Naval Reactors History Database (nrhdb)
Favorites (0)
Search:
'Naval Reactors' in subject 2010 in date [X]
rss icon RSS | Modify Search | New Search | nrhdb Home
Results:  18 itemsBrowse by Facet | Title
Sorted by:  
Page: 1 2  Next
Subject
Date
collapse2010
expand12 (3)
expand11 (1)
expand10 (2)
expand09 (3)
expand08 (1)
expand07 (1)
expand06 (1)
expand04 (1)
Type
Image (9)
Text (9)
1Title:  Navy Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarine procurement: Background and issues for Congress Add
 Summary:  This Congressional Research Service report, authored by naval affairs specialist Ronald O'Rourke, describes procurement issues relating to Virginia-class attack submarines. O'Rourke describes the joint production arrangement for the Virginia class: "GD/EB builds certain parts of each boat, Newport News builds certain other parts of each boat, and the yards take turns building the reactor compartments and performing final assembly of the boats" (4). One crucial benefit of this arrangement, in the two U.S. shipyards currently qualified to build nuclear submarines, is that it "preserves both yards' ability to build submarine reactor compartments (a key capability for a submarine-construction yard) and perform submarine final-assembly work" (4). The joint arrangement is in the context of the Virginia-class program, in which submarines are "being procured at a relatively low annual rate" of 1-2 boats per year (4). The author also describes a projected shortfall in available U.S. attack submarines (the number of available submarines is expected to dip to a low of 39 in 2030) and some steps that could mitigate this shortfall, including reducing the length of shipyard construction time for Virginia-class boats from 72 to 60 months. 
 Source:  http://opencrs.com/document/RL32418/ 
 Date:   2010 
 Subject(s):  S9G | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
2Title:  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
3Title:  Public scoping meeting: Environmental Impact Statement for the recapitalization of infrastructure supporting naval spent nuclear fuel handling and examination at the Idaho National Laboratory Add
 Summary:  An informational brochure that describes the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project at the Expended Core Facility. It provides an overview of ECF's operations and the importance of spent fuel processing activities to the Naval Reactors program. 
 Source:  http://www.ecfrecapitalization.us/ 
 Date:   2010 
 Subject(s):  Expended Core Facility | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
4Title:  Occupational radiation exposure from Naval Reactors' Department of Energy facilities Add
 Summary:  This report focuses on radiation exposure at facilities managed by the Department of Energy's Office of Naval Reactors. As noted in the report, "the policy of the Naval Reactors Program is to reduce exposure to personnel from ionizing radiation associated with Naval Reactors' Department of Energy facilities to a level as low as reasonably achievable" (5). Naval Reacors "operates two Department of Energy laboratories; one Department of Energy site with two operating and one inactive prototype naval nuclear propulsion plants; one Department of Energy site that operates the Expended Core Facility (for dispositioning of naval fuel and examination of irradiated test specimens) and has three inactive prototype nuclear propulsion plants; and nuclear component engineering and procurement organizations" (1). These facilities provide support for the United States Navy's 82 combatant vessels (submarines and aircraft carriers). For the prototype plants, the major source of radiation expoure is maintenance inside the reactor compartments during shutdown periods, specifically "cobalt-60 deposited inside the [primary] piping systems" (6). The report describes the sources of exposure at other facilities, such as the Idaho National Laboratory's Expended Core Facility. It also provides information on exposure at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, which operated from 1957 to 1982. The use of the Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR) core at Shippingport (the first core that successfully bred fuel in a water-cooled reactor) led to extremely high radiation exposures as the core was fabricated; this exposure, which dramatically increased total exposure in the 1974-1976 time period, is shown in figure 1. Finally, the report includes information on dosimetry devices used in the program and the training required of civilian specialists who support prototype operations. Note that the report does not include exposure information for the moored S5W training prototype plants operated by the Navy in Charleston, South Carolina. 
 Source:  http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/02-12-multiplefiles/NT-11-2%20FINAL.pdf 
 Date:   2010 
 Subject(s):  Health physics | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
5Title:  The proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and its potential impact on U.S. Navy nuclear propulsion programs Add
 Summary:  This Naval Postgraduate School thesis, written by Marion Burgess, Jr., examines the possible impact of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) upon the Navy's nuclear propulsion program. Burgess notes that the United States' naval nuclear reactors use enriched uranium, material that falls under the limits defined in FMCT. For a host of reasons, including verification impracticalities, the author asserts that "the United States government should not, and probably will not, endorse an FMCT that would affect the production of fissile materials for naval nuclear propulsion" (56). 
 Source:  http://www.worldcat.org/title/proposed-fissile-material-cutoff-treaty-fmct-and-its-potential-impact-on-us-navy-nuclear-propulsion-programs/oclc/610056176 
 Date:   2010 
 Subject(s):  Highly enriched uranium (HEU) | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
6Title:  Safeguarding of naval nuclear propulsion information: Unclassified portion Add
 Summary:  This document describes the handling requirements for NNPI, naval nuclear propulsion information, in light of current information technologies. It includes directions on determining classification and on marking classified documents. The instruction document includes a letter signed by Kirkland Donald, Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion, with implementation information. 
 Source:  www.fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/opnavinst/n9210_3.pdf 
 Date:  07 June 2010 
 Subject(s):  Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
7Title:  Navy nuclear-powered surface ships: Background, issues, and options for Congress Add
 Summary:  This 2010 study, authored by Ronald O'Rourke of the Congressional Research Service, describes issues relating to the expansion of nuclear propulsion to cruisers. O'Rourke notes that the only current United States Navy nuclear-powered surface ships are aircraft carriers. At the same time, section 1012 of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act states that major combantant ships should be nuclear-powered, unless the Secretary of Defense reports to Congress that the use of nuclear propulsion is not in the national interest. The author describes issues relating to the CG(X) cruiser class (which was cancelled in 2010) and provides cost comparisons of nuclear- versus conventionally-powered cruisers. 
 Source:  http://opencrs.com/document/RL33946/ 
 Date:  29 September 2010 
 Subject(s):  CG(X) | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
8Title:  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 2011 President.s budget request before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Add
 Summary:  This document describes the Naval Reactors appropriation request for FY 2011. It describes the current composition of the nuclear navy and three future priorities: replacement reactor plants for the S8G plants on board Ohio-class submarines; refueling of the Ohio prototype plant at West Milton, New York; and, funding for the Expended Core Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory. 
 Source:  http://www.nti.org/e_research/source_docs/us/congress/senate/14.pdf 
 Date:  14 April 2010 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
9Title:  Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the recapitalization of infrastructure supporting naval spent nuclear fuel handling and examination at the Idaho National Laboratory Add
 Summary:  As noted in the summary section, "the [Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program] intends to prepare an [Environmental Impact Statement] for the recapitalization of infrastructure at the Expended Core Facility (ECF) at the [Idaho National Laboratory] in Idaho" (1). The supplementary information section nicely summarizes Naval Reactors' cradle-to-grave responsibility for nuclear propulsion and the role of the Expended Core Facility in "support[ing] the design and maintenance of nuclear propulsion systems by providing for the examination of spent nuclear fuel and irradiated materials" (2). The ECF works "to provide data on current reactor performance, to validate models used to predict future performance, and to support research to improve reactor design" (2). The notice describes the fact that "a significant portion of the ECF infrastructure has been in service for over 50 years" (3). The planned recapitalization work is intended to extend ECF's ability to support naval nuclear propulsion spent fuel activities for another 40 years. 
 Source:  http://www.ecfrecapitalization.us/ 
 Date:  19 July 2010 
 Subject(s):  Expended Core Facility | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
10Title:  USS Nimitz in drydock Add
 Summary:  The USS Nimitz in drydock at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. Two of the Nimitz's four screws are shown. The Nimitz was the second nuclear-powered carrier to be commissioned by the United States Navy. Due primarily to cost concerns, there was more than a six year gap between the commissioning of the USS Enterprise, powered by eight A2W reactors, and the keel-laying of the Nimitz, which is powered by two A4W reactors. 
 Source:  http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=96870 
 Reference:  Hewlett, Richard G., and Francis Duncan. Nuclear Navy, 1946-1962. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974, page 376. 
 Date:  20 December 2010 
 Subject(s):  A4W | USS Nimitz (CVN-68) | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Image 
 Format:  JPEG 
 Similar items:  Find
Page: 1 2  Next

nrhdb Home