The case for a low activity fusion reactor was examined. Possibilities for hands-on maintenance were judged to be increased substantially for a low activity design. The resultant reduction in maintenance time and improvement in plant availability was identified as the greatest potential payoff for a low activity reactor. Considerable differences of opinion were expressed about the location within the reactor core where hands-on maintenance may be possible. Other potential advantages discussed were siting, accident down time, public acceptance and transportation/storage of activated components. Material choices for low activity first wall/blanket structure are limited. Aluminum, vanadium, titanium, silicon carbide and graphite appear most appropriate. Only aluminum, silicon carbide and carbon, of extremely high purity (few ppM of objectional impurities, i.e., iron) have activation characteristics that may permit the full potential of a low activation design to be realized. Major limitations of aluminum alloys are a temperature limit of about 200/sup 0/C and radiation induced embrittlement which may result in reduced component life. Ceramics have the major limitations of brittleness and fabrication constraints. Such limitations will tend to increase the cost of power and must be weighed very carefully against the increased availability provided by hands-on maintenance.