Naval Reactors History Database (nrhdb)
Favorites (0)
Search:
Budgetary information in subject [X]
rss icon RSS | Modify Search | New Search | nrhdb Home
Results:  20 itemsBrowse by Facet | Title
Sorted by:  
Page: Prev  1 2
Subject
Budgetary information[X]
Naval Reactors (20)
A1B (1)
Date
expand2012 (3)
2011 (1)
expand2010 (2)
2009 (1)
2008 (1)
2007 (1)
2006 (1)
2005 (1)
2004 (1)
2003 (1)
expand2002 (2)
2001 (1)
expand2000 (1)
1998 (2)
1984 (1)
Type
Text (20)
11Title:  Statement of Admiral Frank L. Bowman, Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, National Nuclear Security Administration budget Add
 Summary:  Admiral Frank Bowman's written statement in support of the Naval Reactors request in the fiscal year 2001 budget. The document provides a good description of the role of the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion and an overview of the program's history and culture. Bowman's emphasis on "the longevity of its senior managers and staff" is consistent with Admiral Hyman Rickover's management of the program (as its first director). In terms of the FY 2001 request, Bowman identifies reactor development for the Virginia-class fast-attack submarines and the successor to the Nimitz-class carriers as priorities. He also describes NR's efforts since 1993 in deactivating land-based prototype plants. 
 Source:  http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000225fb.pdf 
 Date:  25 February 2000 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
12Title:  Department of Energy FY 2007 Congressional budget request: National Nuclear Security Administration Add
 Summary:  The Naval Reactors budget request, part of the National Nuclear Security Agency request, for fiscal year 2007. The request notes Naval Reactors' cradle-to-grave role in naval nuclear propulsion and the fact that the nuclear navy of submarines and aircraft carriers constituted 40 percent of the Navy's combatant vessels in 2006. Development areas described in the request include the high-energy reactor for CVN 21 (the A1B reactor) and the Transformational Technology Core (TTC) for future Virginia-class attack submarines. The TTC is designed to increase core energy density without an increase in plant size or weight. The request also provides information on the work of NR divisions (Plant Technology, Reactor Technology and Analysis, Materials Development and Verification, Evaluation and Servicing) in 2006, including their recent accomplishments and goals. 
 Source:  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/budget/energy.pdf 
 Date:   2006 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
13Title:  Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional budget request: National Nuclear Security Administration Add
 Summary:  The fiscal year budget request for Naval Reactors, included as part of the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) request. The Naval Reactors request for FY 2011 was just over $1 billion. The "Validation and Verification" section notes NNSA's role in evaluating the Naval Reactors program through its Programming, Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) process. Strategic areas of emphasis for FY 2011 included: Reactor plant design for the successor to the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine; refueling of the S8G prototype, to support the development of advanced core technology; and, enhancing the spent fuel infrastructure at the Naval Reactors Facility, located at the Idaho National Laboratory. 
 Source:  http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/11budget/Content/Volume%201.pdf 
 Date:   2010 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
14Title:  FY 2006 Naval Reactors budget request Add
 Summary:  The fiscal year 2006 budget request for Naval Reactors. Beyond the primary goal of plant safety, the request describes NR's strategic efforts "to increase core energy, to achieve life-of-the-ship cores, and to eliminate the need to refuel nuclear powered ships" (557). These development efforts included the reactor plant design for the CVN 21 class (the A1B reactor) and the Transformational Technology Core (TTC) for Virginia-class fast attack submarines. One motive behind TTC described in the request was "the need to transition from 97 to 93 percent enriched Uranium fuel. This transition is necessitated by the shutdown of the high enrichment plant and the decision to use Uranium recovered from retired nuclear weapons as starter material for naval nuclear reactors" (558). The "Reactor Technology and Analysis" section provides more in-depth coverage of NR's TTC work. 
 Source:  http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/06budget/Content/Programs/Vol_1_NNSA_3.pdf 
 Date:   2005 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
15Title:  Department of Energy FY 1985 Congressional budget request: Atomic energy defense activities Add
 Summary:  The FY 1985 Naval Reactors budget request, part of the Department of Energy's request for FY 1985. The program overview notes the importance of NR's support for national security, in that "the most survivable leg of our strategic defense triad" is based upon nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (674). One interesting aspect of the overview is that, in the list of benefits gained from advanced reactor development, the reduction of plant operators is not included. This could be considered the pre-drawdown perspective on reactor development. The importance of the Expended Core Facility's work is emphasized by the statement that "examination of spent reactor cores provides valuable information about core performance and the effects of reactor operation on reactor materials" (676). The role of computer systems in core and component design is described in the "Nuclear Design and Analysis" section. In 1984, there were eight naval nuclear prototype plants in operation. (By 2011, the number of prototypes had been reduced to four.) The request notes the importance of the ability to test reactor cores and components in these plants: "no amount of analysis or accelerated testing can provide the data which can be obtained from the actual in-service experience obtained by operating the prototypes" (682). The prototypes' role in operator training is described in the "Reactor Operation and Testing" section. 
 Source:  http://www.osti.gov/bridge 
 Date:   1984 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
16Title:  Navy aircraft carriers: Cost-effectiveness of conventionally and nuclear-powered carriers Add
 Summary:  This 1998 GAO study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of nuclear-powered carriers compared with their conventional counterparts. Chapter 3 focuses on a primary finding, that .life-cycle costs for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are greater than for conventionally-powered carriers. (74). This includes construction and modernization costs; support and operations costs; and, costs after decommissioning (.because of the extensive work necessary to remove spent nuclear fuel from the reactor plant and remove and dispose of the radiologically contaminated reactor plant and other system components. (74). The report notes that the Department of Defense .disagreed that comparing the life-cycle costs of conventionally powered carriers such as the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy with Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carriers was appropriate because of differences in the age, size, and capabilities of the carriers. (96). Chapter 4 describes the benefits of having a United States carrier homeported in Japan and the maintenance facility support that would be required to support a nuclear-powered carrier to be based there. (Note that the USS George Washington, CVN-73, has been based in Yokosuka, Japan since 2008.) Overall, the study provides a good analysis of the costs and benefits associated with naval nuclear propulsion for the carrier fleet. The last conventionally-powered carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, was decommissioned in 2009; as of today, all United States Navy carriers are nuclear-powered. This study was published at a time when the best path for propulsion systems was being carefully analyzed. The chart on page 23 that compares the specifications of the USS John F. Kennedy (conventional) versus the USS Nimitz (nuclear) has several critical data items. In terms of aviation fuel capacity and ordnance capacity, the nuclear-powered carrier is vastly superior. In other ways not listed, such as sustained speed and the elimination of stack gases, the nuclear-powered carrier is again superior. 
 Source:  http://www.fdsys.gov/ 
 Date:   1998 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
17Title:  Statement of Thomas P. D.Agostino, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy on the fiscal year 2012 nuclear security posture and the President's budget request before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Senate Armed Services Committee Add
 Summary:  The written statement of Thomas D'Agostino, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, on the administration's budget request for FY 2012. This statement includes supporting information for the Naval Reactors budget request, which was 1.2 billion dollars, an increase of nearly eight percent from the previous fiscal year. D'Agostino identifies strategic development areas as support for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement, noting that 'providing the Ohio class replacement a life-of-the-ship reactor core will require substantial advances in manufacturing technology to provide new cladding and a new fuel system" (4). A second strategic area is the "Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project (SFHP), which will replace the over 50-year old Expended Core Facility (ECF) as the location for naval spent nuclear fuel receipt, inspection, dissection, packaging, and secure dry storage" (4). Finally, the budget tables show how the request for Naval Reactors fits within the larger NNSA budget request. 
 Source:  http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/03%20March/DAgostino%2003-30-11.pdf 
 Date:  30 March 2012 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
18Title:  Department of Energy FY 2013 Congressional budget request: National Nuclear Security Administration Add
 Summary:  This National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) FY 2013 budget request includes a request of 1.1 billion dollars for Naval Reactors, a less than one percent increase over the FY 2012 request. The appropriations summary notes that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines currently comprise over 40 percent of the nation's combatant vessels. It also describes several high-level strategic goals: "Continued execution of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement project, land-based prototype refueling overhaul, and the recapitalization of NR's spent fuel handling infrastructure" (9). One of the key accomplishments of Naval Reactors in FY 2012 related to Virginia-class Block II submarines, including the commissioning of the USS California (SSN-781) and the construction of two additional Block II subs, the USS Mississippi (SSN-782) and the USS Minnesota (SSN-783). The request also describes significant activities in the spent fuel processing area for aircraft carrier reactors in the past year, including delivery of the M-290 spent fuel shipping containers and upgrades to the Expended Core Facility to support the M-290 containers; these measures show the "continued preparations for the inactivation and disposal of CVN-65 (USS Enterprise), the first-ever nuclear powered aircraft carrier decommissioning" (481). Key milestones planned for FY 2013 are continued reactor plant design work for the Gerald R. Ford-class of super carriers (to 98 percent completion) and the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement (to 23 percent completion). Finally, the interrelationship between NR and other NNSA programs is illustrated by the discussion of the Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This facility "provide[s] uranium as feedstock for fuel for naval reactors" (244). 
 Source:  http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/budget 
 Date:   2012 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
19Title:  Statement of Admiral Kirkland Donald, Director, Naval Reactors, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy on the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Add
 Summary:  Admiral Kirkland Donald summarizes the Naval Reactors budget request for FY 2013. Adm. Donald describes important program accomplishments for FY 2012. This includes progress in reactor design for the replacement class for Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, "including sufficient completion of design and manufacturing development of core materials to support the 2012 core materials decision" (1). He notes that full funding for this design work is essential: "vital to minimizing risk and cost during component procurement and ship construction" (3). In describing the FY 2013 request, Donald emphasizes the program's responsibility "for complete lifecycle support for every nuclear-powered warship, from construction through inactivation" (2). This is epitomized by the major projects described by Adm. Donald, including "the refueling overhaul for the S8G land-based prototype reactor, the design of the Ohio replacement reactor plant, and recapitalization of [the] naval spent nuclear fuel infrastructure" (2). He also describes the benefits of the life-of-the-ship core that will be installed in the successor to the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, one being the ability to reduce the number of submarines procured by the federal government. Finally, Donald notes the importance of the Expended Core Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory (which has been in operation for more than 50 years). Due to fiscal limits imposed by the Budget Control Act, Naval Reactors will be submitting a revised plan for the recapitalization of infrastructure at the facility. 
 Source:  http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2012/03%20March/Donald%2003-14-12.pdf 
 Date:  14 March 2012 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
20Title:  FY 2005 Naval Reactors budget request Add
 Summary:  This budget document describes Naval Reactors funding for the 2005 fiscal year, and for the preceding fiscal years. The program's fundamental purpose is stated: "Provide the Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and ensure their continued safe and reliable operation" (521). The budget document describes the development of the CVN 21 (later designated as A1B) reactor, the successor to the A4W plants that power the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. As noted, the A1B plants will provide over 25% more energy than the A4W plants and require significantly fewer propulsion plant operators. The document also describes Naval Reactors' work with Transformational Technology Core (TTC) pressurized water reactors, which will "deliver a significant energy increase to future VIRGINIA-class" submarines (522). The "Memos and Strategies" section (526) describes the program's relationship to the Bettis and Knolls laboratories. 
 Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor 
 Date:   2004 
 Subject(s):  A1B | Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
Page: Prev  1 2

nrhdb Home