ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Jul 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
September 2026
Nuclear Technology
August 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
The human factor in licensing and operating the next generation of nuclear plants
As human factors specialists working at the intersection of human performance and nuclear operations, we are witnessing one of the nuclear sector’s most significant transitions in decades. The emergence of small modular reactors, microreactors, and other advanced designs is reshaping the industry’s landscape. Digital instrumentation and controls, passive safety systems, and increased automation are creating opportunities for greater safety margins and more flexible operation. These same features also fundamentally redefine what it means to “operate” a nuclear plant. Interactions among human roles, automation, and passive systems shape how people maintain awareness, exercise judgment, and intervene when necessary. These developments affect both operational realities and the regulatory foundations on which nuclear safety is built.
B. Beeny, R. Vaghetto, K. Vierow, Y. A. Hassan
Nuclear Technology | Volume 196 | Number 2 | November 2016 | Pages 292-302
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NT16-36
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The thermal-hydraulic response of large dry pressurized water reactor containments under loss-of-coolant-accident conditions—particularly with respect to containment pressure and sump pool temperature—is crucial for risk-informed decision making about Generic Safety Issue 191. Texas A&M University has developed models with several computer codes including MELCOR and GOTHIC to model such scenarios.
MELCOR is a best-estimate thermal-hydraulic and severe accident code created and actively maintained by Sandia National Laboratories for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. GOTHIC is a thermal-hydraulic software package meant for design, licensing, and safety calculations for, among other systems, nuclear power plant containments. It was developed and is maintained by Numerical Applications Inc. for the Electronic Power Research Institute.
The overarching goal of the analyses presented here is twofold: (1) produce best-estimate time profiles of sump pool temperature under double-ended guillotine-break conditions with MELCOR and GOTHIC and (2) investigate differences between the MELCOR and GOTHIC code results via a sensitivity study. The sump pool temperature was selected as a key parameter to compare because it has direct implications for sump pool chemistry, residual heat removal during recirculation, and pressure drop across sump screens.
Aspects of the MELCOR and GOTHIC modeling strategies are discussed, and best estimates of the containment thermal-hydraulic response are presented. There are significant disagreements between code predictions. Hypotheses to explain the differences are tested through a comparative code sensitivity study. In this context, “sensitivity” refers to how containment thermal hydraulics respond to differences in code inputs or code phenomenological models. Sensitivity calculations are performed to exclude, individually, the model effects on comparative thermal-hydraulic responses of containment fan coolers, containment sprays, thermal surface condensation/films, and break source definition. Calculations are also performed with multiple models excluded. Using containment sump pool temperature as an indicator, the most impactful physics in terms of code agreement are those of thermal surfaces (condensation, film phenomena) whereas fan cooler models have a minimal effect. Containment spray exclusion results in disagreement in parts of the event sequence, while break source definition and/or break effluent flashing models lead to disagreement.