Model Release Form: Fill & Download for Free

Thank you, Angie Armstrong, for your question: Are dogs more domesticated than cats?I’m going to concede that dogs are more domesticated than cats. Indeed they should be. Archaeological evidence suggests that humans began to domesticate the dog about 30,000 years ago. The cat has only been with humans for about 10,000 years. The dog had a big head start and it took advantage of that.Dogs are believed to have evolved from a now extinct grey wolf, “Gray wolves and dogs diverged from an extinct wolf species some 15,000 to 40,000 years ago. There’s general scientific agreement on that point, and also with evolutionary anthropologist Brian Hare’s characterization of what happened next. ‘The domestication of dogs was one of the most extraordinary events in human history,” Hare says.”Comparing these genomes with many wolves and modern dog breeds suggested that dogs were domesticated in Asia, at least 14,000 years ago, and their lineages split some 14,000 to 6,000 years ago into East Asian and Western European dogs. How Accurate Is Alpha's Theory of Dog Domestication?Dogs may have been easier than cats to domesticate. They are pack animals. They follow a leader. Once they started to live among humans, the humans were accepted as leaders. But note that dogs have changed a lot over that time. They have become less aggressive. They can live with humans. Their jaws became smaller and their bite less powerful. A wolf will tear apart the carcass of an animal it has taken down, rip the flesh off and chew right into the marrow of the bones. Give a modern dog a bone and it may well keep the dog going for days! Modern dogs, unlike wolves, can digest starch, theorized as occurring as a result of settling among agrarian humans who grew grains.“In fact, at least one study has suggested that dogs could have been domesticated more than once. Researchers analyzed mitochondrial DNA sequences from remains of 59 European dogs (aged 3,000 to 14,000 years), and the full genome of a 4,800-year-old dog that was buried beneath the prehistoric mound monument at Newgrange, Ireland.” A recently discovered pup estimated to be about 18,000 years old and almost perfectly preserved found in Siberia had neither the DNA of a wolf or a dog, but rather appeared to be a transitional model, so it seems dogs took quite awhile to become domesticated the way they are today. yahoo news and How Accurate Is Alpha's Theory of Dog Domestication?Other indications of dog domestication include the development of splotchy coats of fur (typical of many species when domesticated), floppy ears (went along with the changes to the jaw), a comfort factor when picking up on human social cues, a friendly demeanor, and a trusting nature. Research has shown that, while dogs still have good problem-solving skills they work less co-operatively than wolves and have learned to use humans to help them solve problems. For example, in a lab where there are challenges that the dog cannot overcome, it frequently stops and looks at a human as if for advice. It’s problem-solving skills are merging into social strategies, and, if you and a dog look eye to eye you find that the dog begins to use the human brain’s maternal bonding system. (Actually, this reminded me of cats using their meows to mimic the frequency of a human baby’s cry.) As the Smithsonian article says, “When humans and dogs gaze lovingly into one another’s eyes, each of their brains secretes oxytocin, a hormone linked to maternal bonding and trust. Other mammal relationships, including those between mom and child, or between mates, feature oxytocin,bonding, but the human/dog example is the only case in which it has been observed at work between two different species.” (bolding is mine) How Accurate Is Alpha's Theory of Dog Domestication?Dogs are often called “man’s best friend”. Today’s dog has been bred for many purposes (e.g. search and rescue, drug and bomb sniffing, service animals) including pets. The dog will gladly sit at the table with you, chase a stick you throw, play with you, walk beside you naturally or with the use of a leash, and sleep on your bed, all showing a strong bond.But, what of the cat? It’s only had about 10,000 years to get domesticated. What has changed? Well, physically very little for the most part. There are splotchy bi-colour, tortoise shell, calico and other coats, some long fur, some naked cats (the Sphynx), some twisty fur, but basically few other physical changes of note. If you were to see the ancestral wildcat felis silvestris lybica and the modern cat (felis catus) sitting side by side you might not be able to tell them apart.It is now generally accepted that cats domesticated themselves. Some less fearful ones showed up around human villages seeking scraps from refuse piles. Humans tolerated them. Then,, when humans began to store grain and rodents were getting in and eating it and defecating on it, cats began to come into their own. Humans began to realize what cats could do. Many today still claim that the cat, with its great hearing, eyesight, sense of smell, quickness and flexible body is the most perfect predator ever developed. The rodents had no chance. And as with dogs tapping into the human brain, a cat’s meow bears a remarkable similarity to a human baby’s cry. That tugged at human heart strings. Added to that, kittens were soft and cute, and children could play with them, and their large eyes, snub face, and high round forehead tended to elicit nurturing from humans. (Scientific American, full source at end). Cats are small and non-threatening in appearance. Cats got respect. Cats managed to ingratiate themselves with humans without really having to change. They love independence. They hate change. They love routine. They want to do their own thing as they see fit. If they want attention they come to you. They learned that humans would do things for them and that they didn’t really have to adapt. They may, in fact, like dogs, have been domesticated twice, once in Egypt and again in modern times. The Egyptians considered them gods and worshipped the goddess Bastet who took the form of a cat. Cats seem never have forgotten that they were gods. They still expect to be served. Roman trading ships took cats as mousers, more or less inadvertently, around the Mediterranean Sea to ports of call and spread domesticated cats throughout their empire. During the roughly 3,000 years during the Egyptian and Roman periods cats were often kept indoors and lived with humans in a domesticated lifestyle. Cats would later sail to ports around the world. A Brief History of House CatsAfter the Romans cats more or less fell into disfavour. Oh, they still spread and increased their domain, following trade routes to China, India, and eventually the Americas and Australia, but they were no longer revered. In fact, during the early Middle Ages, they were linked to satanism and witchcraft. But, still, they were there to serve, to keep granaries safe and rats and mice out of ships’ stores, and to live in barns. Indeed our modern domestication period started a mere 200 or so years ago. Queen Victoria is often credited with popularizing the cat and restoring its place in the world. She loved cats, in particular a white cat called “White Heather”. Her cats lived in the royal palace. It didn’t take the gentry long to realize that if the queen kept cats as pets indoors it was a fashionable thing for them to do as well. So began the move from the barn to the house. Other changes would also impact the cat - things like the creation of cat foods, spay/neuter, kitty litter, and apartment living. Cats and humans were coming closer again and the world was changing.Okay, so why am I re-iterating so much of this history. I am trying to emphasize the relatively short amount of time that cats and humans have had together, how the cat retained much of its original temperament and personality, and how there were ups and downs in the human-cat relationship … more downs than ups in fact.However, the surprising thing is that, while there has been little outward or physical change in the cat, the cat has made many internal adaptations to life with humans. Yes, some retrieve. There are pictures of cats in Egyptian wall paintings of cats retrieving birds that had been downed by hunters and my Barraclaugh would chase after elastic bands that I shot and bring them back (and others have written about their cats retrieving items), and I have written before about our cats (and others’) walking in harnesses with leads, so these are sort of parallel developments to what has happened with dogs, and, again like dogs, domesticated cats have become much less aggressive than their Middle Eastern forebearers, but the real changes have been the internal ones that science is now only beginning to understand.Velvet has been trained to walk on a harness and leash. Did you ever image you could walk a cat?Cats had long been considered too hard to work with and too independent, but as research into the mind of the dog progressed research into the mind of the cat began. Oregon State University researcher Dr. Kristyn Vitale discovered something quite unexpected. Cats passed a test that toddlers can pass and that dogs can pass but which many other animals, including our closest living relative the chimpanzee, fail. The test? Pointing. Dr. Vitale’ worked on cognition and had the cat look at two overturned cardboard bowls. When the research assistant released the cat and Dr. Vitale pointed to one of the bowls, the cat went to it. The implication? Cats can tell that when humans point to something that humans are telling them to look at it. Adam Miklosi, a cognitive ethologist at Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest actually had done the first proofs in experiments in 1998.The recognition of human pointing is a major discovery as it is insight into the intentions of others. I have tried some things like this with my own cats. I’ve tossed a ball to Peach and asked him to swat it back, He did. Velvet has been asked to look for her treat beside a table. She went to the table to sniff the area. That means there’s comprehension of learned words and a follow-through on the part of a cat. We’ve asked Peach sometimes to look for a lost toy and he will go to places where he last played with it.What is most surprising about cats’ understanding of pointing and vocabulary recognition is that humans have spent a lot less time trying to aggressively mould the behaviour of the cat than they have with dogs, and that dogs are gregarious pack animals whereas cats descend from very antisocial, independent ancestors.Cats are not stupid. In fact they are quite smart. They are also quite challenging to study as some just simply drop out of experiments and some stop paying attention and just walk away. Nevertheless, studies of the social intelligence of cats are showing that cats may be just as smart as dogs in tests of social smarts and the results are providing insights into how domestication has transformed them and is hopefully changing their image of being untamed, aloof, and unable to learn.Another experiment by Dr. Vitale involved a person bringing a cat into the lab room. A loud noise was made outside the room. Shortly afterwards the person who brought the cat into the room left. The cat looked distraught, crept towards the door where the human had just left and began to meow incessantly. Two minutes later the person re-entered the room and sat on the floor. The cat immediately walked over and rubbed its body against the person’s legs and face and now appeared to be the calmest it has been since it was brought into the room. The cat then walked away from the human and began to explore the room, find a toy and play with it. The human, it seems, is someone whose presence is valued as a “security blanket” and cats will act with confidence when their human is nearby. In other words the experiment refutes the idea that cats are aloof and uncaring. The human empowered the cat to act with confidence. Put another way, another aspect of domestication was displayed. Cats value having humans around and may become upset if they aren’t.Another interesting experiment in 2017 showed that cats preferred to interact with humans moreso than with food and toys. Dr. Vitale and Dr. Monique Udell reported that cats spend more time with humans who pay attention to them, whether through training or just simply calling their names and talking to them. In dog research this is known as the “attentional stage” and means that animals close to humans can pick up on their gestures, commands, and social cues. If you often read my posts you’ll recall that I have often remarked that our cats never want to upset us - which is probably why they won’t sharpen their claws on our furniture, jump up on our counter, or do other things to annoy us. Italian researchers in 2015 also found that cats can shape their behaviour to match human emotions and, when puzzled, looked to their humans to assess how they ought to respond to unfamiliar objects..Peter Pongracz, an ethologist and colleague of Adam Miklosi, has taken the pointing test to another level. Instead of pointing with fingers members of his team gazed at an object, sometimes for just a split second, and found that cats followed the gaze 70% of the time, about the same as a dog would. Christian Nawroth, a behavioural biologist, noted “The performance of cats really surprised me. We haven’t seen that with farm animals”.I said earlier, “Cats are not stupid. In fact they are quite smart. They are also quite challenging to study as some just simply drop out of experiments and some stop paying attention and just walk away.” Miklosi agrees and says that likely happens because they are in an unfamiliar environment with unfamiliar people. However, Miklosi notes, the fact that some cats can pass these tests suggests these abilities are inherent in felis catus. He adds, “If you take a well-socialized, calm cat, I think it’s going to perform similarly to a dog”. Cats do not like testing in general. There are all sorts of stories about cats hiding, scratching and wiggling out of the arms of their holders, leaping out of mazes covered with nets and leaving test sites in disarray. To that Miklosi says, “If you want results on one cat you have to test three”.Besides unco-operative cats researchers find funding is scarce. Nevertheless research continues in these locations as well as in Mexico and Japan. Another challenge is that the data needs to be compared with how Mediterranean wildcats, the same as the ancestors of the domestic cat, respond to the same tests. That would be very important to know as it would show how domestication over a period of time has affected the feline mind. Right now there are not a lot of scientists studying cats, and cat research is in about the same place as dog research was a couple of decades ago, but researchers are “cautiously optimistic” that there will be more studies and that the results can change the image of the cat in the mind of the public and hopefully make it more desirable to adopt shelter cats. If people can change their mindsets about cats being stupid, aloof, selfish, untamed and unable to learn and start to recognize the social skills and intelligence that cats have and that cats can fit in nicely and bond with humans who pay attention to them and show genuine love and concern, then there should be a lot less cats in rescue and shelter facilities.Given what I have written I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not saying anything like “cats are better than dogs”. We’re dealing with two very different animals here but what I’m getting at is that domestication has brought about subtle changes in both animals. Dogs have experienced this for much longer than cats have, so, yes, the dog is more domesticated than the cat. I am also saying that how the domestication has changed cats is remarkable given their relatively short exposure to humans (in comparison to dogs) - and perhaps this is even more remarkable because cats started off their relationship as fiercely independent anti-social animals.Sources:A Brief History of House CatsHow Accurate Is Alpha's Theory of Dog Domestication?“The Taming of the Cat” pp.65 - 71 in Scientific American: The Science of Dogs and Cats, ISSN 1936–1513, vol. 27, no. 4, 2018.“The Year of the Cat” pp. 18 - 24 in The Ultimate Guide To The Animal Mind, Centennial Animals, ISSN 2643–8690, 2019–2020.Normally I write Quora articles about cats and prefer to write about cats. Feel free to click on my profile to see them and hopefully read some. Hopefully you will find articles that are helpful and enjoyable.Thank you for taking the time to read this.I try to answer questions I think I can effectively answer but may pass if I don’t know the answer, or if I have previously answered a very similar question, or someone else may have answered the question as well or better than I could, or the answer can be found easily by googling the topic. Please note that I often get over 100 emails a day and also have other things on my agenda so I won’t always be able to answer questions or respond personally. I hope you understand and are not offended if I don’t post an answer to your question(s).

Mr. Avinash P. GandhiMr. Avinash P. Gandhi received his Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra and he has completed Senior Management programmes at Indian Institute of Management and Administration Staff College of India.Mr. Gandhi served as a Special Advisor to Asia Automotive Acquisition Corp. since June 20, 2005. From 1998 to 2002, Shri. Gandhi had been the President of Hyundai Motors India and from September 1994 to June 1997, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Bhartia Cutler Hammer (now a part of Eaton Corporation). From June 1997 to June 1998, Mr. Gandhi was Group Chief Executive of a Conglomerate of seven companies having tie-ups with leading global electrical products manufacturers.Mr. Avinash P. Gandhi has rich years of experience in engineering and various managerial positions. He held top leadership positions in prestigious organizations for nearly two decades in a professional career spanning forty years. From 1969 to 1994, he served in a number of positions with Tata Motors and Escorts Limited including that of Director on Board of Escorts Claas, a start up joint venture project with the largest Indian self propelled combine harvester company.Mr. Gandhi’s other positions of eminence include:The Chairman of the Board of Directors of Fag Bearings India Ltd.Independent & Non-Executive Director of Havells India Ltd.Director of Uniproducts (India) Ltd.Member of Advisory Board of NuVeda Learning Pvt. Ltd.His other Directorship’s include Independent Lumax Industries Ltd., Fairfield Atlas Ltd., Panalfa Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Continental Engines Ltd., Mahavir Aluminium Limited, Minda HUF Ltd., Indo Alusys Ltd., Avinar Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Avinar Service Pvt. Ltd. and Pan Alfa Auto Ektrie Pvt. Ltd.Mr. S. N. AgarwalMr. S.N. Agarwal, a graduate engineer from Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra and an alumnus of Harvard Business School (AMP- 1985) is the Chairman of the BHORUKA Group.He has been a Senior Executive Committee Member of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, (FICCI) since 1985. He has been the Chairman of various National Committees of FICCI on Power, Non-conventional energy, Logistics etc. He is the President of Karnataka State Council of FICCI-New Delhi and he is also the Vice President of SAARC Chamber of Commerce & Industry representing India.Mr. S N Agarwal’s other positions include Member, Governing Board - Indian Institute of Management (Bangalore), Chairman of the Committee on Finance and Campus Development of Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIM-B), Member - World Presidents Organization. He was also the Past President of All India Organization of Employers, (AIOE).Dr. Ganesh NatarajanDr. Ganesh Natarajan is Deputy Chairman and Managing Director of Zensar Technologies Limited, a Global firm that transforms Technology and Processes for Fortune 500 companies. Dr. Natarajan has been one of the most successful professionals in the Indian Information Technology Industry, having earlier been part of two major success stories in IT Training and Consulting, NIIT and APTECH. During his ten-year stint as CEO of Aptech he grew the company’s revenues fifty times and listed it on the Indian and London Stock Exchanges.A Gold Medallist in Mechanical Engineering from Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra he has completed his PhD in Knowledge Management at IIT Bombay. He is the author of three McGraw Hill Books on Business Process Reengineering and Knowledge Management and has also authored a book titled “Winds of Change”. He is a regular columnist for India’s premier Business and IT magazines.Dr. Ganesh Natarajan was named “CEO of the Year” by the Asia Pacific HR Conference in 1999 and received the Wisitex Foundation’s CEO of the Decade – Knowledge Award from India’s Minister for Information Technology in 2000. In July 2005, he received the Asia HRD Congress Award for Contributions to the Organisation through HR. He was one of nineteen finalists at the Ernst & Young Entrepreneurs of the Year Award 2005 where he was recognized for his exemplary leadership skills and business acumen.Dr. Natarajan chairs the Outsourcing Forum of the Confederation of Indian Industries in Western India and is also a member of the Executive Council of NASSCOM, India’s premier IT and BPO Association. He has been elected Chairman of the NASSCOM Innovation Forum for 2005-07.Mr. Deven SharmaMr. Deven Sharma holds a bachelor's degree from the Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, having graduated in Mechanical Engineering in the year 1977. He holds a Master's degree from the University of Wisconsin and a doctoral degree in Business Management from Ohio State University.Deven Sharma was named president of Standard & Poor's in August 2007. Standard & Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, is the world's foremost provider of financial market intelligence, including independent credit ratings, indices, risk evaluation, investment research and data. With approximately 8,500 employees, including wholly owned affiliates located in 21 countries, Standard & Poor's is an essential part of the world's financial infrastructure and has played a leading role for more than 140 years in providing investors with the independent benchmarks they need to feel more confident about their investment and financial decisions.Prior to being named president, Mr. Deven Sharma served as Executive Vice President, Standard & Poor’s, where he was responsible for Investment Services and Global Sales. The businesses include Investment Data & Information, Research and Portfolio services. Prior to this, he spent five years as Executive Vice President, Global Strategy for The McGraw-Hill Companies, where he led the expansion into digital markets, geographies and new growth areas, as well as acquisitions. He also oversaw McGraw-Hill Ventures.Mr. Sharma joined The McGraw-Hill Companies in January 2002 from Booz Allen Hamilton, a global management consulting company, where he was a partner. During his 14 years with that firm, he provided guidance to client companies on business strategy and globalization, as well as on branding and sales management. Much of his experience includes work with global corporations in U.S., Latin America, Europe and parts of Asia. Prior to Booz Allen, he worked with manufacturing companies, Dresser Industries and Anderson Strathclyde.Mr. Sharma has authored several publications on competitive strategy, customer solutions, sales and marketing. He is a Board member of CRISIL, The US-China Business Council and Asia Society Business Council.Mr. Gurdeep Singh PallMr. Gurdeep Singh Pall is the corporate vice president for the Office Communications Group at Microsoft Corp. and part of the Microsoft Business Division's senior leadership team. He is responsible for vision, product strategy and business development, and R&D for Microsoft's Unified Communications offerings, including Microsoft Office Communications Server, Microsoft Office Communicator, Microsoft Office Live Meeting service and Microsoft Office Communications Online.Mr. Pall joined Microsoft in January 1990 as a software design engineer. He has worked on many breakthrough products in his tenure, starting with LAN Manager Remote Access Service. He was part of the Windows NT development team, working on the first version of Windows NT 3.1 in 1993 as a software design engineer, all the way through Windows XP in 2001 as general manager of Windows Networking. During his work on Windows, he led design and implementation of core networking technologies such as PPP, TCP/IP, UPnP, VPNs, routing and Wi-Fi, and parts of the operating system. He co-authored the first VPN protocol in the industry – Point-to-Point Tunnelling Protocol (PPTP) – which received the prestigious Innovation of the Year award from PC Magazine in 1996. He also authored several documents and standards in the networking area in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standards body in the mid-1990s. Mr. Pall was appointed general manager of Windows Real-Time Communications efforts in January 2002 and helped develop a broad RTC strategy that led to the formation of the Real Time Collaboration division and acquisition of PlaceWare Inc. (now called Microsoft Office Live Meeting). Since then, Pall has led acquisitions of Page on media-streams.com AG and Parlano and key industry partnerships. Microsoft's Unified Communications efforts have received many technical and design industry awards. He was named one of the 15 Innovators & Influencers Who Will Make A Difference in 2008 by Information Week. Mr. Gurdeep Singh Pall recently co-authored "Institutional Memory Goes Digital," which was published by Harvard Business Review as part of "Breakthrough Ideas for 2009" and was presented at the World Economic Forum 2009 in Davos, Switzerland.Mr. Pall has more than 20 patents (in process or approved) in networking, VoIP and collaboration areas. He holds a master's degree in computer science from the University of Oregon and a graduate degree in computer engineering from Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi in India.Mr. Sanjay NayakMr. Sanjay Nayak is the Co-founder & Chief Executive Officer of Tejas Networks, a leading optical networking product company from India. Mr. Nayak is a technologist with over 18 years of industry experience in India as well as the USA. Prior to founding Tejas, he held senior management position in globally leading Electronic Design Automation companies such as Synopsys (where he was the Managing Director of Synopsys-India) and earlier at Cadence Design Systems. Mr. Nayak holds an M.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh and B.E in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra.Mr. Sukant SrivastavaSukant Srivastava is Managing Director and Country Manager for Convergys Corporation’s Customer Care business in India. He is responsible for overseeing the operations of Convergys’ eight contact centres and 11,000+ Customer Care employees in India, directing relationships with National Government officials and representing Convergys in key industry forums and associations. Additionally, he focuses on driving Convergys’ Relationship Management brand position in India, enabling talent acquisition and continued leadership in the rapidly growing business process outsourcing market. Mr. Srivastava reports to Clint Streit, president of Customer Care, and is located in Gurgaon, India. Prior to joining Convergys, Mr. Srivastava served in a variety of global leadership roles with Keane, Inc. His most recent assignment was as managing director for Keane’s Indian operations. In this position he served as a transformation agent for enterprise-wide change initiatives, including a shift to a globally integrated business model. Previously, he was vice president of Global Services Integration for Keane.Mr. Srivastava holds a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the Birla Institute of Technology in Ranchi, India and a Master’s degree in Business Administration from the University of North Florida.Dr. Shree K. NayarDr. Shree K. Nayar did BE in electrical Engineering from Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, India in the year 1984. He received his PhD degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in 1990. He is currently the T. C. Chang Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University. He co-directs the Columbia Vision and Graphics Center. He heads the Columbia Computer Vision Laboratory (CAVE), which is dedicated to the development of advanced computer vision systems. His research is focused on three areas; the creation of novel cameras, the design of physics based models for vision, and the development of algorithms for scene understanding. His work is motivated by applications in the fields of digital imaging, computer graphics, and robotics.Dr. Shree K. Nayar has received best paper awards at ICCV 1990, ICPR 1994, CVPR 1994, ICCV 1995, CVPR 2000 and CVPR 2004. He is the recipient of the David Marr Prize (1990 and 1995), the David and Lucile Packard Fellowship (1992), the National Young Investigator Award (1993), the NTT Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award (1994), the Keck Foundation Award for Excellence in Teaching (1995) and the Columbia Great Teacher Award (2006). In February 2008, he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering.Dr. Arup Roy ChoudhuryDr. Arup Roy Choudhury is a firm believer in achieving team-excellence through transformational shift to proactive, positive and personalized approach. Having experience in private and public sector organizations, Dr. Arup Roy Choudhury has an illustrious career of about 35 years during which he has been holding the position of CEO for over thirteen years. An engineering graduate from BIT-Mesra, he completed his post graduation and doctorate from IIT-Delhi and fol lows the motto “Sankalpa Shuddha Hi Siddha” i.e. if your intentions are pure, you are bound to succeed.Becoming the youngest CEO of a CPSE at the age of 44 years, he scripted a stunning turnaround story as CMD when he transformed NBCC, which was a sick company with negative net-worth and salary backlog in 2001, into a blue-chip enterprise having 'Schedule A’ and ‘Mini Ratna’ status bestowed upon it by the Government of India. The transformational turnaround of the Company brought about by him enabled NBCC’s turnover grow about 10 times and net-worth over 500 times during his tenure of nine-and-a-half years at the helm (Annexure-I). He pulled NBCC out of the abyss and catapulted it into the distinguished league of ‘Top Ten CPSEs’. Under him, NBCC broadened its business horizons and paid its maiden dividend to the Govt. of India for the year 2006-07, after 45 years of its incorporation.Dr. Choudhury now heads NTPC Limited, the 10th largest power producer in the world and ranked as #1 Indepedent Power Producer by Platts (part of the prestigious McGraw Hill Group). NTPC is acknowledged as the best company in the world for capacity utilization. NTPC is also one of the seven largest Central Public Sector Undertakings of India, designated as a ‘Maharatna’.Since taking over as CMD-NTPC in September, 2010, Dr. Choudhary has been positioning the enterprise on course to become the largest and best power producer in the world.In a period of three and a half years of Dr. Choudhury’s leadership, NTPC has already added about 10,800 MW, which is over one fourth of its total installed capacity of over 43,019 MW built in over 38 years. NTPC’s turnover is around Rupees 68,800 crore (about USD 12.5 Billion). NTPC's financial performance in 2012-13 has been exceptionally strong with a Profit After Tax (PAT) of about Rs. 12,600 crore (about USD 2.3 billion), an increase of about 37% over the previous year's PAT.Dr. Choudhury steered the process of ‘Offer for Sale’ for disinvestment of 9.5% stakes of the Government of India in NTPC, garnering over USD 2 billion (About Rs. 11,500 Cr). This was oversubscribed by 1.7 times with 45% coming from foreign investors. NTPC's issue for Tax Free Bond of Rs. 1,000 crore in December, 2013 received overwhelming response from the investors with oversubscription of 3.37 times.Dr. Choudhury, as Chairman of Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE) - the apex forum of over 200 Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) in India - for two consecutive terms of two years each (From April 2009 to March 2013) effectively led policy advocacy for greater empowerment of these enterprises. He led a team of select CEOs to the Prime Minister and still remains the flag-bearer of Central PSUs.Dr. Choudhury figures at # 40 among 'India Inc's 100 Most Powerful CEOs 2013' in the list released by The Economic Times.Dr. Choudhury has received several national and international awards, including the Award for ‘The Best Organizational Turnaround’ from Hon. President of India in 2006, ‘Top Ten PSU and Turnaround Award’ from Hon. Prime Minister of India in 2007 and ‘Best Individual Leader of a Public Sector Enterprise’ from Hon. Prime Minister of India in 2010.Dr. Choudhury has captured his rich experiences and insights into a very well received book titled – 'Management by Idiots'.Mr. Anjan LahiriMr. Anjan Lahiri serves as President and CEO of MindTree’s IT Services business and is stationed in Bangalore. In this role he is responsible for all aspects of MindTree’s IT Services business around the world.Prior to relocating to Bangalore in 2008, Anjan spent five years in London setting up and then growing MindTree’s European Operations. In 1999 when he joined MindTree as a part of the founding team, he helped set up MindTree’s New Jersey office and then led MindTree’s US West Coast Operations from San Jose, California from 2000 to 2003 before relocating to London.Prior to MindTree, Anjan was a Director with Cambridge Technology Partners. He was part of the initial group, which started Cambridge’s internet services consulting practice. Anjan started his professional career with Wipro Infotech in 1987. By 1991 when he left to pursue higher studies in the US, he was a Territory Manager in Wipro’s Kolkata office.Anjan Lahiri received a BE in electronics engineering from the Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi.Mr. Pawan Bhageria1983 Mechanical Engineering-Gold Medalist and MBA from XLRI, Jamshedpur His 26 years of experience in Automotive / IT Industry includes Manufacturing, New Plant Commissioning Projects & all aspects of Information Technology with special focus on automotive & manufacturing industry. He has held leadership positions in large corporations of repute in India and abroad in Global cross-cultural business and technical environment.Key areas of work :Business aligned IT strategic planning and its execution,Process re-engineering & Efficiency Modeling .ERP (SAP/Oracle/Others) Global Implementation.IT Operations Managemen.IT Audits & ComplianceLarge Contract Negotiations & Vendor ManagementOrganization Change ManagementHe was Head of IT for Tata Motors & Strategic Account Manager at Tata Technologies before joining General Motors in 2006. Currently part of GM International Operations as IT Director.Mr. Himanshu KapaniaMr. Himanshu Kapania has been the Managing Director of Idea Cellular Limited since April 1, 2011. Mr. Kapania served as Deputy Managing Director at Idea Cellular Limited until April 1, 2011. He served as the Chief Operating Officer - Corporate and Director of Operations for Idea Cellular Limited.Mr. Kapania joined Idea in September 2006 with over 21 years of industry experience. He worked with Reliance Infocomm as their Chief Executive Officer for Northern Operations covering Punjab, Haryana and HP as for three years, with IDEA Cellular Ltd., as Chief Operating Officer for over six years, with Network Ltd., as Dy. General Manager - Marketing for three and a half years, with Shriram Honda as Manager Marketing for over three years and with DCM Toyota as Sr. Executive for five years. Mr. Kapania serves as a Director of Idea Cellular Limited. He is a BE in Electrical & Electronics from Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi and a postgraduate from the Indian Institute of Management, BangaloreM. M. Singh (Batch of 1974)M M Singh is the Chief Operating Officer, Maruti Suzuki India LimitedHe leads Production vertical at Maruti Suzuki India Limited. He is responsible for rolling out 1.2 million cars from Maruti stable every year with assets under control (AUC) of USD 5 billion (Rs 30,000 crores). All manufacturing facilities at Gurgaon, Manesar , Gujarat reports to him. He leads a team of 20,000 people at 10 plants consisting of more than 150 departments.His leadership led to production of high Quality cars which were exported to EU, Latin America and Middle East, and Topping CSI and APEAL ratings in India. Every year Maruti exports about 120,000 cars made in India. During his leadership an Indian manufactured car became World’s largest selling auto brand, Alto, beating models like Polo and Accord.He is Chairman of SIAM ( Society of Automobile Engineers) Logistics, Co-chairman of FICCI Manufacturing National Committee and Chairman of CII North manufacturing committee.He has received inspired manufacturing fraternity with his patented thought process called “Production Managament System” which has set revolution in manufacturing sphere by combining Japanese practices with Indian wisdom and capturing the passion of western management.M M Singh is from the BIT BE (ECE) Batch of 1974Sudhir Mohan TrehanSudhir Mohan Trehan is Executive Chairman of Avantha Power & Infrastructure Limited and Vice Chairman of Crompton Greaves Limited.A gold medallist in mechanical engineering, he graduated from Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi. He received his Master’s degree in operational research from State University of New York at Stony-Brook, U.S.A., and successfully completed the Advanced Management Program (AMP) from Harvard Business School, Boston, U.S.A.He joined Crompton Greaves Limited in 1972 and, over the years, has held several positions of responsibility. He was appointed Managing Director of the company in 2000 and, on his retirement in June 2011, was named Vice Chairman. He is a member of the Avantha Management Board, which formulates strategy at the Group level. He is also Chairman of the Board of Governors at Thapar University.Sudhir is a highly respected and widely recognised business leader. He was named “Outstanding Chief Executive” for 2000-2001 by the Indian Institution of Industrial Engineering. In recognition of his contribution to the Indian industry in general and the management movement in particular, the Bombay Management Association (BMA) unanimously conferred upon him the “Management Man of the Year Award” for 2005-2006. He was named Business Standard CEO of the Year for 2008-09.Sudhir has worked in various capacities with industry bodies, including BMA, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Indian Electrical and Electronics Manufacturers Association (IEEMA) and Nashik Industries & Manufacturers’ Association (NIMA). He was Chairman of CII’s Western Region.His interests include golf, cricket and reading.Mr. R. K. Gupta (Batch of 1965)Founder & Chairman, Laxmi Publications Group & President Emeritus BITOSA DelhiMr. Gupta is founder of Laxmi Publications Group. He has over 35 years of publishing experience. A wellknown figure in the Indian Publishing Industry, he was Ex-President, Federation of Educational Publishers in India. Apart from a distinguished personality in publishing industry, Mr. Gupta has actively taken part in promoting sports in India. He has head many international delegations. He was Secretary, Winter Games Federation of India, President, Ice Skating Association of India, Secretary, Winter Games Federation of India, Member, and Indian Olympic Association. He did Mechanical engineering from BIT Mesra.Mr. Pramod Taparia (Batch of 1966 )Founder & Chairman, Wintech TapariaMr.Pramod Taparia (popular as PT) is an entrepreneur, facilitating the food processing industry, by doing required pioneering work in India. At an age of 35 years, in 1985, PT got an award from the Vice President Shri Ramaswamy Venkataraman of India for being a "Self made Industrialist", at Delhi. Collaborating with the Swedish, in 1986, he founded a company offering international Technology & Equipments at an affordable price in India. This company, together his Scandinavian partners, pioneered Potatoes, Vegetables and Seafood processing & packaging in India. In addition to a formal degree in engineering, he went in the year 1993, for an Advance Management Program of few weeks, to a well known institute in Stockholm, Sweden.Mr. Niraj Sharan (Batch of 1976)Founder, Chairman & CEO Aura Inc.Mr. Niraj Sharan is the Founder-Chairman and CEO of Aura Inc., since 1989, a leading Global enterprise catering to the global ENERGY sector through Engineering, Manufacturing & System Integration. He is also Founder & Co-Chairman, Aurys s.r.l, Italy, a leading Technology Consulting and full service Engineering Company in Oil & Gas sector. He sits on advisory Board of several For Profit and Non-Profit companies out of USA, India & EUin Technology, Health Care and Clean Energy verticals. He is “Member, Technical Expert Committee - Government of India,under Department of Science & Technology since June 2009.”, “Special Invitee” to the US Endowment Board on US – India Joint Commission on Science and Technology formed under agreement of President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.Mr. Sunil Jain (Batch of 1977)Chief Operating Officer & Head-Wind, Green InfraSunil is the COO of Green Infra. He has over 27 years of experience in the engineering industry, particularly in the auto and infrastructure sectors. He has extensive experience in business development, both in the domestic and international markets, and in handling commercial negotiations with customers and vendors alike. Mr. Sunil is also the President, Northern Region Council and Member National Council of Indian Wind Power Association. Sunil is a Mechanical Engineer from BIT Mesra and holds an MBA from Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University.Mr. Rajiv Nag (Batch of 1971)Founder and Chairman, CyberQ Consulting & Senior Advisor at KPMGSenior Advisor of KPMG ,The founder and Chairman of CyberQ Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Dr. Rajiv Nag is amongst the world's top-notch consultants in the areas of Process consulting who has helped organizations put their processes in place. With over 25 years of experience around the world in the areas of Software Project Management, Quality Assurance and System Testing, Development of Software Integrated Management Systems, Functional and System Integration, Application Systems Development, System design, Strategic management consultancy, Development of Quality Management Methodology and Information Security initiatives.Shri T. Venkatesh, I.A.S. (Batch of 1979)Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) & Board Member, NTPCShri Venkatesh is an Indian Administrative Service officer of 1988 batch of U.P. Cadre. Prior to his assignment as Jt. Secy. (DOPT) in the Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pension, he held various administrative posts including DM (Bareilly), Commissioner (Gorakhpur) and Secretary (PWD) in the state of Uttar Pradesh. He is looking after the work of CVO and also on Board of Directors of NTPC since October, 2009. He has done Mechanical engineering from BIT Mesra and is post graduate in same.Mr. Ashutosh Pande (Batch of 1983)Managing Director (India) and Global Vice President & GM ISBU at CSR Technology (India)Mr. Ashutosh specializes in market creation for new technology and products. Strategist, visionary and sharp thinker, he is currently Member Governing Council at Association of Geospatial Industries and also heads an incubation unit within the company where they are exploring avenues that will allow CSR to diversify beyond chipsets into services. He holds MS in Electrical Engineering from University of Alberta, USA and B.E. in Electronics & communication from BIT Mesra.Mr. Nirankar SaxenaDirector, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)Mr. Saxena heads the Business Information Services Network Division (BISNET) at FICCI and manages multiple project portfolios. His responsibilities include networking with leading senior Government officials,industrialists‟ and the diplomatic corps in India as well as the visiting foreign dignitaries. Prior to joining FICCI, he was Chief Executive Officer of Osprey Software Technology (P) Ltd and Director of Team Computers (P) Ltd. He holds a Page on b.e.in ComputerSciences from BIT Mesra.Mr. Ajay Pathak (Batch of 1977)Joint Secretary, Ministry of Road & Surface Transport, GOIFormer Joint Secretary at Ministry of Finance, he is now Jt. Secretary at Ministry of Road and Surface Transport. He has done his Civil Engineering from BIT Mesra.Mr. Jagdish Mitra (Batch of 1988)Chief Executive Officer of CanvasMAt CanvasM, he leads a team of over 600 associates that are focused on providing solutions that enable customers and enterprises take advantage of the mobile ecosystem. With over 20 years of experience in the areas of business development and marketing in the global information services market. Under his leadership, CanvasM has been awarded the “Best Start-Up Company” at the Mobile Content Awards 2008 held in London.Mr. Atul Kansal (Batch of 1984)Founder and Managing Director, INDUS EnviroMr. Kansal is Founder and Managing Director of INDUS Enviro and is responsible for its activities in India and the neighboring countries. He has more than 18 years of diversified consulting experience in Environmental Health & Safety (EH&S) Management particularly in EH&S Compliance and Due-Diligence Auditing. Over last 18 years, he has worked on more than 350 environmental projects in a variety of sectors. He has done his Civil engineering from BIT Mesra and Masters from IIT Roorkee.Mr. Annup Damani (Batch of 1979)Managing Director at Alloy CastMr. Damani is Managing Director at Alloy Cast (P) Ltd. Today, under his leadership, the company now boast of a capacity of over 3, 50,000 to 4, 00,000 castings per month. It has factories to cater diversified range of products and services encompassing industries like automotive, hardware, plumbing and heating controls.Mr. Abhishek Sinha (Batch of 1995)Co-founder & CEO of Eko India Financial Services Private LimitedEko democratises access to formal financial services using mobile phones as a financial identity for people at the bottom of the pyramid. Eko stands out for simplicity of user experience while still ensuring secure transactions.Eko has partnered with 1,500 retail stores bringing banking services at the next-door grocer for close to 1 million customers. Eko processes over $ 1 million every day and has processed close to half a billion dollars in transactions so far! Eko listed amongst top 10 most innovative companies in India by Fast Company | Business + Innovation!SOURCE:- www.bitmesra.ac.in

Not going to lie: I’m going to jack a few sections of the capstone report I wrote for my degree that I have listed as my credential. I’ll modify it to make more sense. Modifications will be in italics.I’ll break it down up here before you get into the meat, potatoes, and general stew of what is probably 17 pages of a 103 page report on the Viability of Small Modular Reactors in the United States:Small: Less than 300 MWe (Megawatt Electrical; that is, output power total, not thermal power of the reactor) output.Modular: Can be installed in packs with other reactors of the same classification. For instance, the NuScale Power Module is intended to be installed in six pairs for a total of twelve reactors; you do not need every reactor, which is a great benefit - you can build a few, cheaper than a full-sized large reactor, then use the proceeds to fund more, meaning that the “OMG THEY COST SO MUCH” problem of nuclear reactors isn’t really an issue anymore; or rather, you spread out that initial upfront cost over the top of the ridiculously low running-cost. But that wasn’t the question you’re asking.That answers “what they are,” but you also want to know “why are they safer?”We have reactors which are small installed on Naval vessels, and many Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) bear a lot of knowledge and design from their submarine and carrier predecessors. No doubt that NuScale has a lot to owe to the US Navy; the technology is tried and true. We have a lot of OE, (Operational Experience) - that is, things we’ve learned about Pressurized Water Reactors. What to do, what not to do.One thing I know from operating reactors of this size: Good luck melting them down. Seriously, for five years on the USS George Washington and three years on the MTS-626 Daniel Webster, one of my fun games to keep myself and my fellow watchstanders engaged and focused on nuclear power instead of mental games (#MovieGame) was to ask: “If you had to, how would you melt this thing down?” Ultimately, we determined no singular human could, no matter how knowledgeable. No two humans could. Not without killing everyone who would interfere, and you’d still have to have as much education and experience on them as we did.Reactors of this size are very safe: Why? Unlike larger reactors, their Surface Area-to-Volume ratio means that they bleed heat readily, so that decay heat is much less an issue. If you add in a passive cooling system, that is, a system that requires no power to operate and ideally can self-initiate without human intervention, the meltdown factor goes away. The reactor is literally meltdown-proof, save for the intervention of a torpedo… and civilian reactors typically have that covered (even a missile would have a tough, if not impossible, time of it. I’d put my money on “impossible” for anything but a direct nuclear blast. At that point, you’ve got bigger issues than a meltdown; you’re dead).NuScale is wise-enough to not say “meltdown proof.” Forget that they’re nuclear experts, if the general public hears you say that, they freak out and start saying “well they said the Titanic was unsinkable.” Yeah, well, they also didn’t understand metallurgy the way we do now. “Iceburg” was an obvious counter to the Titanic, tell me, what’s the obvious counter to an SMR sitting in a pool of water when it’s passive-cooling system is also it’s normal operating system? (That is, the passive cooling system is sufficient enough to remove all heat from fission when operating at 100% power, let alone after shutdown.)They’re safe. They’re ridiculously safe.If you want to read on, here’s a more detailed description.Special thanks to my project partners, Jordan Bosserman and Jerrad Smythers. Of note is also, Cory Stansbury, who assisted me with finding sources, and even wrote a couple of them in relation to the Westinghouse SMR. Also, I thank Andrew Karam who first recommended to me the American Nuclear Society, where I found some of the most helpful sources.A small modular reactor is, as the name implies, a smaller reactor plant, and one which can be installed in modules. These are not exclusive from designs such as the PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor; the same would go for a BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) or PBR (Pebblebed Reactor); the SMR title is more related to size than it is to capability. In fact, the most developed SMR, the NuScale Power Module, is also a PWR (Doyle 2016)[1]. Previously built, traditional reactors are on the order of several hundred to several thousands of megawatts in power, whereas small modular reactors tend to be on the scale of only a few hundred at most, with the maximum cap of 300MW(electrical) (World Nuclear Association, 2019)[2]. The smallest of these proposed is approximately 10MWe, and several countries are exploring them as future power sources, to include the United States, Russia, China, France, Japan, and South Korea (Glaser, Hopkins, & Ramana, 2013)[3] . These reactors may be of varying designs, either entirely new designs, or may be heavily derivative smaller versions of larger reactors, such as the designed Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor being derivative of the larger, established and in-use AP1000Ⓡ(Smith & Wright, 2012)(no link available, this was sent to me by a friend who works at Westinghouse).Size is not the only factor to consider when referring to SMRs, as naval reactors have been around for decades, and these all fit into the “small” category of reactor plant. These reactors do not fill the “modular” category, though the eight reactors of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise might qualify. Modular reactors are designed to be installed in packs, are easily replaceable, mass-produced, and many of them can perform a wide variety of functions (Doyle, 2016). This design to be both small and modular means that these reactors have the ability to be road-, train-, or boat-transportable. These design features are critical to making SMRs more economical, as this lessens the necessary construction costs of a nuclear reactor by having many of the components able to be assembled safely in a factory then transported to the location to be assembled in their packs (Harkness, 2012)(another Westinghouse source). This standardization also allows for standardized training and operations, and will allow for problems to be spotted, mitigated, and regulated more easily as more reactor plants will be in existence.Installing reactors in packs gives SMRs a unique advantage over larger reactor plants; a few reactors can be installed, bankrolled by investors, and the main facilities built. Then, as these reactors make money, they can self-finance the construction of the rest of the reactor plant, reducing the initial burden upon investors. This self-financing model has been looked upon with interest by the INCAS (Integrated model for the Competitiveness of SMRs) being developed by the Politecnico di Milano university, assisted by the IAEA. INCAS considers the economy of scale, co-siting economies (that is, use of reactor packs), construction cost savings due to using packs, international usage of these reactors, effects of delaying construction in self-financing, and cost of financing in construction (Boarin et al., 2012)[4]Because they are to be installed in packs, outage effects of a power plant’s total power output are reduced for common instances like maintenance or refueling, to unplanned outages from problems with the powerplant. Instead of losing several hundred megawatts to full gigawatts of power in a region, in which a nation like Hungary could be utterly devastated (Holgate & Saha, 2018)(oh, crap, just realized I never included this source in my bibliography and my professor didn’t catch it), only a few dozen to a few hundred megawatts of power would be lost while the rest of the reactors in the power-pack would remain operational. These reactors also work well in situations where a reactor plant is desired, but a larger reactor is too expensive for an initial investment, or where the financial situation is more dynamic.There you have the first question.As for safety?Deep breath…3.2. SafetyRegarding the actual operation of reactor plants, one of the public’s largest concerns involves safety concerning the reactor plant, both for the reactor regarding the potential for fission product release and the dangers this release could pose to the public, how the plant responds to extreme events such as tsunami, earthquake, extreme weather, or terrorist attack, and environmental safety. The latter in particular is often focused around the disposal of spent fuel, also known as high-level waste, and its ability to survive extreme events and prevention of release of this spent fuel to the environment.3.2.1. Reactor SafetyReactor safety is the concept of utilizing design features, fabrication of materials, the location of reactor plant, training safe and knowledgeable operators, active safety systems, and passive safety systems to ensure safe operations of a nuclear power plant. This includes preventing damage to the reactor core, prolonging reactor lifespan, preventing fission product release, and preventing harm to the environment, the operators, and the public, as well as ensuring that the public does not violate legal radiation exposure limits.One of the core concepts used by the U.S. Nuclear Industry is redundancy; that is, planning on at least one system to fail, and so installing similar, redundant systems to ensure that at least one method is able to provide protection. This concept is carried through in SMR designs, for example, the NuScale Emergency Core Cooling System (NuScale Power LLC, n.d.a)[5] and the Westinghouse SMR’s reactor coolant pumps (Harkness, 2012).Safety systems can be split into several categories including passive safety, active safety, and inherent safety. A passive safety system will initiate without any action at all, active safety requires action, and inherent safety is built into the design itself, and does not necessarily require a system to function.3.2.1.1. Inherent SafetyIntegral PWRs have a significant advantage over other reactor designs that utilize pumps and coolant loops. By keeping the entire primary-coolant system inside the reactor vessel, there are fewer connections, welds, and less surface area from which a loss-of-coolant accident can initiate, and therefore no isolation valves are needed. As well, during normal operation, the space between the reactor vessel and containment vessel can be kept at a vacuum to eliminate insulation needs to improve efficiency as well as adhere to NRC regulations regarding sump-blockage. This also prevents the generation of non-condensable gases such as flammable hydrogen (Reyes, 2012)[6].As SMRs are smaller, it is possible to design a system that is able to run at full power without the use of coolant pumps. So long as coolant remains in the system, it is possible for such a system to remove decay heat. In particular, the X Energy Xe-100 utilizes specific plant materials in the form of graphite fuel matrices that, even if decay heat were not adequately removed, would prevent meltdown and fission product release due to exceptional temperature resilience.Like with most reactor plants in the United States, the analyzed reactor plants all have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, leading to the ability to naturally control reactor power and therefore prevent inadvertent power spikes. Such designs can be considered to run themselves.In any event, a small modular reactor inherently cannot produce the same scale of catastrophe as a larger event. If any reactor has a problem, having much less fuel - in the NuScale case, 5% the amount of a larger reactor - such a release would be scaled down. The likelihood of more than one reactor having such a problem is understandably even smaller than the singular reactor (Reyes, 2012).3.2.1.2. Passive Safety SystemsThe NuScale and Holtec design in particular hinges on passive-safety systems, making the process less complicated by not relying on active safety systems that must be in operation to protect the reactor (Reyes, 2012; Holtec International, n.b.a)[7] . Because NuScale Power Unit and SMR-160 utilize no coolant pumps and are fully capable of removing their full 100% heat capacity through passive cooling, it achieves “walk-away safety.” When a reactor is shut down, some fission products continue to undergo radioactive decays that generate heat, which could potentially heat the core if not otherwise cooled. Each of the twelve NuScale modules is not only contained within the reactor vessel but in a containment vessel that sits in a pool that can provide ambient cooling for at least thirty days without the need to add any new water, and the water volume to thermal power ratio is four times greater than that of a traditional reactor, and such cooling is far better. This water, combined with redundant Decay Heat Removal Systems and Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) which works in conjunction with the Containment Heat Removal System provide further redundancy the passive cooling for these reactor designs and can provide total cooling for the core for the 30 days required for the NuScale Power Modules decay heat to be sufficiently cooled by air (Reyes, 2012). This satisfies Federal Regulation 10CF50.46(b)(5) which states “after any calculated successful initiation operation of the ECCS, the calculated core temperature shall be maintained at an acceptably low value and decay heat shall be removed for the extended period of time required by the long-lived radioactivity remaining in the core.” (Reyes, 2012) Instead of a surrounding-volume of water, the SMR-160 design instead uses above-core water inventories for this use, meeting the same requirements (Holtec International, 2015)[8]. Proof-of-concept tests are being carried out at Oregon State University for the NuScale Power Module to certify safety measures (Reyes, 2012).The Westinghouse design takes the Emergency Core Cooling Systems further with its Passive Core Cooling Systems which includes borated water injection into the core. This borated-water supplements control rod insertion, which can be considered both passive upon loss of power.One of the most popularized methods of passive safety is the scram, which is included in all evaluated designs (Smith & Wright, 2012; NuScale Power LLC, n.d.a; Holtec International, n.d.b). A scram is the insertion of control rods, usually via gravity and/or spring action, in order to shut down the reactor rapidly. Reactor scrams can be either passive or active. Passive scramming would be a scram resulting from a loss of power. Control rods are normally held by their CRDMs, and during a loss of power that would also cause a loss of flow in reactors reliant on reactor coolant pumps, a scram would result to shut down the core. Due to design, extreme shock may also initiate a scram, so several “extreme events” could force a reactor to shut down rather than melt down (Smith & Wright, 2012).The Xe-100, utilizing helium as a coolant instead of water, does not have the same level of natural cooling to rely upon, and instead must rely on convection of the helium gas. Heat is removed from the pebbles in the core to the side reflector, then convection and radiation to the core barrel and Reactor Pressure Vessel to the Reactor Cavity Cooling System (RCCS). The RCCS then utilizes more stereotypical natural convection in conjunction with conduction through concrete to the outside environment. (Bowers, 2017)[9]3.2.1.3. Active Safety SystemsActive safety systems are those which require active operation in order to operate. As mentioned before, reactor scrams can be active-safety as well, relying on control systems to initiate a scram automatically, or scrams can be initiated manually by operators when deemed necessary to shut down the reactor in a rapid manner.The NuScale Power Module utilizes Emergency Core Cooling Systems, Decay Heat Removal Systems, and the concept of an Ultimate Heat Sink (NuScale Power LLC, n.d.a), concepts which are parroted in the Holtec SMR-160, both of which rely on gravity-driven ECCS for guaranteed cooling in the non-credible event of a failure of normal passive cooling systems.Active safety systems such as the Highly Integrated Protection System Platforms, or HIPS platforms, are used as instrumentation and control (I&C), are functionally independent and redundant from one another to prefer protection active that is unnecessary due to equipment malfunction, which would increase downtime and therefore cost money in reduced capacity factor (NuScale Power LLC, n.d.b.)[10] To augment this, the NuScale Power Module analysis shows that it and other SMRs, being simpler in design, allow fewer opportunities for equipment failure, and the lack of need to scram on a loss of offsite power thanks to 100% steam-turbine bypass features and aforementioned Island Mode Power.Figure 3.2.1.3.-1 Number of 2015 reactor scrams expected to be precluded by the NuScale Design — (Reyes & Ingersoll, 2018)[11]These redundant safety systems also ensure that reactor scrams will happen when they are necessary, by allowing for there to be components which have failed without operators recognizing these failures, yet statistically other redundant systems in the network will still be operational and able to cause reactor scram or other protective features (NuScale Power LLC, n.d.b).These styles of systems are expected to be used in all Small Modular Reactors, and NuScale Power principles have been evaluated by multiple companies to be utilized on new builds; it can be reasonably ascertained that such evaluations can be parroted across most new builds. While redundant safety systems are readily used in even old designs, the ability to use Island Mode Power and 100% Steam Turbine bypass are specific capabilities of small modular reactors operating in packs, a method of operation which traditional large reactors operating singularly cannot execute.3.2.1.4. Plant Response to Extreme EventsNuclear plant operators must always consider the possibility of external threats to their reactors, either natural or man-made. Terrorism is a constant possible threat to a nuclear power plant. Reactor plants in the US require aircraft-grade protection to be able to withstand a strike from a commercial aircraft, such as those which have been used in previous attacks (Reyes, 2018). SMRs like the NuScale Power Module will be equipped with concrete containment buildings able to withstand these strikes (Doyle, 2016). Additionally, it is common for reactors to be built partially underground, and future plants like the Xe-100 and Holtec SMR-160 could be built entirely underground for added security and protection (Bowers, 2017 and Holtec International, n.d.a).Cybersecurity is a growing problem in today’s society, a factor which old reactor plants mitigated by not attaching themselves to the growing internet networks, save for administratively. The NuScale Power Module further protects itself by not using software or microprocessors in the protection systems, instead favoring field programmable gate arrays, leaving them immune to cyber-attack (Reyes, 2018). These exist in the form of Highly Integrated Protection System Platforms, or HIPS Platforms, developed in partnership with Rock Creek Innovations LLC (NuScale Power LLC, n.d.b). These HIPS Platforms control the safety-related systems and are physically and electrically independent for redundancy, ensuring persistent reactor safety in a platform that is modular to ease replacement should they be damaged or faulty, reducing maintenance and training costs (NuScale Power LLC, n.d.b). Electromagnetic attacks or natural occurrences could also render the electrical grid or reactor plant in danger. To combat this, the planned NuScale plants will utilize protected backup generators to allow “black-start” capability, not relying on the external electrical grid to return to a power-producing state (Reyes, 2018).Following the Great Tōhoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami event that enabled fission product release at the Fukushima power plant for failing to cool the fuel adequately, public concern was raised over the safety of existing nuclear power plants. Future SMRs will be constructed with Seismic Category 1 buildings, capable of withstanding such a cataclysmic event, to include earthquakes, flooding, tornadoes, et cetera, in accordance with the findings of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Reyes, 2018). Furthermore, such an event would have to knock out all modular reactors in a reactor-pack setup, as each reactor is capable of Island Mode Power, where it provides support power for all other reactor systems in its pack. In any case, they are to adhere to Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines regarding distance from fault lines and establishing guidance for a Safe Shutdown Earthquake protocol for any historical epicenters within 200 miles2 (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2019), as well as any state and local guidance.On the contrary, SMRs can provide enhanced grid reliability following natural disasters, enabling first responders to utilize electrical power once off-site grid components are restored. Following a disaster resulting in loss of a portion of the electrical grid, NuScale Power Modules specifically can be restored using black-start features, or if a single reactor remains online in Island Mode Power, the NuScale plant can utilize a turbine-bypass feature to keep the reactors throttled to 100% power if it is predicted that the offsite need exists, or they can throttle down electrical output appropriately to begin providing power at a moment’s notice once the offsite components are restored and maintain that power production for an extended period of up to twelve years (Reyes, 2018) whereas fuel deliveries to fossil fuel plants may be delayed. This feature can save lives during a natural disaster, where power and clean water may be scarce necessities.3.2.1.5 Analysis of Evaluated Reactor Safety SystemsAs before, the SMR with the best prospects in terms of safety is the NuScale Power Module. Smaller size makes for easier cooling, and unlike the Xe-100 and SMR-160, the NuScale Power Module makes few assumptions about safety by setting the reactors in a massive cooling pool, even though it realistically has the most reason to be able to make these assumptions. This aspect makes the design more promising to be approved by even the most prudent of those who are pro-Nuclear power and win over more of those individuals who are against it.The NuScale model has nearly all safety features of those evaluated except for the design-exclusive Doppler broadening of PBRs, and uses redundant coolant systems that are, by design, technically unnecessary; these entire systems are themselves redundant with additional cooling systems, and as several of these systems are similar to those used onboard naval power plants, their mechanisms are well understood and tested. As such, the NuScale model, above all others, can almost certainly be evaluated as “meltdown proof,” even though its designers, perhaps wisely, make few such claims.3.2.2. Public SafetyHuman beings fear what they do not understand. It is our nature to be cautious of new and strange things to increase our likelihood of survival in the wild. However, most people living in first world countries are far from fending for themselves and most of the gaps in our knowledge are due to ignorance more so than lack of availability of information. The unfortunate truth concerning nuclear power and health physics is that public knowledge and understanding of these topics is extremely limited if there is any at all. So little is known by the public that during the Fukushima incident, reporters occasionally showed diagrams of PWRs instead of a simple BWR drawing as appropriate for the Fukushima Daiichi reactors, not understanding that the two reactor designs are quite different.Fear is easily propagated by opponents of the nuclear industry. For instance, the comparison of a nuclear reactor to a nuclear bomb, which for anyone in the nuclear industry is almost a laughable one. The truth is that those in the know are a very small majority and public opinion reflects that. Since the first nuclear power plants opened in the 1950s, and “in over 17,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 33 countries, there have been only three major accidents to nuclear power plants.” (World Nuclear Association, 2018a)[12] Of those three accidents, one of them occurred in the Soviet Bloc in a reactor design which was never used or approved for use anywhere in the West.The three most known and criticized reactor accidents are Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and most recently the Fukushima Dai-Ichi incident. The accidents occurred in 1979, 1986, and 2011 respectively with the first two being due to human error and a lack of safety culture. The only true failure of a reactor system, in part or in whole, without human error being the cause was the most recent in Japan. The catastrophic natural disaster which caused the damage at the plant which led to subsequent meltdowns was the perfect storm of the power plant being at the very end of its life, the 9.0 magnitude earthquake, and the original design was meant to withstand wave heights of “5.7 m for Daiichi…[when] tsunami heights coming ashore were about 14 meters.” (World Nuclear Association, 2018a)The new designs for SMRs would limit not only the number of employees per reactor but also the number of support systems. In doing so the likelihood of human error would significantly decrease even further than the level they are now and support system issues or failures would also be minimized. For current large power plants, “cooling requires water circulation and an external heat sink. If pumps cannot run due to lack of power, gravity must be relied upon.” (World Nuclear Association, 2018a) SMRs, specifically the analyzed designs, safely shut down and self-cool, indefinitely with no operator action, no AC or DC power, and no additional water. It is the first self-protecting reactor which eliminates both human error and natural disasters as culprits for a reactor accident to occur.3.2.2.2. Actualized SafetyIn reality, safety regulations are stringently controlled by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Radiation exposure limits that are annually allowed for adults are restricted to an occupational annual 5 rem total effective for adults, with higher limits for certain portions of the body in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1301, and less for infants and pregnant women. (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2019)[13] . This is half of the World Health Organization’s listed 10 rem to show an increased risk of cancer and twenty times less than the WHO noted amount linked to radiation sickness (2016)[14] . It should be noted that the NRC required value is an annual allowance, whereas the WHO value is an acute, or short-term, dose allowance, which is far more damaging than the same dose over a longer period. Reactors plants in America accomplish this guarantee via proper construction of containment, training operators, and Design-Base-Casualty analysis. SMRs expand upon this through the previously mentioned reduced risk for a meltdown.For each individual reactor design, a shield must be set in place and optimized to attenuate gammas and neutrons to acceptable levels. If the shield is not appropriately designed, workers at the power plants may suffer health consequences and materials in the reactor rooms could undergo changes in their molecular structures causing them to weaken and become unreliable over time. As such, is possible for a nuclear power plant worker to receive less radiation exposure than the general public, being shielded both from the reactor’s radiation as well as solar radiation.3.2.2.3. Public Safety RegulationsSafety is stringently governed and regulated for the nuclear power industry to protect the public, the employees of the power companies, and the environment. For the nuclear industry to survive, the public must feel safe and be kept safe. The federal agency responsible for this task has changed over the years and has developed into an efficient and effective monitor of private nuclear power generating corporations in the United States.The regulation of nuclear power in the United States has evolved since the development of fission reactors and began with the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Due to concerns that the USAEC started to favor the industry it was tasked with regulating, making the regulation of the industry less effective, there was a shake-up in regulatory agencies and the distribution of responsibilities. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 caused the United States Atomic Energy Commission to be split into two major agencies: one that monitored and regulated nuclear reactors and power generation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and another that was responsible for the progression of research and development of nuclear weapons and technologies, known as the Energy Research and Development Administration; which later integrated into the United States Department of Energy.The NRC was designated the responsibility of regulating the nuclear power industry and ensuring standards were upheld to guarantee public safety and protect the environment. They are a federal agency tasked with holding commercial power companies and reactor R & D laboratories accountable to safety and environmental standards and regulates all things nuclear power related in the United States. The duties of the NRC include but are not limited to: overseeing reactor safety and security, administering reactor licensing and renewal, licensing of radioactive materials, radionuclide safety, and managing the storage, security, recycling, and disposal of all radioactive materials.Figure 3.2.2.3-1 Reactor Oversight Framework (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018)The NRC is currently split into four separate regions to oversee all reactors in the United States, whether they are for testing and research, currently generating power, in the construction phase, or the decommissioning phase. These regions are based on the density of nuclear power related activities in their respective region, and they are split at the Mason-Dixon Line with regions one and two being the northeast and the southeast. Region three is based out of Lisle, Illinois and covers east of the Mississippi River and west of regions one and two while region four is based in Arlington, Texas and covers everything from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. There was formerly a region five which was based in California but was absorbed into region four when nuclear power lost prominence in the western United States.It is crucial for the NRC to remain independent of the industry to avoid what is known as regulatory capture, in other words, the neutralization of regulators due to the influence of private corporations taking control of the industry. The favoring of the industry was what originally led to the shake-up, of the Atomic Energy Commission and the creation of the NRC to begin with. The number one concern for the NRC and the inspectors that work there is to “ ensure public health and safety in the operation of commercial power plants” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018)[15] and it must remain that way for the agency to remain relevant and effective.Inspectors of the NRC perform a range of duties for the agency including monitoring day to day operations, special inspections, accountability monitoring, complacency resistance, provision of suggestions for the training of operators, and enforcement of the reactor oversight program. Ultimate objectives of this program are: “reactor safety (avoiding accidents and reducing the consequences of accidents if they occur), radiation safety for both plant workers and the public during routine operations, and protection of the plant against sabotage or other security threats.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018)The reactor oversight process is an inspection process developed through years of inspections and evaluations on reactors across the country. Using this data, the NRC “determine[s] an appropriate response using the guidelines in an action matrix” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018) to any specific issue the inspection teams find. The owners of the reactors, the licensees, “collects performance indicator data” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018) from the inspections as well to better improve their own processes and procedures.Figure 3.2.2.3-2 Reactor Oversight Process (United StateS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018)Poorly written procedures or improper use of approved procedures can cascade and amplify casualties like the incident at Three Mile Island. “[The stuck open relief valve on top of the pressurizer] was a failure for which the TMI operators had never been trained, and which was not described in their written emergency procedures. This lack of preparation led to a misreading of the symptoms and mistaken responses that would uncover the reactor core.”(United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2016)[16] Through collaborative efforts, the nuclear industry constantly evolves and adapts to tackle issues from security to material conditions and in doing so ensures that the nuclear industry is allowed to exist.The modularity and simplistic design of SMRs will allow inspection teams to be more efficient in a multitude of ways. SMRs are much smaller than traditional fission reactors, “the reactor vessel has both a smaller nuclear core, with only 5% of the fuel of a typical large reactor, and a much larger fluid inventory,”(Reyes, J. 2012) and require a much smaller crew of trained individuals to monitor and operate them safely. The support systems are based more on passive “processes such as natural convection heat transfer, vapor condensation, liquid evaporation,pressure-driven coolant injection, or gravity-driven coolant injection”(Reyes, J. 2012) and require fewer moving parts and fewer support systems making material failures less likely. “It does not rely on external mechanical and/or electrical power, signals, or forces such as electric pumps.”(Reyes, J. 2012) Their compact design and simple, yet effective, containment system make them ideal for everything the NRC is trying to do: protect the public, protect the employees, and protect the environment.3.2.2.4. Environmental RegulationsReactor accidents can cause long-lasting negative effects on a region and the people that live in that region. These accidents not only cause local problems but in some cases far-reaching and long-lasting effects. One such effect industry-wide fear and criticism by the public and boosts support for opposing interests to the nuclear industry such as fossil fuels or other green power generation alternatives. The NRC performs their duties to minimize the likelihood of accidents through the various licensing and inspection programs.The NRC works in conjunction with the United States Department of Energy and private companies in the development of new reactor designs. They perform reviews of designs and construction sites and provide licenses to build and operate nuclear power plants that meet certain stringent criteria. Licenses are normally good for a certain number of years and if a company wants to extend the operating license of a particular reactor, they must apply for an extension from the NRC.Figure 3.2.2.4-1 New Reactor Licensing Process (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018)Upon receipt of an application for extension, the site in question will be reevaluated. If it passes inspection and the evaluation is satisfactory the license can be renewed, and the plant can continue operating. However, if for some reason the NRC finds that the power plant is either designed incorrectly or an existing power plant is operating in an unsafe manner, they can deny a new license or revoke an existing one. When such an outcome occurs, the company in question will need to prove in one way or another that they have the ability to operate safely and can reapply for a license. Waste disposal sites are also part of the licensing process and must be built and maintained to a certain standard, if they are not, the license can be denied or revoked.The NRC has inspectors duties range from an “in house” inspector who monitors day to day operations to specialized teams of inspectors that perform specific inspections of different parts of reactor operation. “The baseline inspection program has three parts: inspections [conducted] of areas not covered by performance indicators or where a performance indicator does not fully cover the inspection area, inspections [done] to verify the accuracy of a licensee's reports on performance indicators, [and] thorough reviews of the utility's effectiveness in independently finding and resolving problems.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018) All NRC inspection reports, except for those done on plant security, are available to the public after they have been fully reviewed and published to promote transparency of the agency.3.2.3. Waste Storage, Reduction, & TransferWaste from nuclear power plants is separated into two different types: high-level waste which is defined as “spent reactor fuel when it is accepted for disposal [or] waste materials which remain after spent fuel is reprocessed” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017) and low-level waste which is anything that has “become contaminated with radioactive material or [has] become radioactive through exposure to neutron radiation.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017)[17] There are two such ways approved to store high-level waste: spent fuel pools or dry cask storage.The pools are found at reactor sites where depleted fuel can be safely transported and stored. “The water-pool option involves storing spent fuel assemblies under at least 20 feet of water, which provides adequate shielding from the radiation for anyone near the pool. The assemblies are moved into the water pools from the reactor along the bottom of water canals so that the spent fuel is always shielded to protect workers.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017) Currently, most spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in pools at individual reactor sites around the country.The construction of the pools is also heavily regulated in terms of what materials can be used and how the pool is constructed. Especially when re-racking storage areas inside the pools, “[licensees] generally replace the original storage racks in the spent fuel pool with high-density storage racks that incorporate neutron absorber panels between the spent fuel assemblies to ensure subcriticality per NRC regulations.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017) Having spent fuel be in any state other than subcritical could lead to major issues and must be avoided. The repair and replacement of racks in spent fuel pools has been necessary over time to increase the amount of storage space inside the pools and to replace materials inside the pools suffering from degradation. The NuScale model in particular plans far ahead for the entirety of the life of the reactor plant including sufficient storage in the same containment structure as the rest of the reactors (Doyle, 2016).“In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the need for alternative storage began to grow when pools at many nuclear reactors began to fill up with stored spent fuel.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018) Dry cask storage is generally allowed, and licensed, only for “spent fuel that has already been cooled in the spent fuel pool for at least one year” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017) either at the reactor site itself or off-site at a designated area away from the reactor and only when sites are approaching their pool capacity limit. The off-site locations include decommissioned reactor sites or a consolidated interim storage facility. The first dry storage installation was licensed by the NRC in 1986 at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia. (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018)There is currently no permanent disposal facility although Yucca Mountain Nevada has been designed, engineered, and built to be such a site. But the project, which broke ground in 2002, has never opened and has run into roadblocks from the state and regional governments of Nevada and other concerned groups. The NRC “received an application from the [DOE] on June 3, 2008, for a license to construct the nation’s first geological repository for high-level nuclear waste” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018) and heard approximately 300 contentions prior to suspending proceedings on Sept. 30, 2011. The DOE and NRC requested more funding and has received some limited support from Congress in FY18 for Yucca Mountain. “If DOE is granted the construction authorization and, subsequently, a receipt license, the NRC will also oversee and inspect any construction, waste emplacement, and/or repository closure activities” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018) [at the site].Low-level waste, on the other hand, “is typically stored on-site by licensees, either until it has decayed away and can be disposed of as normal trash, or until amounts are large enough for shipment to a low-level waste disposal site in containers approved by the [USDOT,]” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017) of which there are four. The “commercially operated low-level waste disposal facilities…must be licensed by either [the] NRC or Agreement States. The facilities must be designed, constructed, and operated to meet safety standards [and] the operator of the facility must also extensively characterize the site on which they are located and analyze how they will perform for thousands of years into the future.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018) Unfortunately, due to the possible contamination of materials by fission products or fuel, the decay times for some low-level waste will be as long as some high-level waste items.Disposing of low-level waste is much easier than high-level waste because the level of contamination is normally very low but can vary depending on what process the waste came from. Decontaminating low-level waste or allowing it to decay does not take as long, in most cases, as high-level waste. Because of their highly radioactive fission products, high-level waste and spent fuel must be handled and stored with care. Since the only way radioactive waste finally becomes harmless is through decay or decontamination, which for high-level wastes that cannot be decontaminated can take hundreds of thousands of years, the wastes must be stored and finally disposed of in a way that provides adequate protection of the public for a very long time. SMRs achieve this through the use of integrating most of the primary plant components, which are transportable by the same methods that delivered the reactor initially.Once fuel rods have been removed from the core, the fission process slows significantly. The fuel rods will “still generate significant amounts of radiation and [decay] heat.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017) Now, “because of the residual hazard, spent fuel must be shipped in containers or casks that not only shield and contain the radioactivity but also dissipate the decay heat.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017) There have been many shipments of radioactive waste throughout the United States over the past several decades with no major incidents or release of contamination. These shipments have specific requirements for packaging depending on what is being transported.For transport of radioactive material, there are three types of containers they are loosely defined by the United State Department of Transportation. The first and least defined is “a strong tight container which is designed to survive normal transportation and handling. In essence, if the material makes it from point X to point Y without an unintentional release, the package was a strong tight container. A Type A container, on the other hand, is designed to survive normal transportation handling and minor accidents” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission), where “Type B containers must be able to survive severe accidents.” (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Most of these shipments occur between different reactors owned by the same utility company to share storage space for spent fuel, or they may be shipped to a research facility to have tests performed on the spent fuel itself.Spent fuel can also have another life in SMRs. Some of the SMR designs utilize low enriched uranium and can therefore make use of spent fuel. The United States does not have a fuel reprocessing center but that does not mean that the international community will ignore this possible benefit. Other designs might allow for the use of thorium as a fuel source which is fertile instead of fissile and can actually act as a breeder to create fuel for other types of reactors that utilize uranium. The reuse of spent fuel from larger power plants and the reduction in overall fuel requirements will allow SMRs to forge a new path for nuclear power innovation.WRITTEN BY: David McFarland, Jerrad Smythers, & Jordan BossermanThat second section constituted only like 15 pages of a 103 page report.Footnotes[1] https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/Nuscale/Files/Technology/Technical-Publications/highly-reliable-nuclear-power-for-mission-critical-application.ashx?la=en&hash=7C0E691C7DC3ADA92493C2066CD28FCA991A90C0[2] Small nuclear power reactors[3] Small nuclear power reactors[4] Financial Case Studies on Small- and Medium-Size Modular Reactors[5] Technical Publications[6] NuScale Plant Safety in Response to Extreme Events[7] SMR LLC[8] Safe and Secure[9] http://local.ans.org/dc/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ANS_Xe-100-Overview_04052017.pdf[10] Technical Publications[11] NuScale Power | SMR Nuclear Technology[12] Safety of Nuclear Reactors[13] Regulations Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations[14] Ionizing radiation, health effects and protective measures[15] https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html[16] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1616/ML16166A337.pdf[17] Waste Incidental to Reprocessing