange resin dewatering (once peryear), spent filter cementation, dry solid wastecompacting or slightly contaminated oilincineration.

Instead, a truck bay will be available in thebuilding (with enough room for at least threetrucks) which will accommodate the necessarymobile plants for each treatment campaign. Thiswill not only constitute cost savings within thebuilding itself and the equipment, but will alsoprovide the state-of-the-art technology for thespecific waste to be solidified.

For the above reasons the EU-I radwastetreatment system and building is of a differentdesign and substantially reduced from the FDRdesign.

5. Cost analysis

The estimated cost for the EU-I has been calcu-lated based on the revised system and buildingsconceptual design developed during this work.The cost is estimated considering the current vol-umes, sizes, performance, quantities, etc. of thesystems and buildings, not by scaling down thecost of the FDR or IAM machines.

It has also been assumed that the design, mate-rials, fabrication, construction and testing (com-

F.A. Zabalo, T. Fisher / Fusion Engineering and Design 58–59 (2001) 925–932932

missioning) of the EU-I will proceed from Eu-ropean Community countries.

In sum, it can be said that the cost reductiontarget has been accomplished. Some costs areabove the target plus (deviations) such as steadystate, etc. However, the cost estimated is wellbelow the target in the case of certain buildings(some facilities have been centralised in one build-ing) and systems such as hot cell and radwaste.The reduction from FDR ITER is summarised in

the table entitled EU-I Balance of plant EU-ICost Reduction.

During the study, a certain number of topicshave been found to be vulnerable to design opti-misation/improvements or to require further anal-ysis in order to confirm the data proposed in thestudy. For this reason future engineering effortsare suggested. The current ITER FEAT designhas already advanced and improved some of theseareas.