1st IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop

– 1 –

Limited Distribution

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

WORKING MATERIAL

Report of the 3

rd IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop

University of Science and Technology of China (USTC)

Hefei, China

11-14 May 2015

Reproduced by the IAEA

Vienna, Austria, September 2015

NOTE

The Material in this document has been supplied by the authors and has not been edited by the

IAEA. The views expressed remain the responsibility of the named authors and do not

necessarily reflect those of the government(s) of the designating Member State(s). In particular,

neither the IAEA nor any other organization or body sponsoring this meeting can be held

responsible for any material reproduced in this document.

– 2 –

Executive Summary

The third IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop was held 11-14 May 2015 on the campus of the

University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, China. The Technical

Programme Committee was chaired by Prof. Takeo Muroga of the National Institute for Fusion

Science in Japan, and the local arrangements were made by the Institute of Plasma Physics of the

Chinese Academy of Sciences (ASIPP), under the leadership of Prof. Xiang Gao. This

workshop, like the previous workshops in this series, was organized around three topics. The

overall aim is to understand the required programmes and facilities needed to resolve scientific

and technical issues leading to fusion energy demonstration, and to identify opportunities to

make greater progress through international collaboration.

Under Topic 1, Contribution of Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing the Gaps, participants

discussed ITER and a set of planned integrated devices intended to take significant steps beyond

ITER in fusion nuclear science and technology. The expected accomplishments of ITER are well

understood internationally and its contributions to DEMO physics, technology, and programme

planning were clearly presented. Next-step machines currently being studied by several ITER

partners would clearly make important advances going well beyond ITER, but the degree to

which they would close gaps toward DEMO readiness will need to be quantified as these plans

mature. These machines themselves have readiness gaps, especially for their later phases, for

which R&D is necessary in the near term. Plans for closing these gaps need to be clarified.

Under Topic 2, In-Vessel Systems and Engineering, the discussion focused on the heart of the

fusion reactor, the in-vessel systems. More so than in present facilities, high availability is a

prominent consideration in the design of fusion machines, requiring careful strategic decision-

making in the early phases of plant configuration development. Reliability requires having a

materials properties data base for relevant conditions, and designing with ample margin to be

robust against damage and synergistic effects in the harsh fusion in-vessel environment. Remote

maintenance is a key design driver of tokamak architecture requiring care to, for example, ensure

adequate space for in-vessel piping, decouple primary functional requirements, and be able to

access auxiliary systems without dismantling. Participants found that the step beyond ITER will

require innovation in the plasma scenario and in-vessel systems, including the divertor hardware

configuration, and the materials and technology of plasma facing components.

Under Topic 3, ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO, participants considered the

relationship between the ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) projects and long-term blanket

development needs for DEMO. The ITER TBM programme provides a unique opportunity for

blanket development to take advantage of the, as of today, single facility with environmental

conditions and constraints closest to those of DEMO to be available in the near future. Yet, it is

equally clear that very large extrapolations are required for many significant design parameters,

for example tritium breeding rate, neutron dose, coolant and liquid mass flow, and extracted heat.

Blanket designs must necessarily evolve so the main contribution of the ITER TBM experiments

will be to generate a data base that can be used as a benchmark for the validation of modelling

tools needed for DEMO design. The ITER TBMs will produce data on important aspects such as

MHD effects, neutronics, tritium generation and transport, and electromagnetic forces. In order

to derive benefit from these results, however, it is essential to develop modelling tools that can

be used with similar confidence both at ITER TBM and DEMO conditions. While a significant

– 3 –

effort will be required in order to develop these, the activities for development and

benchmarking is an area in which international collaboration can be very useful.

In addition six Special Topics presentations were carried out on updates of roadmap planning,

next-step facility designs and R&D in some nations, and special investigations on DEMO-related

issues. They are (1) status of Chinese next generation facility CFETR, (2) DEMO conceptual

design approach in EU, (3) New Japanese DEMO strategy report, (4) IFMIF-EVEDA and the

vision of neutron source, (5) Fusion safety with consideration of fission regulations, and (6) Non-

proliferation compliance.

The workshop’s focus on DEMO science and technology highlighted some strategy issues in

view of the emerging world DEMO programme. The multiple plans for next step tokamak

reactors appear to be very similar in what they would contribute to the basis for future steps. All

might have the potential to demonstrate net electricity at some stage, but would not necessarily

go far enough in physics and technology to close readiness gaps for commercial power plants.

Supporting facilities focussing on narrower sets of issues, which might reduce technical risks for

next integration steps, are less prominent in the planning. It is not clear whether the emerging

programme is the optimum one in terms of number and diversity of planned facilities. These

circumstances prompted discussion of a possible international strategy to improve coverage of

DEMO needs that are currently under-addressed, to reduce duplication, and to be more robust

against setbacks. Given the costs of fusion next steps, there could be significant advantages in an

international strategy for planning and coordination of work.

Discussions at this and previous workshops have raised awareness of non-proliferation as an

issue that must be taken into account in fusion planning. Further dialog with experts is necessary

to understand what technical measures, e.g. monitoring of neutron radiation, gamma radiation, or

fission products, would be most effective. Prof. W. Biel (Kfz-Juelich, Germany) was appointed

as a point of contact (POC) in order to maintain the communication with non-proliferation

specialists and arrange for a progress report at the next workshop.

The Technical Programme Committee (TPC) met during the workshop to discuss plans for the

4th IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop (DPW-4), the next in the series. That workshop will be

held during 15-18 November 2016 in Karlsruhe, Germany, maintaining a spacing of about 1.5

years between meetings. Dr. Elizabeth Surrey of the UK’s Culham Centre for Fusion Energy

(CCFE) will chair the Technical Programme Committee. It was decided to maintain a strong

technical focus in the topic choice, and accordingly the following topics were suggested for

consideration by the TPC for DWP-4:

1. Tritium issues: plant-wide, including ex-vessel systems

2. Towards a DEMO Physics Basis

3. DEMO Heating and Current Drive Physics and Technology

The TPC will be responsible for developing more specific discussion questions for each topic

and to work closely with contributors in ensuring that their contributions are responsive to the

questions. The tradition of scheduling several stand-alone special topic presentations will be

continued. In planning the next workshop, the committee intends to increase the emphasis on

technical discussion leading to conclusions, with the presentations providing targeted input.

– 4 –

1. Introduction

The evolving worldwide magnetic fusion programmes are increasingly focused on developing

plans to demonstrate the production of electricity. The ITER project, which is being carried out

as a partnership among nations with large fusion research programmes- Europe, Japan, India,

China, Russia, South Korea, and the United States, is the first large step in this phase of the

fusion programme. ITER, now well into construction, will advance the physics and technology

of a power plant-scale burning plasma. Even as the partners tackle the formidable challenges of

ITER, the need to understand the scientific and technical issues for going beyond ITER, and the

need to start addressing them now, is widely appreciated. Collectively the activities to develop

solutions for harnessing fusion energy comprise a world “DEMO Programme,” even though

there is currently no single or coordinated view of the roadmap to DEMO. Against this backdrop,

the IAEA decided in 2012 to establish a series of annual DEMO Programme Workshops (DPW)

to facilitate international cooperation on defining and coordinating DEMO programme activities.

The first workshop in the series was held at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA),

U.S.A., in October 2012; the second was held at IAEA Headquarters in Vienna, Austria, in

December 2013. Here we report on the third workshop (DPW-3), which was held 11-14

May 2015 on the campus of the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in

Hefei, China.

The objective of this workshop was to discuss a subset of key DEMO scientific, technical, and

programmatic issues with the aim of defining the facilities and programme activities that can

lead to their resolution. A related aim was to identify opportunities to make greater progress

through international collaboration. In order to promote continuity in the workshop series, topics

for the next workshop (DPW-4) were determined (see Section 3 of this report).

The workshop, like the previous workshops in this series, was organized around three topics for

focussed discussion and future action, as well as a number of “special topic” presentations. The

three topics for this workshop were:

1. Contribution of Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing the Gaps

2. In-Vessel Systems and Engineering

3. ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO

The main agenda was structured with presentations and discussion on these topics, with a day-

long session of oral presentations devoted to each topic. Each session was organized in advance

by a topic chair, who then led the discussion and summarized the session in a meeting of the

Technical Programme Committee. Poster presentations addressed these as well as other topics

relevant to DEMO preparation and planning. The special topic presentations focussed on new

developments including updates of DEMO roadmap activities and planning in various parties.

Some 76 participants from 14 countries and 2 international organizations attended the workshop.

Excellent facilities and meeting support were provided by USTC.

2. Summary of Discussions

The presentations and discussions were helpful in clarifying the scientific and technical issues

within the main workshop topics and illuminated possible paths to their resolution. Here we

briefly summarize the outcomes from the discussions at this workshop.

– 5 –

2.1. Contribution of Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing the Gaps

H. Neilson, E. Surrey

A number of integrated fusion devices are now being studied throughout the world, an indication

of serious planning for fusion development steps beyond ITER. Here, we are referring to a class

of fusion facilities generally characterized by steady-state or long-pulse deuterium-tritium

burning plasmas, reactor-relevant neutron wall loads, tritium breeding, and possibly electricity

generation. The aim of this session was to consider what these machines, as well as ITER, will

contribute to closing gaps in the scientific and technical basis for fusion power plants.

Contributions of ITER to Closing DEMO Gaps

The technical basis and expected accomplishments of ITER have been developed and scrutinized

by a broad-based international community for over two decades and are broadly understood.

ITER’s main contribution to the fusion programme will be to advance the physics understanding

of a burning plasma, where alpha heating equals or exceeds external heating. In addition, ITER

will make significant progress on challenging plasma stability and control issues, including

prediction and avoidance or mitigation of disruptions and control of edge-localized modes

(ELMs). It will take a major step toward understanding the conditions for effective plasma heat

exhaust and its compatibility with high core performance.

In terms of fusion technology, as the first machine in which the consequences of using the fusion

reaction impact upon the engineering, ITER’s design and construction activities are already

making major contributions to the design of next-step integrated machines. Regarding

superconducting magnets, ITER’s structural design codes and the project’s response to issues

that have arisen, e.g., in quench protection and in the treatment of transient heat excursions,

provide a valuable legacy for the future. In power exhaust technology, ITER will help establish

the effects of long term exposure of plasma facing components to plasma, such as ion damage to

first-wall and divertor materials. To the extent that DEMO uses heating and current drive

systems similar to ITER’s, ITER will provide direct demonstrations of technical feasibility for

several key components. Finally ITER will contribute to blanket technology through the Test

Blanket Module (TBM) programme, as discussed in Section 2.3.

Programmatically, ITER provides valuable and broadly applicable experience in the approach to

engaging with the regulatory body. The experience shows that the technical design and

integration analysis should be as detailed as possible and all validation and qualifications should

be established before issuing the Preliminary Safety Analysis to the regulator. ITER will provide

a comprehensive physics and technology data base for DEMO designers to use that will support

the analysis required to satisfy the need for detail in the Preliminary Safety Analysis.

Contribution of Next-Step Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing DEMO Gaps

Several parties now have under way design and R&D efforts toward integrated devices intended

to take significant steps beyond ITER in fusion science and technology. In contrast to ITER,

these studies are national and are currently only at a pre-conceptual stage of design. Their

contributions to closing DEMO gaps can be discussed broadly but not at the level of specificity

that is possible for ITER. Information on four such devices was presented at this meeting, EU

DEMO (Europe), JAEA DEMO (Japan), K-DEMO (S. Korea), and CFETR (China).

There are both similarities and differences in mission and design among the devices. All are

tokamaks targeting long-pulse or steady state operation of a deuterium-tritium plasma and tritium

– 6 –

self-sufficiency. All are designed with low-temperature superconducting magnets and breeding

blankets using reduced activation ferritic-martensitic (RAFM) structural materials, at least in

their first phases. All incorporate provisions for efficient maintenance of in-vessel systems by

remote handling. The designs vary in major radius from about 1 to 1.5 times that of ITER and

from 200 to 2,000 MW of fusion power. Some plans envision a two-phase mission in which the

second phase would take advantage, following a complete upgrade of in-vessel systems, of

anticipated advances in plasma performance and fusion technology to increase plant

performance.

In terms of expected contributions it is reasonable to expect that all, if carried out as planned,

would make large advances beyond ITER in the technology of tritium breeding, including

blankets and tritium extraction and recirculation. All would make advances toward DEMO

availability requirements through performance of large-scale remote handling operations such as

blanket changeouts, performance of unscheduled repairs, and accumulation of reliability data on

critical components. All would make advances in plasma control, power exhaust, and plasma

heating and current drive as well. These plans thus hold the potential for impressive strides

toward a fusion DEMO by mid-century, but quantitative measures of expected progress against a

complete set of DEMO readiness metrics are needed to assess the gaps that might remain even if

all these projects were successfully carried out.

Readiness for Next-Step Integrated Fusion Machines

The next-step machines currently under consideration themselves require significant advances

beyond current knowledge and expected ITER outcomes. There are general readiness gaps for

these machines, especially their later phases, for which R&D is necessary in the near term. Open

questions exist in some key readiness issues, for example:

Readiness of burning plasma physics and control: What is needed to establish a basis for

steady-state operation?

Readiness of materials and component technologies: What are the prerequisite testing

requirements for safety case and licensing? What additional facilities, for tasks such as

material irradiation and component development, are necessary?

Availability: While all studies are addressing maintenance turnaround times through

design, what are the requirements, for example margins and ex-tokamak testing, for high

component reliability in a fusion machine?

Magnetic configuration options: tokamak, stellarator: Is the near-term readiness being

weighed against the long-term potential? With many issues in common, especially

technology, how can we advance both most effectively?

2.2. In-Vessel Systems and Engineering.

C. Waldon, T. Muroga

Providing energy from fusion is widely regarded as the prominent engineering grand challenge

of the 21st century. The difficulty in achieving this objective is illustrated in the hampered

progress as the reactor performance moves closer to that of a power plant and more of the

complexities are revealed. The problem is a truly integrated one with the competing demands

from the reactor’s constituent parts, their relational impact on one another, and the effect of

uncertainties as they propagate through the incipient Integrated Fusion Machine designs. To this

– 7 –

end the topic 2 session focused on the heart of the reactor, the in-vessel components, highlighting

some key requirements and those systems’ influence on the overall plant configuration.

DEMO is understood to lie somewhere between ITER and a "first of a kind" commercial station

but there is no clear international consensus on the exact performance. Europe has created a

stakeholders working group from the wider representative community as a pseudo client to help

formulate and prioritize the top level requirements. These have been rationalized into a set of

cardinal missions namely: Safety, Performance, and Economic Viability. Using a system

engineering methodology these top level requirements have been assessed outlining their

contextual impact on one another and as an initial indication for areas of further study in plant

configuration optimization.

The focus of the existing international operational tokamak fleet has been largely centered on the

plasma performance. The study and validation of DEMO relevant plasma scenarios remains the

priority of the immediate next generation machines, however, other influences become

prominent as the facilities approach those expected of a power generating plant. Less importance

will be placed on the gathering of plasma data and consequently power plants will not need to be

equipped with scientific diagnostics other than those fundamental to controlling the plant within

a safe working envelope. Experience has shown that some of the power plant relevant essential

requirements cannot be easily designed-in retrospectively. Design for high availability and high

reliability require deep consideration and strategic decisions in the early phases of developing

plant configuration concepts. Indeed the impact of designing for compatibility with the harsh in-

vessel environment and its associated damage and synergistic effects was illustrated in the

forecast margins for engineering design data for materials. This adds a dramatic constraint on the

design envelope and a decisive factor in the selection of in vessel concepts. With an increasing

reliance on in-situ testing supported with modest empirical data the greater the risk of failure and

therefore the tokamak designer must care for minimizing the impact of remote maintenance

intervention. Remote maintenance is a key design driver of tokamak architecture but this is not a

performance derived requirement. A K-DEMO concept was presented showing the strategic

design options selected to enhance in-vessel remote maintenance and its impact on the tokamak

and building architecture. This included increased space for in-vessel piping systems, decoupling

primary functional requirements and removal of auxiliary systems without dismantling.

Illustrating the trades and impacts from conflicting requirements and what was needed to steward

compromise.

During the wrap-up discussion for this session, it was generally accepted that managing the

exhaust of DEMO is one of the most challenging aspects of the design and that the successful

solution will have implications for the overall engineering (tokamak architecture) and plasma

scenario design. It is also shown to be a deeply integrated problem, certainly in determining

exhaust management systems that are likely to succeed. The step beyond ITER appears to

require innovation in both (a) the divertor plasma and configuration and (b) the plasma facing

components materials and technology. Speakers from ASIPP shared some of their recent EAST

experience with the upper divertor tungsten upgrade highlighting fabricated features that can

give rise to flaws and be life-limiting through reduced material performance raising the

importance of functional testing as part of the component qualification. Work continues within

China to develop better refractory material and therefore functional performance. Even assuming

unrealistic steady state conditions for DEMO, the gap between technology performance and

those compatible with the plasma scenario is still significant. The absolute upper limit for real,

– 8 –

manufacturable solutions is well short of the predicted values expected for a conventional

divertor design. Not only must this gap be closed but a significant overlap must be generated to

ensure that a resilient reactor design can be delivered. Given the wide ranging impact the power

exhaust has on DEMO much of the focus of the international community remains on bridging

this gap between the technology and the plasma operating window.

2.3. ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO

A. Ibarra, R. Kurtz

The topic of the interlink between the ITER-TBM projects and the Blanket Programmes towards

DEMO is identified in this workshop as a very important one, deserving careful analysis in order

to better understand the type of information that can be obtained from the experiments to be

made in ITER and to be used for the DEMO design. In introducing the session, topic chair A.

Ibarra (Spain) emphasized the relevance of the breeding blanket mission in a DEMO reactor and

briefly reviewed the different breeding blanket concepts being developed, as well as the different

Test Blanket Modules (TBMs) presently under development and should be tested in ITER.

The TBM experiments to be carried out in ITER are unique in the sense that ITER is the only

facility with environmental conditions (magnetic fields, thermal and magnetic gradients,

radiation field, geometrical constrains,…) closest to those of DEMO. With that in mind, the

objectives and strategies of all the six TBM designs were analyzed in detail during the workshop.

It became clear that all of them are in a very much advanced stage of design and are close to

manufacturing. On the other side, it was also clear that the different DEMO designs presently

under development will evolve with time and there is a significant probability that they will be

different from the ITER TBM designs. Moreover, from comparison of the ITER and DEMO

working conditions, it also became clear that large extrapolations (typically two or three orders

of magnitude) are required for many significant design parameters, for example tritium breeding

rate, neutron dose, He and LiPb mass flow, extracted heat, etc.

All these conclusions together clearly show the ITER TBM experiments cannot be conceived as

1:1 prototypes of a DEMO breeding blanket. On the contrary, their main role is to generate

experimental data under different working conditions that can be used as a benchmark for the

validation of modelling tools that will be used for DEMO designs.

This is a very important point that came out from the analysis of the strategy followed by all the

involved parties. The different TBM experimental phases foreseen to be tested in ITER are

linked to different properties to be validated. The ones presently identify are mainly linked to:

1) MHD effects, 2) Neutronics, 3) Tritium generation and transport, and 4) Electromagnetic

forces. Again, this conclusion is very important because it has two significant consequences:

1. In order to fully benefit from the obtained results, it is required to develop modelling

tools able to be used with similar confidence both at the TBM conditions as well as in the

DEMO ones. These modelling tools are not fully available today and a significant effort

will be required in the next few years in order to develop them. They also usually require

the use of many numerical values for physical parameters as inputs that, in some cases,

are not currently known with enough certainty.

2. If an experiment is going to be run for validation purposes, it must produce a significant

amount of experimental data with adequate time and spatial resolution for that purpose.

This means that a very significant number of diagnostics with enough precision located at

– 9 –

very different positions of the TBM are required. This is a significant challenge due to

space limitations and due to the reliability issues.

It was identified that the activities for development of the modelling tools, and benchmarking

with different experimental facilities, is an area in which international collaboration can be very

useful.

Another important aspect that came out during the workshop discussions is related to the very

significant technology expertise that has been developed for the manufacturing of the TBM

systems and will be required for DEMO. This expertise has been developed for many different

areas, for example the methodology for integration of new materials and fabrication techniques

in the Codes and Standards, implementation of regulatory rules (e.g. waste disposal, national

regulatory documents such as France’s ESPN,…) and its consequences in the design, availability

analysis, etc. This development clearly shows that the selection/ranking among different

breeding blankets alternatives cannot be made only using conceptual studies and basic R&D

results but it should also take into account other technology-related issues.

2.4. Special topics

There were six Special Topics presentations covering updates of roadmap planning, next-step

facility designs and R&D in some parties, and special investigations on DEMO-related issues.

Highlights of these presentations are as follows.

1) Present status of CFETR (Y.X. Wan)

The key milestones of the Chinese roadmap are: 1) start to construct the China Fusion

Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR) in 2020, complete the construction by 2030 (Pfus ~ 200 MW

and test of steady-state operation and tritium self-sufficiency) and upgrade it (Pfus ~1 GW,

Qeng > 1) at around 2040. It is hoped that a Prototype Fusion Power Plant (PFPP) (~1 GWe,

Power Plant Validation) can be completed around 2050-2060. The key step in the roadmap is to

design and construct CFETR. Some progress in the CFETR effort has been achieved: 1) the

conceptual design of CFETR has been completed; 2) R&D activities of CFETR via ITER CN PA

and China domestic programme are underway and are already making progress. Further working

plan of CFETR is : 1) start the engineering design of CFETR as soon as possible; 2) the proposal

for more key R&D items and the construction of CFETR should be approved by the Chinese

government before 2020. It is hoped that CFETR construction can be completed around 2030.

2) Integrated DEMO conceptual design approach in the EU (G. Federici)

The focus of the DEMO design activity in EU is on a systems engineering and design integration

approach, which is recognized to be essential from an early stage to identify and address the

engineering and operational challenges, and the requirements for technology and physics R&D.

There are some preliminary design choices/sensitivity studies to explore and narrow down the

design space and identify/select attractive design points. In the presentation, the results of a

process engaging key technology stakeholders and experts (e.g., industry, utilities, grids, safety,

licensing, etc.), initiated to establish realistic high level requirements for the DEMO plant to

embark on a self-consistent conceptual design approach, was also discussed. Finally, some initial

results of work being executed in the EUROfusion Consortium by a ‘geographically’ distributed

Project Team involving many EU laboratories, universities and industries in Europe were

described.

– 10 –

3) Japanese Joint Core Team report for the establishment of technology bases required for the

development of a demonstration fusion reactor (R. Kasada)

The joint-core team has progressed with examinations of planning for the development of

DEMO since the team’s formation in July 2013. The present report introduces a chart which

iluustrates development of all of the related programmes in a timeline and provides an overview

picture of all related processes. It is expected that the fusion-related community of industry,

education and research, and government will closely examine this chart, and share recognition of

perspectives on issues and future direction in common, which will lead to joint activity and

accomplishment throughout Japan. In particular, definition of the roadmap of the development of

DEMO, planning of research and development programmes after the Broader Approach (BA)

activities which will end in 2017, and reinforcement of joint usage and collaborating research

systems and role-sharing with NIFS and universities are anticipated as a consequence. In order to

define the roadmap of development of DEMO in future, there remain two important tasks which

the joint-team has not completed. These are socio-economic examination of fusion energy and

review of alternative approaches of helical magnetic fusion system and laser fusion system.

4) Vision of neutron source for the post BA activities (S. O’hira)

In the IFMIF / EVEDA project, realization of a stable lithium flow in the EVEDA lithium test

loop has been achieved and commissioning of the Injector of the Linear IFMIF Prototype

Accelerator (LIPAc) has been started. EU and Japan started, in early 2014, to consider the

collaboration on the post BA activity as areas of possible current cooperation, development or

enhancement of existing BA activities have been studied. In this discussion, evaluation and

discussion of the necessity to provide a new high-flux fusion neutron source, named DONES or

A-FNS, with an effective use of resources in IFMIF/EVEDA, were carried out. In Japan,

additional purposes of utilizing neutrons, e.g., irradiation of blanket test modules, medical (boron

neutron capture therapy- BNCT, production of short lifetime radioisotopes), etc. are studied.

However, it is necessary to carry out additional engineering tests for Li target/Test facility (Li

purification, remote handling tools, etc.). In the presentation, the current status and results of the

IFMIF/EVEDA project for the accelerator, target facilities individually and study of the new

neutron source in Japan and Europe were presented.

5) Aspects of fusion safety considering fission regulations (R. Stieglitz)

Fusion safety concepts rely on state-of-the-art safety concepts for nuclear installations containing

radioactive environment and are based on DiD (Defense in Depth) concept. There are similarities

and differences between safety concepts of fusion and fission. The main reasons for differences

are radioactive inventories in plants and relevant potential release paths. Plant-internal events do

not result in conditions requiring off-site evacuation. Systematic assignment of measures &

installations to the different levels of defence (as required by international fission regulations)

has to be performed once an adequately detailed design level of a FPP is attained. Safety

function “cooling” demands detailed design of in-vessel components (blanket and others) and

necessitates demonstration of safe decay (passive) heat removal. Thus development of validated

tools is mandatory. External hazards must be included in the future safety analysis. Numerous

issues, including waste management, remain open and requires adequate attention.

6) Implications of MFE compliance with non-proliferation (M. Englert)

There are several challenges that fusion technology will face with regard to its proliferation

resistance while it matures from experiment to a full-fledged energy option. Pure fusion facilities

do not require nuclear materials such as uranium under normal operating procedures, yet due to

– 11 –

their very hard and very intense neutron spectrum they hold out the potential for producing

significant amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a shorter period of time and with less source

material than with fission reactors. Also tritium is handled in amounts much larger than in a

modern nuclear warhead. Research should be conducted on the verification of absence of nuclear

material in fresh fusion blankets, during operation and after exposure; on the practicality of

source material being mixed with coolant or purge flow; on the possibility to replace pure-fusion

test blanket modules in a fusion power plant with blanket modules designed to breed special

fissionable material and on the possibility to misuse other internal components exposed to high

neutron fluence. It is important to address questions about the proliferation resistance of fusion

facilities as early as possible as adequate answers to open question will be needed in the future. It

is very important to meet the concerns of all stakeholders in a constructive and respectful

dialogue.

2.5. DEMO Programme Strategy Issues

The plans for ITER and proposed next-step integrated fusion machines represent a portfolio that

could form the basis for a world programme to achieve the goal of a fusion power plant. Viewed

from that perspective, there are important strategic questions that confront the community. It is

generally recognized that no single machine is likely to resolve all DEMO issues simultaneously

but at the same time it is not clear how many machines are needed, nor how diverse a portfolio is

optimum. There are multiple plans for tokamak reactors that, despite spanning a range in size

and fusion output, are very similar in their physics and technology bases and in what they would

contribute to the basis for future steps. All might have the potential to demonstrate net electricity

at some stage, but would not necessarily go far enough in physics and technology to close

commercial power plant readiness gaps. Supporting facilities focussing on narrower sets of

issues, such as component test facilities, fusion materials irradiation facilities, and dedicated

divertor test tokamak facilities, which might reduce technical risks for next integration steps,

have been dropped or downgraded in some of the plans. Instead, it is generally envisioned that

the integrated facilities will assume these missions. The risk management choices being

considered, e.g. acceptance of technical risk in order to minimize the time to net electricity

demonstration, are important ones for the fusion community.

These circumstances, along with the delays in the ITER schedule, prompted discussion of a

possible international strategy to improve coverage of DEMO needs that are currently under-

addressed, to reduce duplication, and to be more robust against technical setbacks and delays.

For example, a response to ITER delays might be to unload ITER of some responsibilities that

do not require its unique conditions, and seek alternative ways of addressing them. The

workarounds to mitigate the impact of delays on the overall timeline and make the best use of

available time and resources could benefit from coordinated planning approach by the whole

community. Given the costs and time spans for fusion next steps, there could be significant

advantages in an international strategy for planning and coordination of work.

2.6. Non-proliferation and fusion

The presentation by Prof. Englert on non-proliferation considerations was informative, raising

awareness of an issue that must be taken into account in fusion planning. The Technical

Programme Committee concluded that further dialog with experts in this area is necessary to

understand what technical measures, e.g. monitoring of neutron radiation, gamma radiation, or

– 12 –

fission products such as xenon or krypton, would be most effective. After discussion, it was

agreed to appoint Prof. W. Biel as a point of contact (POC) because of Kfz-Juelich’s contract on

non-proliferation issues and Prof. Biel’s strong connection to EU’s DEMO diagnostics activity.

The POC will maintain communication with Prof. Englert and arrange for a progress report at the

next workshop.

3. Plans for the 4th IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop

Following the workshop, the Technical Programme Committee (TPC) met to discuss plans for

the 4th

IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop (DPW-4), the next in the series. It was decided to

maintain a spacing of about 1.5 years between workshops, so the set dates for DPW-4 are 15-18

November 2016 in Karlsruhe, Germany.

The workshop will continue the tradition of focussing on three topics, with a one-day session

devoted to each topic, plus several stand-alone “special topic” presentations. It is planned that

each session will be organized and led by a Topic Chair and Co-chair, at least one of whom shall,

for the sake of continuity, be appointed from the “standing” members of the TPC. All DPW-4

Topic Chairs and Co-chairs shall be included in the TPC for at least DPW-4. In addition, a

representative of the European Commission will be appointed to the TPC for DPW-4. Dr.

Elizabeth Surrey of the UK’s Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE) was elected to chair the

Technical Programme Committee for DPW-4.

In considering possible topics for the next workshop, the committee discussed numerous

suggestions from members and DPW-3 participants. It was generally agreed to organize around

technically focussed topics, emphasizing working level discussions in preference to high-level

status reports, and to adhere more closely to objectives than has been achieved to date. It was

also agreed that the practice of issuing topic-specific guidance and/or questions to the presenters

in each session should be continued. However, more interaction between topic chairs and

presenters in advance of the workshop would be valuable to reinforce and encourage close

adherence to the guidance, so as to obtain input that is detailed and specific enough to enable in-

depth discussion and reaching conclusions. It is recognized that such an iterative process would

place additional burden on the topic chairs and contributors but could pay dividends in enhancing

the quality of the discussions. The Programme Committee may wish to consider this suggestion

for future meetings.

Preliminary descriptions of the selected topics for DPW-4 are provided here, but going forward it

will be up to the TPC to develop more specific discussion questions for each topic and to work

closely with presenters in ensuring that their contributions are responsive to the questions. The

DPW-4 topics are:

1. Tritium issues: plant-wide, including ex-vessel systems

Fusion systems based on the deuterium-tritium (DT) reaction face a wide set of issues associated

with the tritium fuel cycle. Tritium self-sufficiency requires that the large quantities consumed

(~60 kg per full-power year per gigawatt of fusion power), plus radioactive decay and other

losses, must be equaled by production in the breeding blankets. Tritium is extracted from the

breeder material outside the fusion core, and recirculated back to the plasma via various fueling

systems. Since the plasma is estimated to consume only a few per cent of the tritium introduced

into the plasma chamber, the rate of tritium circulation in the fuel cycle can be more than 10

times the rate at which it is being consumed. Safety considerations place rigorous limits on the

– 13 –

overall plant inventory as well as losses. Because tritium can easily migrate into and through

solid materials, highly precise behavior prediction and accounting is required for safe operation

and to determine the global breeding ratio needed to ensure self sufficiency. Present estimates of

TBR appear marginal against a tritium loss greater than 1-2%. Understanding the behavior of

tritium, and controlling its movement with specific material choices, barriers, operating

conditions, and extraction is critical. The aim of this session is to identify priorities in tritium-

related science and technology, considering both issues and research activities to resolve them.

2. Towards a DEMO Physics Basis

Plasma physics considerations are fundamental to the design of any DEMO device, affecting

such basic choices as machine dimensions, magnetic field strength, plasma heating and

sustainment methods, and materials selection. Mechanical and thermal loads to structures and

plasma-facing components are derived from design-basis plasma scenarios for both normal

operation and transients. The physics basis for DEMO can make use of much of what has been

developed for ITER, but the more demanding requirements for fusion energy demonstration will

require physics advances beyond ITER. A DEMO will require high-performance plasma

scenarios compatible with feasible material solutions and capable of near-continuous operation

for many years with minimum interruption. The harsh environment and competition for space

with breeding blankets will greatly limit the possibilities for plasma control compared to ITER

and present-day machines. The aim of this session will be to identify the main physics advances

needed to establish a basis for DEMO, and the research programmes, including ITER itself,

needed to realize those advances.

3. DEMO Heating and Current Drive Physics and Technology

DEMO plasma control requirements place stringent demands on plasma heating and current

drive systems, which must operate continuously and at a higher level of energy efficiency than is

currently achieved. The neutron environment and plasma access limitations imposed by

breeding and shielding requirements make the task especially challenging. Solutions that have

worked well in present-day experiments may not be optimum for DEMO conditions, so there is

substantial scope for innovation, of which high-field-side-launch lower hybrid, top-launch

electron cyclotron, and helicon waves are examples. Substantial advances in both the technology

and physics of heating and current drive are needed and close coupling to physics basis

development is essential. The aim of this session will be to identify the main advances needed to

establish heating and current drive solutions for DEMO, the research programmes, including

ITER and other facilities needed to realize those advances.

4. Special topics

The special topics category has been very useful for keeping participants up to date with

important developments in DEMO programme planning, and in identifying topics in need of

more in-depth treatment in subsequent workshops. Special topics presentations for DPW-4 will

be selected in the future by the TPC, however several possibilities discussed at DPW-3 may be

considered:

Materials design codes and standards (e.g. ASME) and interaction with design activities.

This is hampered by a lack of materials irradiation data. Where possible the ITER codes

could be considered where the safety classification of DEMO components is comparable to

that in ITER. A review of the cyclic softening and brittle materials rules is required. This

– 14 –

activity needs to be extended. Further progress is expected to be made and can be reported at

DPW-4.

Functional materials and degradation.

Impact of degradation on reactor performance, and readiness assessment of critical functional

materials.

Multiphysics effects in blankets, including MHD.

Important theme but difficult to coordinate topical presentations, because the target subjects

are wide. Presentations on these issues should probably be considered for inclusion in

technology topics rather than special topics.

Safety approach to DEMO; technical risk management and uncertainty propagation.

We have had some general presentations on these subjects and any future discussions should

become more focused and specific. The subject can include failure modes, standards, etc.

Safety from many aspects should be considered. Safety-engineering relationship is of

interest. Collaboration between fusion designers and safety specialists is essential. For DPW-

4, a special topics presentation on safety in conjunction with remote maintenance should be

considered.

Technology and plasma facilities.

Goals of support facilities and their contribution to solving the issues for present or near-term

machines and DEMO should be considered. (This would be analogous to the DPW-3

discussion of ITER TBM contributions to DEMO blanket development.) The assessment of

such facilities will be highly dependent on DEMO definition. Careful consideration should

be given to how one should select or group ongoing facilities and programmes, and how best

to evaluate them.

Tokamak simulator projects being carried out by, e.g., Broader Approach (EU-JA), China,

Korea.

Perhaps include under the DEMO Physics Topic. Possible collaboration may be discussed.

Detached divertor study, integrated approach to the power exhaust.

While this topic has been covered by the previous workshops, it may be useful to plan a

special topics presentation at DPW-4 to provide an update of progress.

DEMO Scenario development

Logically falls under DEMO Physics Basis topic.

Cost and competiveness.

An important issue for fusion and a possible subject for future special topics presentation.

– 15 –

Appendix A. Workshop Organization

Programme Chair: T. Muroga (Japan)

Local Chair: X. Gao (China)

Topics and Topic Co-chairs

1. Contribution of Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing the Gaps–

H. Neilson (U.S.A.), E. Surrey (U.K.)

2. In-Vessel Systems and Engineering

C. Waldon (U.K.), T. Muroga (Japan)

3. ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO

A. Ibarra (Spain), R. Kurtz (U.S.A.)

Technical Programme Committee

Mohamed Abdou, U.S.A.

Wolfgang Biel, Germany

Shishir Deshpande, India

Gianfranco Federici, EU-EUROfusion

Andrea Garofalo, U.S.A.

Richard Kamendje, IAEA

Predhiman Kaw, India

Keeman Kim, Korea

Richard Kurtz, U.S.A.

Boris Kuteev, Russian Federation

Gyung-Su Lee, Korea

Jiangang Li, China

Takeo Muroga (Chair), Japan

Hutch Neilson, U.S.A.

Elizabeth Surrey, United Kingdom

Kenji Tobita, Japan

Hartmut Zohm, Germany

Local Organizing Committee

Xiang Gao (Chair), Shaohua Dong, Nan Shi, Yao Yang, Shoubiao Zhang,

Guoqiang Li, Damao Yao, Yuntao Song

Institute of Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ASIPP)

Hefei, China

– 16 –

Appendix B. Agenda

3rd

IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop

11-14, May 2015

Shuishang Lecture Hall

University of Science and Technology of China

(No.96, Jinzhai Road Baohe District, Hefei)

Programme

Monday, 11 May, 2015

08:00 Departure at the hotel by the conference shuttle bus

Opening

08:45-09:00 Welcome and opening address

R. Kamendje, J. Li, T. Muroga

Special Session 1 Chair : M. Abdou

09:00-09:30 Y.X. Wan

Present Status of CFETR

09:30-10:00 G. Federici

Integrated DEMO conceptual design approach in the EU

10:00-10:15 Coffee break

Topics 2 : In-vessel Systems Design and Engineering (1) Chair : B. Kuteev

10:15-10:30 C. Waldon and T. Muroga

Introduction

10:30-11:00 I. Mazul

PFC components development from ITER to DEMO

11:00-11:30 A.E. Costley

Diagnostic & control requirements: Their possible impact on device design

11:30-12:00 T. Brown

– 17 –

Design strategies for high availability: Accommodating in-vessel piping

services and auxiliary systems

12:00-13:00 Lunch

13:00-14:00 Poster

Topics 2 : In-vessel Systems Design and Engineering (2) Chair : K. Kim

14:00-14:30 G.N. Luo

W divertor technical development towards DEMO

14:30-15:00 M. Shannon and G. Federici

In-vessel system integration towards a coherent European DEMO concept

15:00-15:30 M. Mittwollen and A. Loving

Remote handling - Impact on DEMO design and availability

15:30-16:00 Coffee

16:00-16:30 Hiroyasu Tanigawa

Fusion structural material development in view of DEMO design requirement

16:30-17:30 Session 2 Wrap-up : C. Waldon and T. Muroga

17:30 Adjourn

18:30-20:30 Reception

Tuesday, 12 May, 2015


Special Session 2 Chair : G. Federici

08:30-09:00 R. Kasada, H. Yamada, A. Ozaki, Y. Sakamoto, R. Sakamoto, H.

Takenaga, T. Tanaka, H. Tanigawa, K. Okano, K. Tobita, K. Ushigusa,

O. Kaneko

Japanese Joint Core Team report for the establishment of technology bases

required for the development of a demonstration fusion reactor

09:00-09:30 S. O’hira, K. Ochiai, M. Sugimoto, Y. Okumura, T. Nishitani, K.

Ushigusa, J. Knaster, A. Ibarra and R. Heidinger

Vision of the neutron source for the post BA activities


– 18 –

Topics 1 : Contribution of integrated devices to closing the gaps (1) : Chair H. Zohm

09:45-10:00 H. Neilson and E. Surrey

Introduction

10:00-10:30 M. Gasparotto and G. Federici

ITER contribution to closing DEMO Engineering and technology gaps

(preliminary analysis)

10:30-11:00 S. Pinches

ITER contributions to closing DEMO physics gaps

11:00-11:30 Keeman Kim, Kihak Im, Hyung Chan Kim, Gyung-Su Lee

K-DEMO mission and R&D needs

11:30-12:00 A. Sagara, R. Wolf and H. Neilson

Technological readiness comparison for Helical and Tokamak DEMO

12:00-13:00 Lunch

13:00-14:00 Poster

Topics 1 : Contribution of integrated devices to closing the gaps (2) : Chair A. Garofalo

14:00-14:30 J. Li

Closing gaps to CFETR Readiness

14:30-15:00 Y. Sakamoto

Integrated design study for DEMO concept definition

15:00-15:30 Coffee

15:30-16:00 M. de Baar

Plasma control of DT Tokamaks - status and requirements

16:00-16:30 E. Surrey

TRL and gap for difference devices

16:30-17:30 Session 1 Wrap-up : H. Neilson and E. Surrey

17:30 Adjourn

Wednesday, 13 May, 2015


Special Session 3 Chair : H. Neilson

– 19 –

08:30-09:00 R. Stieglitz, R. Wolf and N. Taylor

Aspects of fusion safety considering fission regulations

09:00-09:30 M. Englert

Implications of MFE compliance with non-proliferation requirements


Topics 3 : ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO (1) : Chair W. Biel

09:45-10:00 A. Ibarra and R. Kurtz

Introduction

10:00-10:30 L. Boccaccini

DEMO blankets needs from ITER TBM programme

10:30-11:00 Y. Poitevin and A. Ibarra

What can be measured in and what can be learned from EU ITER-TBM

11:00-11:30 S. Cho

Objectives of HCCR-TBS Testing Programme in ITER

11:30-12:00 Hisashi Tanigawa, T. Hirose, Y. Kawamura and M. Enoeda

Strategy of WCCB-TBM testing in ITER

12:00-13:00 Lunch

13:00-13:30 Poster

Topics 3 : ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO (2) : Chair E. Surrey

13:30-14:00 S. Konishi (Task 2 presentation)

Compatibility with available electricity-generation technologies

14:00-14:30 Yury Strebkov and B. Kuteev

What can be measured in and what can be learned from RU ITER-TBM

14:30-15:00 P. Humrickhouse, A. Ying and D. Rapisarda

Tritium in DEMO

15:00-15:30 Coffee

15:30-16:00 S. Smolentsev and L. Buehler

Recent advances and prospects for further progress in modeling the coupled

MHD thermofluids phenomena of heat, mass, and momentum transfer

16:00-17:00 Session 3 Wrap-up : A. Ibarra and R. Kurtz

17:00-17:15 Closing

– 20 –

17:15 Adjourn

18:30-20:30 Banquet

Thursday, 14 May, 2015


8:30-12:00 Concluding discussion by PC members and Topics Chairs/Co-Chairs

8:30-12:00 Educational Programme (in parallel)

12:00-13:00 Lunch

13:00-17:00 Technical tour in ASIPP

List of Posters

* Invited

1. *Vincent Chan and Nan Shi (ASIPP) :

Development of a physics-engineering integrated platform for CFETR design

2. *Alan Costley, A. Sykes, P. F. Buxton, M. Gryaznevich, J. Hugill, J. G. Morgan and C. G.

Windsor (Tokamak Energy, Culham Electromagnetics) :

Compact Devices for The Development of Key Fusion Physics And Technologies

3. *R. Brown and C. Harrington (CCFE):

Impact of RAMI on European DEMO technology programme

4. *J. Aktaa (KIT) et al.:

Development needs of design rules for fusion structural materials

– 21 –

5. *Chr. Day, J. Igitkhanov, P. Lang, B. Pegourie, B. Plöckl, St. Varoutis (KIT, IPP, CEA) :

DEMO fuel cycle: Integrated design strategies

6. *Ch. Linsmeier (FZJ):

Development strategy for fusion reactor first wall materials

7. *Wolfgang Biel (FZJ):

Diagnostic concept development within the European DEMO programme

8. *Paritosh Chaudhuri (IPR):

Design of LLCB TBM towards the Indian DEMO reactor

9. R. Albanese, F. Crisanti, B. P. Duval, G. Giruzzi, H. Reimerdes, D. van Houtte, R. Zagorski

(CREATE, ENEA, EPFL/CRPP, CEA, IPPLM):

DTT - An experiment to study the Power Exhaust in view of DEMO

10. H. Reimerdes, L. Aho-Mantila, R. Albanese, R. Ambrosino, S. Brezinsek, G. Calabro, G.

Ciraolo, H. Fernandes, K. Lackner, O. Lielausis, G. Mazzitelli, F. Militello, N. Pelekasis, G.

Pelka, V. Pericoli, V. Philipps, F. Tabares, R. Wenninger, H. Zohm (EPFL, VTT, U. Napoli,

FZJ, ENEA, IST, MPI-PP, U. Latvia, CCFE, U. Thessaly, IPPLM, Ciemat):

Towards an Assessment of Alternative Divertor Solutions for DEMO

11. *Y. T. Song (ASIPP): CFETR design

12. Ge Li (ASIPP):

Closing the ignition gaps by magnetic compression at EAST

13. Changle Liu, Jie Zhang, Lei Li, Hao Yang, Yang Qiu, Damao Yao, Xiang Gao (ASIPP):

The strategies and an approach of the shielding blanket to CFETR reactor

14. Yao Yang, Xiang Gao, Shaocheng Liu, Yumin Wang, Tingfeng Ming, Gongshun Li, Yukai

Liu, and Erhui Wang (ASIPP):

Basic requirements of plasma diagnostics on CFETR

15. *K.Feng et al. (SWIP):

Progress on Design and R&D of CN HCCB TBM toward DEMO

– 22 –

16. X. Liu, Y. Y. Lian, L. Chen, F. Feng, L.Z. Cai, P.F. Zheng, X.R. Duan, Y. Liu (SWIP):

Surface damages of tungsten materials under ELM-like loads and the PWI programme

towards DEMO

17. Qian Li, HL-2 Team (SWIP):

The contributions of HL-2M to fusion reactor

18. Zaixin Li (SWIP):

Activation of component and shutdown maintenance issues of DEMO

19. Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):

Overview of Nuclear Fusion Safety and License of DEMO and its Implications on the

Design and Operation

20. Zhiqiang Zhu, Hai Wang, Yang Li, Lujun Sun, Canjun Liang, Zi Meng, Xialong Li, Hua

Shang, Jian He, Muyi Ni, Baoren Zhang, Qunying Huang, FDS Team (INEST):

The Design and Experiment of PbLi Loops for Fusion Blanket Technology

21. Jie Yu, Muyi Ni, Zhibin Chen, Shaojun Liu, Zhiqiang Zhu, Jieqiong Jiang, Qunying Huang,

Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):

Design and R&D Progress of Breeder Blanket towards DEMO in China

22. Qunying Huang, FDS Team (INEST):

Overall Development of CLAM Steel for Fusion Application in China

23. Gang Song, Yongfeng Wang, Taosheng Li, Chao Liu, Jieqiong Jiang, Yican Wu, FDS Team

(INEST):

Development of High Intensity D-T fusion NEutron Generator (HINEG)

24. Jieqiong Jiang, Hongfei Du, Dehong Chen, Muyi Ni, Chao Lian, Minghung Wang, Yican

Wu, FDS Team (INEST):

Design Progress of Gas Dynamic Trap Based Fusion Neutron Source in China

25. Jing Song, Lijuan Hao, Huaqing Zheng, Mengyun Chen, Shengpeng Yu, Tao He, Jun Zou,

Pengcheng Long, Liqin Hu, Taosheng Li, Yongfeng Wang, Gang Song, Chao Liu, Jieqiong

Jiang, Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):

– 23 –

Development and Experimental Validation of Super Monte Carlo Simulation

Programme for Fusion Applications

26. Jie Wu, Jin Wang, Liqin Hu, Pengcheng Long, Fang Wang, Jiaqun Wang, Run Yuan, Dagui

Wang, Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):

Preliminary Reliability and Probabilistic Safety Assessment Approach for Fusion

Reactor

27. Tao He, Liqin Hu, Pengchang Long, Jing Song, Leiming Shang, Mengyun Cheng,

Shengpeng Yu, Lijuan Hao, Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):

Development of Virtual Reality-based Simulation System for Nuclear and Radiation

Safety and Its Application

28. G.H. Neilson

Application of TRLs to compare the readiness of stellarators and tokamaks for

DEMO

List of Lectures in the Educational Programme on May 14, 2015

8:30 Opening

8:40-9:20

Christian Linsmeier (FZJ)

First wall materials and components

9:20-10:00

Lorenzo Boccaccini (KIT)

DEMO blanket

10:00-10:40

Satoshi Konishi (Kyoto U.)

Tritium and safety for fusion plants

– 24 –

10:40-10:50 Break

10:50-11:30

J. Li (ASIPP)

Tokamak power plant design

11:30-12:10

Akio Sagara (NIFS)

Helical power plant design

Fu

sio

n r

eacto

r g

ra

ph

ic b

y H

AN

S-U

LR

ICH

OS

TE

RW

AL

DE

R /

Scie

nce

Ph

oto

Lib

rary /

pic

ture

desk

.co

m

Documents

1st IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop