-------- China

China General To Visit US, Resuming Military Ties

Inside China Today
Jan 7, 2000
http://www.insidechina.com/news.php3?id=123436

WASHINGTON, Jan 7, 2000 -- (Reuters) A senior Chinese army general will visit Washington this month, resuming military contacts between the two countries after NATO's bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade last May, U.S. defense officials said on Thursday.

They said Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai, deputy chief of the People's Liberation Army General Staff, would visit for two days beginning on Jan. 4 for talks on further high-level military exchanges.

The talks could pave the way for a visit to China this year by Defense Secretary William Cohen, who last went there in January 1998, according to one of the U.S. officials, who asked not to be identified.

The renewed military ties, suspended by Beijing after the May 7 embassy bombing by U.S. jets, which NATO has insisted was an accident, come as tensions continue between the two nations over U.S. allegations of Chinese nuclear spying in the United States, arms transfers, Taiwan and human rights in China.

"We are happy to see that we have moved past the events of last year and that we can resume the military dialogue," one U.S. defense official told Reuters.

"We have always felt that military-to-military ties between our countries are very important," the official said.

Officials declined to confirm or deny a Washington Times report on Thursday that Beijing had broken a promise that it would not aid North Korea's long-range missile program.

The Washington Times said it learned that the Pentagon had uncovered a deal for transfer of Chinese "missile-related" items to North Korea through a Hong Kong company. Pyongyang has promised to stop testing of its long-range missile program in exchange for better U.S.-North Korea relations, but the Pentagon says that country continues work on such a program.

In Beijing, a government spokesman said on Thursday that China was seriously concerned over reports that President Bill Clinton planned large arms sales to Taiwan this year.

Despite U.S. recognition of Beijing as the sole legitimate government of China, the island of Taiwan has been a constant irritant on China-U.S. ties for years. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao did not elaborate on the source or content of the alleged Taiwan arms sales on Thursday.

Beijing last year suspended military contacts, including exchanges of senior and mid-level officers and visits by U.S. military ships to Chinese ports, after the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was hit by an American bomb during NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia over Kosovo.

The United States said the attack, which killed 27 people, was accidental. But it sparked anti-American demonstrations in China and sharp protests from Beijing, which charged that the bombing was deliberate.

U.S. ship visits have since resumed visiting Hong Kong, and U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Kurt Campbell went to Beijing late last year in a first step to re-establish high-level ties between the two countries.

The New York Times, which reported plans for Xiong's January visit Thursday, quoted a senior U.S. defense official as expressing hope that the step would pave the wave for Navy Admiral Dennis Blair to visit Beijing soon.

Blair is based in Hawaii as head of U.S. forces in the Pacific.

Cohen had planned to visit China lat June, but called off the visit after the embassy bombing. He told reporters in November that the Chinese had indicated a desire to resume defense ties and he hoped it would result in exchange visits between him and Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian.

---

U.S. Concerned Over South China Sea

Yahoo News
05:45 PM ET 01/07/00
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2563118577-e48

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Military construction in the South China Sea by several of the six countries with territorial claims in the area can provide ``flashpoints for confrontation,'' a senior State Department official said Friday.

``Construction or expansion of military facilities, no matter how modest, can lead to a counter-response and that is always dangerous,'' said Stanley Roth, who heads the State Department's East Asia bureau.

Roth said developments in the South China Sea were one of the few negative trends in the East Asia region last year. In the area of positive developments, he cited the strong economic rebound in the region, reduced tensions on the Korean peninsula and the emergence of democratic rule in Indonesia.

The countries with claims in the South China Sea are China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and Vietnam. Roth did not name the countries that have engaged in military construction, but China and Malaysia are known to be among them.

Roth said that while there have been no major shootouts, there has been ill feeling generated by the sinking of ships and an increase in military force presence.

In one clash last July, a Philippine naval ship collided with and sank a Chinese fishing boat in the South China Sea. China expressed ``shock and dissatisfaction'' over the incident. The Philippines said the sinking was not intentional.

``The trend is what I'm concerned about, and there is no diplomatic process to counter it,'' Roth said. He noted that there has been no agreement on a proposed ``code of conduct'' to govern activities in the area and to ease tensions.

On the plus side, Roth said there is nothing to suggest an effort by any of the countries in the area to obstruct freedom of navigation.

Of the six claimants, the Philippines is among the most concerned because of construction activities undertaken by China in the mid-1990s on Mischief Reef, a disputed area in the Spratly Island chain about 150 miles from the Philippines.

The Philippines is worried that concrete structures built by China could assist military operations. China insists that its claim to all the South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters is ``indisputable.''

--------japan

Washington Post
Friday, January 7, 2000; Page B07
DEATHS ELSEWHERE
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-01/07/147l-010700-idx.html

Sakae Ito
A-bomb Survivor

Sakae Ito, 88, a leading anti-nuclear activist and a victim of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, died Jan. 5 of bladder cancer in a hospital in Hiroshima.

The southwestern Japanese city was leveled in the final days of World War II by an atomic bomb dropped on Aug. 6, 1945. The bombing killed about 140,000 people. Ms. Ito, who was less than a mile from the center of the blast, suffered severe burns.

She joined Japan's anti-nuclear movement in 1951. A few years later, she co-founded the Japanese Confederation of A-bomb and H-bomb Sufferers Organizations, a group that campaigns for the abolition of nuclear weapons and support for bombing survivors. She visited the United States, the former Soviet Union and Europe to talk about her experience and advocate a nuclear-free society.

--------puerto rico

Yahoo News
03:21 AM ET 01/07/00

Rosie Perez, Seven Others Arrested

NEW YORK (AP) _ Rosie Perez and seven others were arrested after protesting in front of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations over the Navy's bombing range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques.

The Oscar-nominated actress and other protesters were taken to a Manhattan precinct Thursday where they were expected to be charged with disorderly conduct.

``Rosie is a proud Puerto Rican girl whose family and friends in Puerto Rico are directly affected by the actions she's protesting,'' Perez's spokesman David Pollick said.

The 35-year-old actress from Brooklyn has appeared in several movies, including ``Do The Right Thing,'' and ``White Men Can't Jump.'' She was nominated for an Academy Award for best supporting actress in 1994 for ``Fearless.''

Puerto Rican lawmakers and thousands of other supporters have been calling on the U.S. military to leave Vieques. But military officials have insisted the island is the only place on the East Coast with all the qualities to host the bombing runs.

-------- russia

Berger Says Nationalist Russia Could Pose Threat
World Will Be Watching Putin Carefully, He States

Washington Post
Friday, January 7, 2000; Page A17
By Charles Babington and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-01/07/071l-010700-idx.html

Russia could reemerge as a threat to the United States if it takes a turn toward nationalism and insular politics in presidential elections scheduled for late March, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, said yesterday.

Berger, in a major foreign policy address, said "the world will be watching very carefully" to see whether Russian Prime Minister and acting President Vladimir Putin upholds the "constitutional, democratic process" as he campaigns to succeed Boris Yeltsin.

If Russia "reverts back to a more nationalistic direction or a more threatening posture or a more hard-line posture, it could, under those circumstances, reemerge as a threat, which means that we have a stake in Russia's success," Berger said at the National Press Club.

Putin, who became acting president and the clear front-runner in the election campaign when Yeltsin resigned last week, is the apparent architect of Russia's aggressive military campaign in the breakaway region of Chechnya. Berger, echoing recent comments by Clinton, was judicious in his criticism of that campaign. He said the "use of indiscriminate force is wrong . . . but we should not stop supporting those forces in Russia that are trying to strengthen the rule of law and build faith in democratic institutions."

Clinton drew fire from some conservative commentators this week for an essay in Time magazine in which he saluted Yeltsin's "enduring commitment to democracy" and seemed to endorse the aims--though not the means--of Russia's Chechnya policy. He wrote of Russia's "right to oppose violent Chechen rebels" and its attempt "to liberate Grozny," the Chechen capital.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held Berger's job in Jimmy Carter's administration, told reporters that Clinton's column "is totally wrong in its diagnosis. It paints Russia and Yeltsin as a democracy. On Chechnya, it uses Russian language. It talks about 'liberating' Grozny. . . . It's baffling."

Columnist William Safire wrote in yesterday's New York Times: "For Clinton to characterize the rape of Grozny as 'liberation' is an abomination."

Berger did not directly address the Time essay yesterday, but he stressed that Yeltsin's handover of power to Putin was sanctioned by Russia's constitution and should not interfere with fair elections.

"It's important . . . to recognize that the transfer of power here, Yeltsin's voluntarily turning power over to Putin, took place within a constitutional framework," Berger said. "This has never happened before in the history of Russia, a thousand years."

Putin, he added, "has said that he intends to uphold the rights of the free press, free speech, freedom of conscience, private property. And we obviously will be very interested to see him do this."

A senior Clinton administration official said that "accelerating the transition [in Russia] could be good for Russia and for the United States." The presidential election originally was scheduled for June, but now is expected on March 26. The official said that during parliamentary and presidential election campaigns in Russia, it is difficult for Russia's leader to deal with tough economic and diplomatic issues, including economic reforms, arms control and Chechnya.

"It is a positive thing to get past this transition," the official said. "It is bad for Russia politically and economically to be caught in limbo." The Clinton official, like many European diplomats, also predicted that Putin will "try to wrap up" the popular war in Chechnya soon after the presidential elections.

Berger took a veiled swipe yesterday at Republican presidential candidates and others who say the United States should be more aggressive in pressing Russia to agree to a U.S. missile defense system. Such a system would require amending or scrapping the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

"We also are working to convince Russia that the missile defense system we are planning is not designed to undermine their deterrence," Berger said. "We must also convince some of our critics at home who say we should preemptively abandon the ABM Treaty and arms control and move forward unilaterally."

--------

Nuclear powered vessels Nuclear powered vessels
Typhoons to remain in service

Three of six Typhoons are likely to remain in service to function as test platforms, Severodvinsk proceeds with decommissioning.

Igor Kudrik, 2000.01.11 14:32
http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=14203&sub=1

Three of six Russian Typhoon-class submarines will apparently remain in active operation to test the new Bark-class strategic missiles. This contradicts both the plans announced by the American Co-operative Threat Reduction, or CTR, program and reports that Bark-class missiles will be discarded due to design failures.

Typhoons to serve as test platforms Rear-Admiral Vladimir Makeev, the head of the Northern Fleet's rocket test site at Nenoksa, Arkhangelsk County, said to Interfax that the media reports on Typhoons being taken out of operation ahead of schedule are groundless. According to Makeev, the submarines of this class will be used to test the new Bark-class strategic missiles. These missiles are said to be a maritime alternative to Topol-M land-based missiles successfully tested by the Russian military in the end of 1999. Makeev also said that Bark-class missiles are to be installed at the forth generation strategic submarines of the Borey-class. The first submarine of this class is currently under construction at Severodvinsk Sevmash shipyard scheduled for launch in 2005. Other sources state the commissioning year to be 2007-2010, depending on availability of funds.

Makeev's statement contradicts reports by the Russian media back in 1998. The reports suggested that the first Borey-class submarine, Yury Dolgoruky, then 10 per cent complete, was to be redesigned due to the fact that Bark-class missiles failed to pass tests and their development was abandoned. The new design draft was to arrive in the first part of 1999. The report suggested further that a new missile would be designed under auspices of the same bureau that created Topol-M.

One Typhoon still awaits decommissioning The CTR officials said earlier that their objective was to decommission five out of six available Russian Typhoon-class submarines. Following this statement, the second submarine within the Typhoon class - TK-202 - arrived in Severodvinsk the first week of July 1999 to get scrapped at Sevmash yard. Reports from Severodvinsk suggest that the decommissioning work is proceeding as planned so far.

In the meantime, the oldest Typhoon-class submarine - TK-208 - put in operation in 1981 is likely to be brought back into active service in early 2001. The submarine has been under repair at Sevmash shipyard for nine years and it seems it has a chance to leave the dock now.

The Russian officials have been reluctant to confirm publicly the fact that Typhoons will be scrapped. In 1996, the Russian navy's official magazine Morskoy Sbornik reported, however, that two Typhoons were put into reserve. With the third submarine of this class currently undergoing decommissioning, it can be assumed that the Bark-class - or whatever new class missiles designed for the forth generation submarines - will be tested on the three remaining Typhoons, whose service life will be extended until 2007-2010.

1999.12.14 14:50 Delta-IV put in service, Typhoon to join
http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=13362&sub=1
1998.09.09 Uriy Dolgoruky Pending Reconstruction
http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=9517&sub=1

---

Commentary: The prosecutor strikes back

In his appeal against the Nikitin-acquittal, the prosecutor demands a third City Court hearing, claiming that the acquittal contradicts the facts. More striking, however, is that he wants the case to be handled "by another judge".

Jon Gauslaa, legal advisor Bellona Foundation, 2000.01.07 17:45
http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=14182&sub=1

When Aleksandr Nikitin was acquitted on December 29, 1999, the St. Petersburg prosecutor's office immediately announced that it would appeal, and it kept its word.

Gutsan's groundless appeal Nikitin's defence has now been familiarised with the he content of the appeal. It became somewhat astonished to discover that the appeal only consists of the following:

"I consider the ruling of the City Court to be wrong since it has been taken in contradiction with the factual content of the case. I demand the ruling to be dismissed and the case forwarded to consideration by another judge."

Believe it or not, but that is all prosecutor Gutsan has to say. He gives absolutely no reasons for his claim that the ruling contradicts the "factual content of the case", but hints that he may come up with more after having "studied the protocol of the court hearing".

It will, however, be impossible for Gutsan to substantiate his claim. Two thirds of the verdict deals with the facts described in the indictment and the evidence of the case. Thus, the verdict is indeed based on the facts. But more important: it is based on the Constitution and not on the secret and retroactive decrees, which were the sole basis for Gutsan's case.

It is easy to understand why the prosecutor demands another judge. Sergei Golets turned out to be an independent judge. He did not take the FSB's biased allegations for granted, but evaluated the case objectively and based his decision on the law.

This seems to have taken Gutsan by surprise, since the man's performance throughout the trial suggested that the only judges he had met before were judges acting as his co-prosecutors. Actually, this was quite normal in Soviet times, and according to various sources it still occurs. However, as the Russian judiciary is slowly adapting to the Rule of Law and the Constitution, such incidents are not so common as they used to be. So, hopefully Mr. Gutsan's attempt will turn out to be a last blast from the past.

It is too early to predict when the Supreme Court will handle the appeal case, but it has to come up with one of the three following decisions: It may reject the prosecutor's appeal, which will mean that the acquittal is confirmed by Russia's Supreme legal authority and that the case against Nikitin is finally over. It may approve the appeal, which will mean that the case for the third time will be evaluated by St. Petersburg City Court, but by another judge than Sergei Golets. It may return the case to additional investigation because of the prosecution's significant violations of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code.

It goes without saying that only the first of these possibilities is acceptable. The prosecutor's appeal is utterly groundless and if the Supreme Court should approve it or return the case to additional investigation, such a decision will clearly not have been taken on the basis of the law.

However, I believe that the Supreme Court will realise this, and confirm the legal opinion that is expressed in the City Court' verdict: That the Constitution is the supreme legislation of the Russian Federation.

---

The Russian Northern Fleet

The Russian Northern Fleet is experiencing problems with its nuclear powered vessels and with the storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste that the operation of these vessels generates. The Kola peninsula and Severodvinsk have the highest concentration of nuclear reactors, active and derelict, in the world. The arms race went too fast for authorities to plan what to do with decommissioned submarines and the nuclear waste. This report describes the challenges that we face.

Thomas Nilsen, Igor Kudrik and Alexandr Nikitin 1996.08.19
http://www.bellona.no/imaker?sub=1&id=11087

The Russian Northern Fleet Naval yards

Table of Contents

5.1 Economy and organisation
5.2 Navy yard no. 10 - Shkval
5.2.1 Storage of radioactive waste
5.3 Navy yard no. 82 - Safonovo
5.4 Naval yard No. 35 - Sevmorput
5.4.1 Storage of radioactive waste
5.5 Naval yard No. 85 - Nerpa Storage for radioactive waste
5.6 The Severodvinsk naval yards
5.6.1 Storage of solid radioactive waste. Mironova Heights - storage repository for solid radioactive waste The temporary storage facility for solid radioactive waste at Sevmash Storage of solid radioactive waste at Zvezdochka Temporary storage of solid radioactive waste at Zvezdochka
5.6.2 Treatment of liquid radioactive waste Storage of liquid radioactive waste in sea-based tanks at Sevmash Object 159 at Zvezdochka The special tanker Osetiya
5.6.3 Release of radioactive gases from Zvezdochka
5.6.4 Storage of reactor compartments and spent nuclear fuel Endnotes

Naval yards

Including Sevmash, there are six naval yards in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk counties. Sevmash is the only yard that constructs nuclear submarines. As part of servicing the submarines, the yards carry out operations in defuelling, refuelling, general maintenance, repair and work in the dry dock where the vessels' hulls and structures are attended to. In addition to the naval yards, there are several floating docks stationed at the various bases. Each of the floating docks has a crew of 100 men whose primary task is the servicing of nuclear submarines between missions.[400] The Northern Fleet also has a number of service ships which assist in conducting minor maintenance and repair work on the submarines. The first refuelling of a Russian submarine was carried out at Severodvinsk in 1961 (K-3).[401]

In the 1960s, naval yard no. 35, Sevmorput, was rebuilt to accommodate nuclear submarines.[402] Simultaneously new yards were built and existing facilities were expanded, including yards no. 85 Nerpa and no. 10 Shkval [403]

5.1 Economy and organisation

The naval yards Sevmash, Zvezdochka and Nerpa are all subordinate to the Ministry of Shipbuilding, whereas the Sevmorput, Shkval and Safonovo yards are run by the Northern Fleet and are thereby subject to the Ministry of Defence. The naval yards with their complex infrastructure were products of the cold war, and they now face serious economic challenges. State economic support to the naval yards has been reduced as the number of nuclear submarines taken out of service has increased.

Until 1989, the large Zvezdochka yard in Severodvinsk serviced four nuclear submarines a year, whereas during 1992-1993, only one submarine was serviced.[404] In 1994, no submarines were serviced at all. In 1994, the Sevmash yards accepted official commissions to construct new nuclear submarines amounting to 300 billion roubles, but only 29 billion was actually transferred to the shipyard.

Due to the lack of funds, the Northern Fleet naval yards no longer carry out complete overhauls of nuclear submarines, but are only doing hull maintenance.[405] This constitutes the bulk of work carried out by Navy-run yards[406] along with ensuring that the decommissioned submarines remain buoyant.[407] For each of the individual submarines, it is decided if there are enough economical resources to remove the spent nuclear fuel.[408]

The Sevmorput and Nerpa yards also accept commissions from the Russian commercial fleet.[409] The Zvezdochka yard constructs new ships for foreign customers,[410] including tugs, fishing boats and barges.[411] There may also be potential opportunities of large construction projects for the Zvezdochka and Nerpa shipyards in connection with the proposed development of oil and gas fields in the Barents and Kara Seas.[412] The yards subject to the Ministry of Shipbuilding are therefore in a more viable economic situation than the yards sponsored by the Northern Fleet.[413] In fact, there are plans to merge shipyards No. 35 Sevmorput and No. 82 Safonovo in order to improve the economic situation for the Northern Fleet yards.[414]

Towards the end of 1984, the Russian government passed Decree No. 1399 in which measures for improving the fiscal situation of Navy shipyards and other yards within the military-industrial complex are outlined. A limited company known as The Russian Fleet was established in which the various naval yards are represented. Its primary objective is to get the government to adopt practical measures by which the economy of the Navy yards may be improved. Today the ship yards are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining payment for work completed on the Navy's behalf, even though the work in itself is less comprehensive than before.

In December 1995, employees of Navy yard No. 10 Shkval ran a blockade to prevent a recently repaired nuclear submarine from departing until back pay from August 1995 had been received. The Northern Fleet responded by threatening to cut the Polyarny electrical grid serving the workers' homes. The blockade was broken when the demands of the workers were finally met.[415] In January 1996, the Northern Fleet still owed 40 billion roubles in wages for workers at the Kola and Severodvinsk shipyards.[416]

The financial problems of the Northern Fleet are also beginning to have an impact on radiation safety measures for nuclear submarines moored at the various naval yards. There is no money allocated for maintenance or for the necessary expansion of the storage facilities for liquid and solid radioactive waste. At the Nerpa, Shkval and Severodvinsk shipyards, solid radioactive waste is now stored unshielded out in the open, with no protection against runoff.[417]

5.2 Navy yard no. 10 - Shkval [418]

Navy Yard no. 10 is situated near the town Polyarny outermost on the western side of the Murmansk fjord. The first naval yard, No. 1078, was established here on August 20, 1935, when the floating workshop Krasny gorn was towed there. Prior to this, only the fish processing plant Polyarnoye was situated here. During World War 2, these workshops were used for servicing naval vessels; after the war, several shore-based installations were built and the quays were lengthened. In August 1950, the facility was renamed Navy yard No. 10 Shkval, to be dedicated exclusively to military vessels, primarily submarines. As the first nuclear powered submarines were delivered to the Northern Fleet at the end of the 1950s, the yard was modified for the docking and repair of these vessels. Tenders, service ships and dry docks were acquired, including the floating dock PD-63. Around 1970, the yards were reorganised and partially expanded in order to handle the second generation of nuclear submarines.

Map, 9 kb. Map 6. The naval yards Shkval and Nerpa are situated on the western side of the mouth of the Murmansk Fjord.

Photo, 35 kb. The naval yard Shkval lies close to the city of Polyarny, and it is here that maintenance work on the laid up submarines is carried out as well as the servicing of second and third generation nuclear submarines that remain in service. The shipyard has a larger storage facility for solid radioactive waste and two floating tanks containing liquid radioactive waste. The nuclear submarine K-192 is also moored here with its melted down nuclear reactor following an accident in 1989.

At the present time, there are two covered floating docks at the yard constituting a total quay length of 700 m. The yard has a surface area of 41 330 m² (446 000 sq. ft.). There are approx. 3000 employees at the yard. The nearby town of Polyarny has just under 30 000 inhabitants.

From 1962 until 1993, repair and maintenance operations have been carried out on approximately 250 first generation nuclear submarines and about 60 second generation vessels. An additional 1515 naval vessels have been repaired in dry dock, including some third generation nuclear submarines. At present, Yard no. 10 Shkval is the only Kola based naval yard capable of accommodating and servicing both second and third generation submarines, and has at its disposal the necessary equipment for refuelling naval reactors. However, no decision has been made as to whether refuelling operations will continue to take place here in the future.

The Shkval yard is capable of processing 3-4 nuclear submarines at the same time. At the moment of writing (March 1996), one nuclear submarine (fabrication number 638), a type 326 M transport for spent nuclear fuel and the tanker Amur are moored at the yard awaiting repair. There are also seven nuclear submarines laid up here. Of these seven, four are first generation submarines waiting to be defuelled prior to being dismantled. The remaining three vessels are Project 671 - Victor-class submarines, two of which (K-371 factory no. 802 and K-488 factory no. 804) have not been decommissioned pending a decision on what to do with them. There is no money to repair these submarines, so they will probably be decommissioned. In the meantime, the task of the naval yard is to keep the seven submarines afloat.

In June 1989, the reactor of K-192, formerly K-131 (Project 645 - Echo-II class), one of the first generation submarines, was seriously damaged. An uncontrolled chain reaction occurred in one of the two reactors, destroying the fuel assemblies. The submarine was laid up at the Vidyaevo base in Ara Bay until 1994 when it was moved to Shkval, for Vidyaevo lacked the necessary facilities to keep the submarine afloat. Because the nuclear fuel in one of the reactors is damaged, it cannot be removed using the normal procedure. The fuel in the undamaged reactor also remains untouched due to the high levels of radiation inside the reactor compartment; however, this reactor is scheduled to be defuelled when radiation levels have dropped.

In past years Shkval Shipyard has dismantled one first generation nuclear submarine, the hull plates of which are still in the yard. There are also plans to dismantle other decommissioned submarines of the first and second generations here,[419] but no funds have been allocated to pay for the work.

5.2.1 Storage of radioactive waste

Solid radioactive waste is placed into containers and stored in an area specifically dedicated to this purpose. Two hundred containers and some large pieces of contaminated material have been placed outside the actual storage site which is full. There are plans to expand the storage facility or build an additional one, but so far no money has been earmarked for this.

Liquid radioactive waste is stored in two floating tanks at the quay. The capacity of this storage is approximately 150 m³ (5300 cu. ft.)

There are plans for establishing a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in an existing tunnel near the shipyard, but no firm decision has been made. While the yard does possess equipment for the removal of fuel from both operational and inactive submarines, it is currently not in use.

Like the other shipyards of the Northern Fleet, yard No 10 Shkval faces considerable economic problems. By January 1995, the yard was working to 67% of capacity, with 40.6 billion roubles outstanding.

5.3 Navy yard no. 82 - Safonovo

Navy yard no. 82 Safonovo is a Northern Fleet ship repair yard. It is situated on the eastern side of the Murmansk fjord between Severomorsk and Murmansk. The yard is comprised of a number of large shore-based workshops and two large dry docks. One of these dry docks was purchased from Germany in the early 1970s, the other from Sweden in 1980.[420] The latter is the largest dry dock on the peninsula, with a loading capacity of 80 000 tons. It is also used for hull maintenance on Project 941 - Typhoon-class submarines. Safonovo is also capable of repairing other strategic submarine classes and nuclear powered surface vessels. The dry dock there has been used for hull maintenance of the civilian nuclear powered container ship Sevmorput.[421]

Photo, 33 kb. The naval yard Safonovo is located south of Severomorsk in the Murmansk Fjord and has several large floating docks similar to the one pictured here. In this photograph, maintenance work on the hull of a Typhoon class submarine is being carried out.

5.4 Naval yard No. 35 - Sevmorput

Naval yard no. 35 Sevmorput is also a Northern Fleet naval repair yard located on the Murmansk Fjord in the Rosta district of Murmansk, between the nuclear icebreaker base Atomflot and the merchant harbour. Building commenced in 1936 and the yard opened for work in 1938.[422] Today it is one of the largest shipyards in north-western Russia.

Photo, 51 kb. The naval shipyard Sevmorput is located in the Rosta township in the northern district of Murmansk. Spent nuclear fuel assemblies are transferred at the shipyard from Northern Fleet service ships to railroad cars which will transport them further to the reprocessing facility at Mayak Chemical Combine in the Southern Urals. Sevmorput also has a storage facility for fresh nuclear fuel.

Photo, 33 kb. The Northern Fleet's India class (BS-203) rescue submarine with a Project 1837 deep submersible rescue vessel (DSRV) on deck photographed at Sevmorput. These DSRVs are mini submarines that can dive down to 2 000 metres to rescue the crew of a sunken submarine.

Photo, 61 kb. This Echo-II class nuclear submarine is moored at one of the piers at the naval shipyard Sevmorput only a few hundred metres away from the closest apartment buildings in the Rosta township. The submarine has two reactors on board. In 1991, the county authorities in Murmansk prohibited the removal of spent fuel assemblies from nuclear submarines at Sevmorput on the grounds that an accident during this type of operation could affect large parts of Murmansk and over half a million inhabitants.

In addition to several large workshops the yard operates two large dry docks.[423] Until the end of the 1980s, the yard employed 5500 workers, but today the number of employees is much smaller. Due to a lack of military commissions, part of the yard has been privatised, and this part of the yard accepts commissions from the merchant fleet.

Sevmorput has been repairing first generation nuclear submarines since the close of the 1960s, and until 1991, the refuelling of nuclear submarines was also undertaken here. Although the normal time scale for refuelling nuclear submarines is two months, a number of the submarines at Sevmorput had to spend up to six months in dry dock when cracks were discovered in the hull of the reactor compartment. In 1991, county officials prohibited refuelling activities at this yard on the grounds of radiation safety concerns and the fact that the yard is located only a few hundred meters from more populous areas of the city. There are plans to resume refuelling activities at this yard, but only on the condition that safer technology is utilised.

There are presently two first generation Project 675 - Echo-II class and Project 658 - Hotel class submarines in the yard. The Project 658 - Hotel class submarine is scheduled to be defuelled.[424] The main task for the Sevmorput yard is to keep these two submarines floating.[425]

5.4.1 Storage of radioactive waste

Sevmorput has an open air storage facility for solid radioactive waste, and low level waste is stored here in containers. Liquid radioactive waste is not stored at this yard, but is transferred to the Northern Fleet TNT type tankers.[426]

There is a storage facility for fresh nuclear fuel at pier 20, also known as no. 3-30, military unit no. 31326. Until recently, this facility was used to store fresh nuclear fuel for Project 671 - Victor-III-class submarines. However, in November 1993, three fuel assemblies were stolen from this storage facility, and security arrangements at the facility came under sharp scrutiny. It was said that even Murmansk potato bins were guarded better than the open air storage facility. As a result of the theft, all of the fuel assemblies stored here were transferred to another Northern Fleet facility.[427]

5.5 Naval yard No. 85 - Nerpa

Naval yard No. 85 Nerpa is situated in the bottom of Olenya Bay, a few kilometres west of Polyarny. Nerpa was initially subject to the Ministry of Shipbuilding, but was later transferred to Goskomoboronprom, the state committee for military industry. Construction of the yard commenced in 1970 by direct order of D. V. Ustinov, then vice-chairman of the Soviet weapons ministry and later Soviet Minister of Defence.[428] The town of Snezhnogorsk, also known as Vyuzhny or Murmansk-60, is located approximately 5 kilometres south-west of Nerpa, and was established at the same time as the shipyard.

Photo, 26 kb. This is the reactor compartment from a Victor-I class submarine at the Nerpa naval yard. The entire submarine is taken into a land-based dry dock such as this one where the work to cut out the reactor compartment is carried out. Before the reactor compartment is removed from the submarine and set afloat again, all holes, pipes and cable lines are resealed so that radioactively contaminated components from the reactor section cannot come into direct contact with the sea water.

Photo, 30 kb. The naval shipyard Nerpa is situated innermost in Olenya Bay and carries out service and maintenance operations on both active nuclear submarines and civilian vessels. Decommissioning operations on second generation nuclear submarines is also undertaken here.

Photo, 50 kb. Work on the new dry dock at Nerpa shipyard was due to be completed in 1996, but because of economic difficulties, the project has been postponed.

The principal task of the Nerpa yard is the service and repair of second generation nuclear submarines. Earlier, the yard was responsible for the removal of the reactor control rods and preparation of reactors prior to the insertion of fresh fuel assemblies.[429]

Nerpa has one dry and one floating dock, and it also has equipment for transferring spent fuel to the specially constructed Project 2020 - Malina-class ships.

Due to a lack of military assignments and the inability of the Northern Fleet to pay for completed work, the yard has also been accepting commercial orders since 1993. A few small fishing boats have been built here, and the shipyard's directors hope to secure further new business in connection with the forthcoming expansion of the oil and gas industry in the Russian Arctic.

The Nerpa yard furthermore dismantles second generation nuclear submarines. So far, two submarines have been completely dismantled: a Project 671 - Victor-I-class (K-481, factory no. 615) and a Project 670 M - Charlie-II-class (K-479, factory no. 903).[430] A new land based dry-dock with special equipment for the dismantling of submarines is under construction at the shipyard, and will be equipped with machinery manufactured in the United States, including a Hughes Aircraft Systems International plasma torch for cutting tempered steel hull plates.[431] The dock should have been finished in 1996, but completion will be delayed by a few years.[432] Building costs are estimated at 270 billion roubles.[433]

Storage for radioactive waste

There is an open air storage facility for solid radioactive waste within the shipyard 's compound. This facility has a surface area of 500 m² (5400 sq. ft.) and is located 100 meters from the sea. Presently there are 200 m³ (7000 cu. ft.) of solid radioactive waste weighing 250 tons in storage here inside airtight containers. In earlier years, this waste was collected by Northern Fleet ships and dumped into the Kara sea, but it is now four years since waste was last collected from the facility. Hence it is full, and there are plans to expand it to make room for additional containers.[434]

Approximately 70 m³ of liquid radioactive waste is being stored at a shore-based storage tank facility, and liquid radioactive waste is also stored on two type PK-15 barges, each of which has a capacity of 50 m³ of waste. Northern Fleet TNT tankers are also utilised for the storage of liquid radioactive waste.

Plans exist for the building of a small subterranean nuclear power station in Kut Bay 700 meters away from the Nerpa yard. According to project plans (the project is known as PATES-300), the power station will be blasted 50 meters into rock. The plant will have a pressurised water reactor (PWR) developed by the Rosenergoatom Research Institute in St. Petersburg. Building costs are estimated at 200 million USD, with construction to be completed by 2001. However, at this time the plans exist only on paper. The Nerpa shipyard will operate and service the power station which is to supply electric power to the Nerpa yard, area naval bases and the towns of Snezhnogorsk, Polyarny, Belokamenka, Gadzhievo, Olenya Bay and Vidyaevo. The expected output of power is 300 MW and it is the proposed enlargement of the Nerpa yard which increases the need for electric power. Decommissioned submarine reactors have also been considered as a source for electricity production.[435]

Photo, 65 kb. Second generation nuclear submarines will be decommissioned both in this land-based dock and in a new dry dock that is presently under construction. Some of the equipment in the new dry dock includes American plasma cutters to cut through the pressure hulls of the submarines.

Photo, 31 kb. Photo, 33 kb. In this photograph, work is underway to decommission a Delta class nuclear submarine at the naval shipyard Nerpa. On the other side of the bay, at the leftmost edge of the picture, is one of the Northern Fleet's Project 2020 - Malina class service ships used for storing spent fuel assemblies from the nuclear submarines. The vessel is listing to one side and is not approved for the storage and transport of spent fuel assemblies.

5.6 The Severodvinsk naval yards

In 1936 the town of Sudostroy was built by decree of Joseph Stalin. It was renamed Molotovsk in 1938 and received its present name, Severodvinsk, in 1958. Severodvinsk lies on the White sea 35 kilometres west of Arkhangelsk. The town was built by Gulag prisoners and on average, had a prisoner population of 60 000. Conditions in the prison camp were very hard, and in the years from 1936 to 1953, approximately 25 000 Gulag prisoners died here.[436]

Map, 14 kb. Map 7. Severodvinsk.

Photo, 17 kb. The naval yards in the closed city Severodvinsk west of Arkhangelsk carry out maintenance operations on active nuclear submarines as well as decommissioning procedures on older nuclear submarines. Severodvinsk is also the only place in Russia where new nuclear submarines continue to be built.

Now a town of 210 000 inhabitants, Severodvinsk has been a closed city since 1936, with the exception of a brief period from 1992 to 1993. Visitors to the town today require a security clearance.[437] The town grew up around the two large naval shipyards Sevmash and Zvezdochka which are located on the northern edges of the city and cover an area of 15 square kilometres. These are the largest naval yards in Russia and nuclear submarines are both built and serviced here. Since 1992, the Sevmash shipyard has been the only one to build nuclear submarines for the Russian Navy,[438] while much of the work of servicing or dismantling them is undertaken at Zvezdochka.

In accordance with a governmental decree of 1992, the Severodvinsk yards have served as the main centre for the decommissioning of nuclear submarines.[439] Sevmash, which previously was dedicated solely to new construction projects, now also undertakes the decommissioning and dismantling of submarines with titanium hulls. At Zvezdochka, Project 667 A - Yankee class and 667 B - Delta-I class submarines are decommissioned, and the shipyard also repairs and upgrades the submarines already in service. Zvezdochka also has facilities for the removal and temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel. Each year 300 operations with an inherent risk of radiation are performed at the Severodvinsk naval shipyards; this number represents a sharp reduction from the earlier figure of about 1000 operations a year.[440]

The Northern Fleet operates the Belomorsk naval base located adjacent to the yards and it is here that crew members for new naval vessels are trained.

5.6.1 Storage of solid radioactive waste. [441]

There are four relatively large storage facilities for solid radioactive waste in Severodvinsk. Three of them are located within the shipyards, while the fourth is located outside the city itself. In all, these repositories contain 12 530 m³ solid radioactive waste,[442] comprising a total of 4 620 tons.[443]

At Zvezdochka, there is an incinerator for the disposal of solid radioactive waste. It was opened at the beginning of the 1980s, and can process 40 kg an hour of solid waste. It is mostly used for the destruction of rags and clothing.

Until 1991, most of the solid radioactive waste generated at Severodvinsk was dumped in the Kara sea. At times, radioactive waste from the Zvezdochka yard has even been dumped at the municipal landfill outside Severodvinsk in complete disregard of regulations. On those occasions where this has been discovered, the waste has been retrieved and returned to the Zvezdochka storage sites.[444] Severodvinsk generates about 520 m³ of solid radioactive waste a year,[445] most of which comes from the Zvezdochka yard during the servicing of nuclear submarines. This figure is expected to increase substantially as increasing numbers of submarines are dismantled.

Mironova Heights - storage repository for solid radioactive waste [446]

Mironova Heights are located 12 kilometres south-west of the town of Severodvinsk. The storage facility is fenced in and marked with danger signs warning against radiation. The facility consists of an underground concrete bunker subdivided in two sections of six rooms. Known as Object 379, the structure is 14.89 meters long and 5.2 meters high.

Illustration, 6 kb. This drawing shows a cross-section of the storage facility for solid radioactive waste at Mironova Heights outside Severodvinsk. Numerous leaks of radioactivity have been detected from this facility.

Radioactive waste was first stored at this location in 1964, and plans from the very outset called for the establishment of an incinerator-treatment plant to burn and then pack the waste for storage in a nearby facility. However, only the storage facility was ever built. The last time nuclear waste was delivered here was in 1976 at which point the storage facility was full. The facility was then sealed and covered with asphalt. The facility contains 1 840 m³ solid radioactive waste, but there is little information concerning the activity of the waste which is claimed to be of low to medium activity.[447] On August 17, 1963, it was decided to close the temporary storage of solid radioactive waste at workshop no. 43 in Zvezdochka with all of waste already stored there to be transferred to the Mironova site. Information about the contents of this waste is lacking; hence it is impossible to give an account about the total radioactive content of this storage site.[448]

It is the Health Physics Department at Sevmash which monitors radiation levels at Mironova Heights, and levels of 5-6 microSv/h (500-600 microR/h) have been detected immediately above the storage chambers. Outside the enclosed area there have been no reports of increased radiation levels. Rainwater around the storage site is checked periodically. Radiation above the background levels of 0.2 microSv/h (20 microR/h) have not been detected in the nearby rivers Solza, Rassoha and Shirshema. However there are some test samples indicating that the storage chambers are not absolutely tight. In 1991, a hatch above one of the storage sections was opened and the cavity allowed to fill with rainwater. The activity of this water was measured to 10² - 105 Bq/l of 137Cs and up to 10² Bq/l of 60Co. Activity levels varied by a factor of up to 60 in the different rainwater drainage systems around the facility. There is no stationary dosimeter inspection which monitors the situation on a regular basis. A 1992 attempt to establish automatic surveillance of the water failed when the instruments broke down. Several attempts have been made to secure the storage site, but this has never been done to the satisfaction of control authorities.

The temporary storage facility for solid radioactive waste at Sevmash [449]

There is a temporary storage facility at the Sevmash yards for solid radioactive waste consisting of contaminated equipment from the testing of new submarine reactors. Until 1991, the site was used for the temporary storage of waste which would ultimately be dumped at sea. When this practice was terminated in 1991, the storage facility was rebuilt and improved. Official approval of the facility was granted on May 5, 1992.

The Northern Fleet is responsible for emptying this storage facility, but there has been no removal of waste from the facility over the past four years. According to facility regulations, waste can be stored for a maximum of six months before being sent elsewhere. Current practice is therefore in violation of the regulations set for the facility. In fact, the actual storage facility itself falls short of requirements set by the authorities in Severodvinsk. The facility consists of one closed compartment and an open area where large pieces of contaminated materials are stored. In 1993, 79 m³ of waste were stored here; by 1995, this figure had increased to 216 m³. The total weight of the waste is estimated at 213.8 tons. Storage capacity in the closed section is estimated to be 239 m³, while the outdoor storage area should have room for a lot more. An overview of the waste stored at this facility is given in the table below:

Text version of table 7

No. Type waste Storage method Number Amount Activity 1. Pipes, tools, clothing, filters. Containers 67 219 m³ 92 GBq (2,5 Ci) 2. Large equipment Containers or in the open 20 42 m³ 1,0 TBq (27,5 Ci) Total: 87 216 m³ 1,1 TBq (30 Ci)

Table 7: Overview of radioactive waste at Sevmash

Storage of solid radioactive waste at Zvezdochka [450]

At Zvezdochka, containers of solid radioactive waste are stored in a large partially buried concrete construction. Most of the waste consists of contaminated equipment and tools used in the repair of nuclear submarines. Built in 1963, the storage facility is situated close to the shoreline, and contains some highly active waste. In 1995 storage capacity was given as 1.530 m³ while in 1993, its capacity was 1 200 m³. This suggests that either the facility has been expanded or more waste is being stored here than was previously assumed.

Text version of table 8

No. Description Storage method Number Amount Activity 1. Pipeline, equipment, clothing et. cetera. Containers 271 880 m³ 2. Large equipment. Compacted 120 202 m³ 3. Parcels of contaminated metals. Unshielded 30 50 m³ Total: 421 1.132 m³ 5,4 TBq (147 Ci)

Table 8: Storage of solid radioactive waste at Zvezdochka

The concrete structure is open in several places such that rainwater can enter, and as a result, there has been leakage of radioactive water from the facility. Eighty five percent of the storage capacity has now been used, and heretofore, there is no comprehensive description of the waste that is stored here. What is known is that the facility contains some large contaminated reactor components with an activity of 11 TBq (300 Ci), repair equipment (activity of 15.9 TBq (430 Ci)), filters (activity of 5.6 TBq (150 Ci)), pipes and protective gear (activity of 5.4 TBq (20 Ci)) and gamma sources used in quality control of metals (activity of 10.8 TBq (40 Ci). Some of the waste is stored in containers that are spread haphazardly all over the storage facility. The containers are of a type used when radioactive waste was routinely dumped at sea; hence they are perforated so as to permit sea water to enter in and cause them to sink. Subsequently, the contents of the containers stored in the solid waste facility at Zvezdochka are not well sealed, and there are leaks of radioactivity from the facility. In response to the lack of order and control over leakage, in 1993 Gosatomnadzor prohibited any further deposits of waste at the facility. Comprehensive technical studies will be required and the facility probably rebuilt before it can be taken into use again.

Temporary storage of solid radioactive waste at Zvezdochka [451]

Outside the concrete bunker there is a temporary storage site for solid radioactive waste. The area was taken into use in 1983. Low to medium level waste is stored here, some of it in containers. It consists largely of contaminated equipment. The storage facility covers an area of 135 by 30 meters and is partially covered by asphalt . The area is surrounded by a drainage system to collect rainwater which may have been contaminated. (Much of the contaminated equipment is completely unshielded). As of May 1, 1994, there was a total of 1 132 m³ of solid radioactive waste stored here, as specified in the table below.

Numerous regulations have been violated at this facility. Among the most serious concerns are the facts that the facility is unprotected, it is located less than 500 meters from the shore, there is no monitoring of the ground water below the site, and the regulations governing the length of time that the waste may be stored (maximum 6 months) have been breached. Consequently, the facility must either be rebuilt or closed.

In addition to the four storage sites mentioned above, solid radioactive waste is also stored in the floating workshops and on board service ships. The total amount of solid radioactive waste stored in Severodvinsk comes to more than 12 530 m³. The table below gives an overview of the total amounts of solid radioactive waste stored at the four Severodvinsk sites.

Text version of table 9

No. Name Responsible body Amount % of capacity Condition 1. Mironova-heights Sevmash 1.840 m³ 100 Unsatisfactory 2. Temporary storage Sevmash 2.475 m³ 25 Usual condition 3. Storage Zvezdochka 1.530 m³ 85 Unsatisfactory 4. Temporary storage Zvezdochka 6.685 m³ approaching 100% Unsatisfactory Total: 12.520 m³

Table 9: Overview of the four Severodvinsk storage facilities for solid radioactive waste.

5.6.2 Treatment of liquid radioactive waste [452]

On an annual basis, the naval yards at Severodvinsk produce between 2 200 and 3 100 m³ of liquid radioactive waste. Only small amounts originate from the Sevmash yard, the greatest part coming from Zvezdochka where the repairs and servicing procedures on submarine reactors require large quantities of water. Until 1991, much of this waste was transported away on service ships and dumped in the Barents sea. In the 1960s, decontamination plants were established at both yards. However, these were never taken into use and are now partially disassembled.

Today, approximately 3 000 m³ of liquid radioactive waste is stored in Severodvinsk. In addition to the storage facilities and ships listed below, Severodvinsk also has a permanently stationed special service tanker of the Project 1783 - Vala class, with a storage capacity of 870 m³. Some of the floating bases used to store spent nuclear fuel assemblies also carry some liquid radioactive waste and are described in Chapter 3. The liquid radioactive waste generated in Severodvinsk was until 1973 regularly collected by Northern Fleet service ships.

Storage of liquid radioactive waste in sea-based tanks at Sevmash

The Sevmash yards have five sea-based tanks for storing liquid radioactive waste. Three of the tanks have been taken out of use as they were worn out. Since the metal itself is contaminated, these tanks must now also be treated as nuclear waste. At the present time, no solution for the scrapping and storage of these tanks has been found. The two tanks which remain in use each have a capacity of 24.8 m³ of liquid radioactive waste. The contaminated water in the tanks is periodically transferred to the liquid waste facility at Zvezdochka.

Object 159 at Zvezdochka

Three land based tanks have been established to collect liquid waste from different areas of the yard (called "Object 159"). Object 159 consists of two type A-02 tanks, each with a capacity of 500 m³. The third tank is a type A-04/2 relief tank with a capacity of 100 m³. One of the A-02 type tanks was overhauled in May 1994, having been disused for a while. The other type A-02 tank which was first taken into use in 1965, is not in use and cannot be utilised until comprehensive improvements have been made. This is because widespread corrosion throughout the tank has damaged the metal. The two tanks which are in use contain a total of 181 m³ liquid radioactive waste with an activity of 8.3 GBq (0.225 Ci).

Illustration, 39 kb. A drawing of the storage facility for solid radioactive waste at Zvezdochka shipyard. Waste is stored both in containers and in open air. There are also a number of containers and larger contaminated parts standing outside of the facility with no protective cover or shielding.

The special tanker Osetiya

The tanker Osetiya is specially constructed for the temporary storage and transport of liquid radioactive waste. The ship was first taken into use in 1963. She has nine tanks with a total capacity of 1 033 m³ liquid radioactive waste. The ship was overhauled in 1990 but is still not permitted outside the harbour area. Today it is registered as being stationary. At the moment there are 563 m³ of liquid radioactive waste stored on board with an activity of 83.3 GBq (2.25 Ci).[453]

5.6.3 Release of radioactive gases from Zvezdochka [454]

Every year, about 10 000 m³ of radioactive gases are released from the Zvezdochka yard. The gases are released during the repair of naval reactors or in defuelling operations. Some emissions also stem from the laboratories and storage facilities. The predominant gases are krypton-85 and xenon-133. Gas from the laboratories and construction halls is collected in balloons where the activity level is measured. Before the gas is released, it is passed through a number of special filters. If activity is higher than permitted, the gas is diluted with air prior to being released. There is no upper limit to the amount of radioactivity which can be released over the course of a year. The gases from the incinerator for solid radioactive waste are also monitored and filtered. When radiation levels surpass a pre-set limit, the incinerator stops. This happens quite frequently as the filters are relatively inefficient. During the first half of the 1990s, the incinerator was only in operation for one month per year on average.[455]

5.6.4 Storage of reactor compartments and spent nuclear fuel

There are now 16 nuclear submarines in Severodvinsk still containing their fuel. Twelve of them are laid up and scheduled to be dismantled. The other four are waiting to be repaired or refuelled. There are also four reactor compartments from submarines that have already been dismantled. These come from the submarines K-228, factory no. 470, and K-444, factory no. 461 (both Project 667 A - Yankee class vessels), and from K-316, factory no. 905, and K-432, factory no. 106 (both Project 705 - Alfa class). In 1994 four submarine hulls still containing their reactor compartments were towed to the Sayda Bay.

The missile compartments from the 12 laid up submarines have been cut out and the fore and aft hull sections then welded back together. This procedure has left a large crack between the two hull parts (see picture), thus increasing the danger of corrosion and impairing the ability of the submarine to float. In order to ensure buoyancy, pressurised air is pumped into the hulls.[456] However, as long as the nuclear fuel remains on board in the reactor compartments, these submarines constitute a safety risk. (See Chapter 6 on the decommissioning of submarines.)

One reactor compartment is stored on land in Severodvinsk. It comes from the Project 705 - Alfa class submarine K-47, factory no. 900. The reactor still contains its nuclear fuel and has been stationary at Severodvinsk since the 1970s. The submarine cannot be defuelled, for the fuel assemblies are stuck in the reactor's liquid metal coolant which has solidified. According to plans, this reactor will be transported to Sayda Bay.[457]

There is no land based storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in Severodvinsk. Spent fuel is stored aboard the service ships PM-63 and PM-124. These vessels have a capacity of four and two reactor cores, respectively.[458]

[400] Mormul, N., Note, 1995. Return [401] Osipenko, L. G., Shiltsov, L. M. and Mormul, N. G., Atomnaya Podvodnaya Epopeya, Moscow 1994. Return [402] Publicity brochure from naval yard No. 35, Sevmorput, 1992. Return [403] Morskoy sbornik , no. 8 - 1995. Return [404] Severny Rabochy March 25, 1995 Return [405] Murmansky vestnik, January 11, 1995. Return [406] Murmansky vestnik, March 11,1995. Return [407] Murmansky vestnik, January 11 1995. Return [408] Morskoy sbornik, no. 7 - 1995. Return [409] Rybny Murman, June 23 - 29, 1995. Return [410] Government decree 514, July 24, 1992. Return [411] Na Strazhe Zapolyarya, June 24, 1995. Return [412] Severny Rabochy, July 17, 1993. Return [413] Polyarnaya Pravda, February 28, 1995. Return [414] Murmansky vestnik, March 15, 1995. Return [415] Lee, R., State of the Russian Navy data page, revised January 9, 1996. Return [416] Polyarnaya Pravda, January 24, 1996. Return [417] Steblin, P. G., director Nerpa yards, presentation of the paper Difficulties in decommissioning of submarines and protection of the northern environment, Severodvinsk, March 15 - 16, 1995. Return [418] Most of this is taken from Morskoy sbornik , no. 8, 1995. Return [419] Steblin, P. G., director Nerpa yards, presentation of the paper Difficulties in decommissioning of submarines and protection of the northern environment, Severodvinsk, March 15 - 16, 1995. Return [420] Mormul, Note, 1995. Return [421] Nilsen, T., and Bøhmer, N., Sources of Radioactive Contamination in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk Counties. Bellona Report no.1 :1994. Return [422] Description of Sevmorput in letter from vice director Vladimir Kozlovsky Return [423] Osipenko, L. G., Shiltsov, L. M. and Mormul, N. G., Atomnaya Podvodnaya Epopeya, Moscow 1994. Return [424] Murmansk Radio, September 1995. Return [425] Murmansky vestnik, January 11. 1995. Return [426] Oral information given by Sevmorput workers, spring 1995. Return [427] Izvestia, 12 May 1995. Return [428] Mormul, N., Note, 1995. Return [429] Steblin, P. G., director Nerpa yards, presentation of the paper; Difficulties in decommissioning of submarines and protection of the northern environment, Severodvinsk, 15 - 16 March, 1995. Return [430] Russian Government decree no. 514, July 24, 1992. Return [431] Rybny Murman, February 2 - 8 1996. Return [432] Steblin, P. G., director Nerpa yards, presentation of the paper; Difficulties with decommissioning of submarines and protection of the northern environment, Severodvinsk, March 15 - 16, 1995. Return [433] Komersant Daily, June 29,1995. Return [434] Visit at the Nerpa yard, Spring 1995.. Return [435] Barents News, 1995. Return [436] The Rose Isles of the White Sea, Severodvinsk, 1992. Return [437] Note from Rune Castberg, The Fritjof Nansen Institute, 1994. Return [438] Presidential decree No. H-1344, November 8, 1992. Return [439] Government decree No. 514, July 24, 1992 and decree No. 644-47, August 31, 1992. Return [440] Handbook from the GRTsAS, presented to the Russian government in 1993. Return [441] If other sources are not indicated, the information is taken from the handbook On implementation plan for handling of nuclear waste and spent fuel on Severodvinsk Territory, Summer 1994. Return [442] Document from the local Gosatomnadzor (V. Dimitriev), Severodvinsk environmental committee (M. Mailov) and the control committee for objects subject to the Ministry of Defence (A. Gordienko) 1995. Return [443] Severny Rabochy, March 23, 1995. Return [444] Document from the local Gosatomnadzor (V. Dimitriev), Severodvinsk environmental committee (M. Mailov) and the control committee for objects subject to the Ministry of Defence (A. Gordienko), 1995. Return [445] Nilsen, T., and Bøhmer, N., Sources of Radioactive Contamination in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk Counties. Bellona Report no.1 :1994. Return [446] The information in this paragraph is taken from a document issued by the local Gosatomnadzor (V. Dimitriev), Severodvinsk environmental committee (M. Mailov) and the control committee for objects subject to the Ministry of Defence (A. Gordienko), 1995. Return [447] Nilsen, T., and Bøhmer, N., Sources of Radioactive Contamination in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk Counties. Bellona Report no.1 :1994. Return [448] Klimov, A., note, 1996. Return [449] The information in this paragraph is taken from a document issued by the local Gosatomnadzor (V. Dimitriev), Severodvinsk environmental committee (M. Mailov)and the control committee for objects subject to the Ministry of Defence (A. Gordienko), 1995. Return [450] Document from the local Gosatomnadzor (V. Dimitriev), Severodvinsk environmental committee (M. Mailov) and the control committee for objects subject to the Ministry of Defence (A. Gordienko), 1995. Return [451] Ibid. Return [452] Ibid. Return [453] Severny Rabochy, February 23. 1995. Return [454] Nilsen, T., and Bøhmer, N., Sources of Radioactive Contamination in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk Counties. Bellona Report no.1 :1994. Return [455] Ibid. Return [456] Sinking Radioactive Nightmare, SVT2 - Norra Magasinet. Return [457] Information given at a nuclear safety meeting, Severodvinsk, 7 March 1995. Return [458] Information given at a Severodvinsk press conference in connection with removal of spent fuel elements from submarine factory No. 401, March 1995. Return

-------- us nuc weapons facilities

Cox's Flaccid Report Vaunted Chinese Spy Report Unravels by R. Scott Moxley

Orange County Weekly
January 7 - 13, 2000
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/00/18/news-moxley.shtml

Congressman Christopher Cox would have been delighted had he been inside the Barnes & Noble at the Irvine Spectrum one night last June. Days before, at a carefully staged Capitol Hill press conference, Cox had donned a black suit, solid red tie and somber face to claim that critical U.S. nuclear-weapons secrets had been stolen by Chinese spies. Though remarkably short on supporting evidence, the allegations produced sensational international headlines and once again transformed the congressman into a political star whose machinations could dominate a conversation between five middle-aged women in a bookstore. Never mind that Cox later admitted to a reporter, "We're having a great deal of difficulty in finding suspects. We don't even have any real open cases." People love spy tales. "Thank God for Chris Cox," said one of the women. "If he had been president, the Chinese would have never stolen our secrets."

For the Newport Beach millionaire, who has made no secret of his desire for higher public office, Hollywood could not have scripted a better role: national-security hero. The best heroes are, of course, the reluctant ones, a point the shrewd Cox surely understands. Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS's Face the Nation, ended an interview with the six-term congressman by saying, "I know you've had a long row with [your investigation], and I'm sure you're glad it's over." With all the sincerity he could muster, Cox responded solemnly, "Amen."

Our reluctant hero was so glad it was over that he proceeded to mass-produce press releases touting his allegations, write editorials for several newspapers, book himself speaking engagements, and appear on just about every television network-news show in the country. Not even a Washington Post report that the congressman had leaked details of his secret investigation to favored reporters curtailed the adulation. On the McLaughlin Group talk show, one guest boldly called Cox "a Cool Hand Luke" who is "smart, analytical" and should be Speaker of the House.

For six months, Cox basked in near-blemish-free media glory, haughtily dismissing critical reports (which appeared mostly in the alternative press, including the Weekly). But last month, the congressman's allegations of Chinese espionage suffered a near-fatal blow. Stanford University's respected Center for International Security, which is headed by the man who directed this country's nuclear-weapons programs for 36 years, issued a blistering rebuke to what has come to be known as the "Cox Report." Though Cox oddly didn't bother to include one nuclear-weapons expert on his investigation's staff, the university hired five world-renowned experts. They concluded, "There is no credible evidence presented or instances described of actual theft of U.S. missile technology." That may explain why the FBI has been unable to arrest a single person in what Cox would have us believe is the most damaging espionage scheme in U.S. history.

In their 100-page detailed review, the center's experts found Cox's allegations "inflammatory," "misleading," "extremely vague" and "implausible." The Cox Report, they determined, "lacks scholarly rigor and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weakly justified inferences." (And to think: Cox's claims prompted conservative newspaper columnist Debra J. Sanders to call for public hangings; another columnist floated the idea that all Chinese-American scientists should be investigated as potential spies.)

Cox-who has always maintained that his report "did not engage in opinion" even though phrases such as "appear to be" pepper the document-tried at first to ignore the university's review. Later, he placed on his office Web site a link to a government press release that slammed the center. According to the defensive statement issued by a Republican staff member, the university's critique "represents the personal conclusions and opinions of the authors and those opinions might be right or wrong" and is a "disservice" to this country by "biased" men who sympathize with the communists. The congressman let others do the dirty work; he did not issue retaliatory press releases or grant a series of high-profile interviews. Better to let that specific story die quickly.

There were clues from the beginning that the Cox Report was nothing more than cheap-if entertaining-political theater. CNN's Reliable Sources noted the report's unusual Hollywood-like "high production values." Strangely enough, those production values worked best at supposedly liberal Newsweek. In a June cover story, the magazine's reporters unquestioningly swallowed Cox's tale. "There is no doubt that Beijing has been adept at pilfering U.S. nuclear secrets," they wrote, without attribution to a single source-much less an expert.

But in trying to pump up Cox's stature, Newsweek may have inadvertently handed his critics a noose. (Some media analysts speculate that Cox leaked information to the magazine to secure favorable coverage.) "Late last fall, the Cox Committee investigation seemed at a dead end. For months the House panel had slogged through arcane documents and endured hours of technical testimony -searching for proof that China had illegally obtained American satellite technology. . . . Then, last November, came a breakthrough," the magazine reported excitedly. "Notra Trulock, a top intelligence officer at the Energy Department, appeared before the panel. In a dry, monotone drawl, he told the secret meeting that over the years, Beijing had stolen some of America's most sensitive nuclear-weapons secrets from the nation's labs. As Trulock spoke, committee members began to stiffen in their chairs. Christopher Cox, the committee's chairman, looked at his colleagues and their eyes bugged out, remembers one participant [the source was likely the congressman]. For the committee, bad news never looked so good."

More accurately: for the ultra-ambitious Cox-a corporate lawyer who jealously protects and promotes his own reputation as a rising political star in Republican circles-bad news (as flimsy as it has proved) certainly never looked so good.

--------us nuc facilities

S.C. nuclear plant cited for safety

Yahoo News
01/07/99

AIKEN, S.C. (AP) - Federal regulators have again cited the largest contractor at the Savannah River Site nuclear complex for failing to follow safety procedures. Employees of Westinghouse Savannah River Co. failed five times to follow procedures to prevent "criticalities" or chain reactions, in late November and early December, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board said Thursday. The citation comes just two months after the U.S. Energy Department, which owns the complex, told Westinghouse to improve safety procedures there because of other incidents. Westinghouse spokesman Paul Jones said workers were retrained on the safety procedures. The latest problems occurred in a facility that recovers useful materials from radioactive and chemical wastes, and in a plant that stabilizes plutonium left over from other operations.

---

Scientist's Lawyers Seek Better Access to Classified Material

New York Times
January 7, 2000
By JAMES RISEN
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/010700nuke-trial.html

Related Articles
Imprisoned Scientist Sues U.S. Agencies (Dec. 21)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/122199china-nuke-lawsuit.html

Friends Rally Support for Los Alamos Scientist (Dec. 21)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/122199china-nuke.html

Officials Describe Loss of Nuclear Secrets at Los Alamos (Dec. 12)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/121299china-spying.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 -- Lawyers for Wen Ho Lee have asked a federal court in New Mexico to ease restrictions on their access to classified information so they can defend him against charges that he transferred and copied nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he worked until he was fired last March.

In particular, the scientist's lawyers asked for access to classified material, including the portable computer tapes recovered from Dr. Lee's office. Those tapes include vast amounts of classified data about United States nuclear weapons, and have provided the government with some of its most important evidence against him.

At the government's request in December, a federal magistrate imposed tight restrictions on the release of nuclear secrets in court in Dr. Lee's case. Magistrate Don Svet of Federal District Court in Albuquerque ordered that all classified information to be used in the case had to be screened under the Classified Information Procedures Act. That law was enacted in 1981 to prevent defendants in national security cases from using the threat of divulging secrets to force the government to drop its prosecution.

The magistrate's order remains in effect until the trial judge, Chief Judge John Conway, decides whether to alter the ruling.

Dr. Lee was arrested on Dec. 10 and charged in a 59-count indictment with transferring vast amounts of nuclear data from a classified computer system at Los Alamos into an unsecure system and then copying the material onto portable computer tapes. Of the 10 high-volume tapes of classified information that he made, the government says seven are still missing. Dr. Lee has not been charged with giving the secret information to any unauthorized person or a foreign country and has not been charged with espionage. In the motion filed on Wednesday, Dr. Lee's lawyers accused the government of seeking to impose excessively broad limits on their ability to review classified materials that they might need in the case.

A spokeswoman for the United States Attorney's Office in Albuquerque, which is prosecuting the case, said today that the government had not yet filed a response to the defense motion.

In addition to covering classified documents and records, the defense motion argues that the government is seeking to have the limits on the use of classified information expanded to cover far too much information. In the order under classified information law, the motion said, the government seeks to include "information, regardless of place of origin, that could reasonably be believed to contain classified information or that refers or relates to national security."

--------us nuc power

Old-Fashioned Value Portfolio With a Twist

Los Angeles Times
Friday, January 7, 2000
Bloomberg News, Times Staff
http://www.latimes.com/business/20000107/t000002019.html

If you're looking for value-oriented ideas in a market like this, a Boston money manager has some ideas. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPREAD WHILE i TOOK PICS? John Dorfman, whose "robot portfolio" of out-of-favor stocks gained 40% in 1999--twice the increase of the Standard & Poor's 500 index--has come up with a new version for 2000.

The robot portfolio uses an old-fashioned value approach--the kind that many investors turn up their noses at these days. It is based on a computer screen that simply chooses the stocks with the lowest trailing price-to-earnings ratios, first weeding out those with market values below $500 million and those whose debt is larger than stockholders' equity.

Studies have shown that, as a whole, the lowest P/E stocks outperform the highest P/E stocks in the next year. But faced with a barrage of unfavorable analytical opinions and negative headlines, it's hard for any money manager--or average investor, for that matter--to grit his or her teeth and buy the least popular issues, even if their P/Es are well under the market average of about 28. T That may be why the emotionless "robot" portfolio outperformed active "value" fund managers last year (they only gained 9% as a group, according to Morningstar Inc., the Chicago-based fund tracker).

Of course, a very low trailing P/E on a stock can indicate that investors have little faith in earnings growth going forward--or that investors expect an outright decline in earnings in the immediate future. Still, the greater the pessimism about a company, the more potential there may be for a pleasant surprise. Here are Dorfman's "robot" stocks for 2000:

* Warnaco Group Inc. (ticker symbol: WAC), the maker of Calvin Klein jeans, Speedo swimsuits and other clothing. Its P/E through last year's third quarter, the latest earnings reported, is only 3.4. And even on the company's recently lowered expectations of $1.90 a share for full-year 1999, the stock's P/E would be just 6.

In the mid-'90s, Chief Executive Linda Wachner was considered a first-rate leader and Warnaco stock rose from about $15 in 1994 to more than $42 in mid-1998. But it has lost its cachet and sells for less than $12.

* IBP Inc. (IBP), the nation's largest beef packer, which goes for 5.2 times earnings. It sells for about book value (corporate net worth per share).

* First American Financial Corp. (FAF), a title insurance company whose stock has plunged from about $35 a year ago to about $12 today. The P/E is 5.5.

* McDermott International (MDR), which has four major lines of business: building offshore oil-drilling platforms, making power generators, supplying nuclear fuel and reactor parts to U.S. Navy submarines and doing engineering and construction. Its P/E is 5.4.

* USEC Inc. (USU), a uranium enrichment company with a P/E of 5.5. The demand for electricity could rise faster than expected, and nuclear power could play an important role in meeting that demand, Dorfman said. * HealthSouth Corp. (HRC), with a P/E of 5.5, specializes in outpatient surgery and rehabilitation centers.

* Lennar Corp. (LEN), a home-building company with a P/E of 5.6. Lennar stock has sagged to about $16 from $34 in early 1998. Fear of rising interest rates is the main culprit.

* American National Can Group (CAN), whose P/E is 6.3. "I don't much care for the stock, but hey, this is the robot's portfolio, not mine," Dorfman said. "Who am I to quibble?"

* Alaska Air Group (ALK), which has a P/E of 6.4, is one Dorfman especially likes. It is held in several of his clients' accounts.

* Precision Castparts Corp. (PCP), which also has a P/E of 6.4. The company makes castings used in jet aircraft engines, gas turbines and other applications.

* *

*Deep 'Value' To select a "Robot Portfolio" of cheap stocks for 2000, money manager John Dorfman screenedBloomberg's database for those with the lowest trailing price-to-earnings ratios as of Dec. 31. P/E ratios shown here are updated as of Thursday's close.

--------us military

Navy Plans High-Powered New Destroyer Propulsion
Progress Compared To Jump From Sail to Steam

Washington Post
Friday, January 7, 2000; Page A03
By Roberto Suro
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-01/07/107l-010700-idx.html

Undertaking a fundamental change in the way its ships are powered, the Navy announced a $25 billion plan yesterday to build a new class of destroyers propelled with stealthy yet efficient electric motors and capable of generating enough wattage for futuristic weapons such as lasers or electromagnetic launchers.

Comparing the development of the "electric drive" to the switch from sail to steam, Navy Secretary Richard Danzig told a news conference the new propulsion system will "change the character and power of our forces" and allow a destroyer to operate with a crew of fewer than 100--compared with 300 today--each of whom will have a private stateroom instead of a rack in sleeping quarters shared by as many as 60 sailors.

With an investment of $3 billion to $5 billion in research and development on the DD 21 class of destroyers over the next five years, Danzig said, the Navy hopes to perfect an entirely new approach to shipbuilding and design, which will then be applied to other vessels.

The key change involves the way in which power is delivered to a ship's propeller. In today's destroyer, an engine, usually a gas turbine, is linked to a long drive shaft and reduction gears that convert the engine's revolutions to the right number of turns for the propeller. This requires the main engines to be placed low in the ship, as well as large air intake and exhaust ducts to pass through the middle of the ship. Separate engines run generators to produce electricity for all other equipment, from radar to gun turrets.

Electric-drive ships will have conventional engines connected to new, highly efficient generators. Electrical power will travel by cables to motors connected by short drive shafts to the propellers, or perhaps in the future, thruster systems. In addition, the same generators will feed the rest of the ship with a supply of electricity far more abundant than is available from auxiliary generators today.

Similar technology is at work today in huge cruise ships, making them roomier and more fuel-efficient, said Rear Adm. Joseph Carnevale, executive officer of the DD 21 program. The Navy, however, must boost the wattage significantly and make the engines and generators rugged enough for battle. The new destroyer, with a 12,000-ton displacement, will need more than twice the electrical power now consumed by a 100,000-ton electric-drive cruise ship, Carnevale said.

Although no systems capable of delivering this kind of power exist, the Navy is so confident that electric drive is the way of the future that Danzig said delivery of new destroyers, now slated for 2008, might be allowed to slip and other ship-building programs might be trimmed to keep the DD 21 fully funded.

Plans call for the production of 32 destroyers, each equipped with a pair of large guns and a cluster of missile-launching tubes primarily intended for land attack missions, such as the Kosovo air campaign or the bombardment of Iraq during the Gulf War. Those sorts of missions, carried out in coastal waters, expose surface ships to mines and submarines, said Adm. Michael G. Mullen, director of the Navy's surface warfare division.

"For ships at sea, quieter is better," Mullen said. The elimination of the reduction gear and the long drive shaft will make the DD 21 much quieter than current surface combatants, and thus better able to avoid damage from mines and submarines, which often use noise to locate targets, Mullen said.

"I'll be able to proceed into areas where I can remain undetectable because of that significant noise reduction," Mullen said.

In current designs, engines and generators are located low in the ship. With an electric drive, they could be anywhere because they will be connected to the motor that propels the ship by cables. Moreover, the engines and generators can perform interchangeable functions.

"If I do take a hit, I will be able to instantaneously, in ways that I have not been able to accomplish thus far, reroute my power, reconfigure my ship, in a way that allows me to survive better and to handle that damage, as well as to continue to fight," said Mullen.

Under a new acquisition system authorized by Congress, two competing teams of defense contractors--one led by Bath Iron Works and Lockheed Martin Corp. and the other by Ingalls Shipbuilding and Raytheon Corp.--have been working since 1998 on designing the ship with the Navy guiding them separately with specifications.

The Navy will pick one of the designs, a decision that could come as early as this summer, and then eventually both teams will participate in the production of the new ships.

---

Bombing Tape Called Flawed
Pentagon Denies Manipulating Story

Washington Post
Friday, January 7, 2000; Page A03
By Roberto Suro
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-01/07/092l-010700-idx.html

The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that its explanation of the accidental bombing of a passenger train during the Kosovo campaign was flawed in one important respect: A videotape of the airstrike was shown to the public at nearly three times its normal speed.

But U.S. defense officials adamantly denied that the tape was sped up to make it appear that the pilot had no time to react to the arrival of the train on a bridge that was targeted for destruction.

Accelerated and compressed video images, normally used only for intelligence assessments, were inadvertently displayed at a NATO briefing because U.S. officials were in a rush to explain the accident and no one realized the tape was fast, said P.J. Crowley, a Defense Department spokesman. All the other bombing videos released during the Kosovo campaign were at normal speed, he said.

At least 10 people were killed on the train as it crossed the Grdelica ravine, 150 miles southeast of Belgrade, about noon April 12, Yugoslav officials said.

At the time, Serbia and the United States were locked in a public relations battle in several European countries, including some NATO allies, and the debate often centered on whether the United States was bombing recklessly.

The speed of events was a key element in NATO's explanation of the train bombing. At a news conference in Brussels the day after the accident, NATO's supreme commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, said the video demonstrated that the pilot of an F-15E fighter had aimed at an empty bridge and the train appeared so quickly that the crew had no chance to avoid it.

Describing what the jet's weapons officer saw as he guided an AGM-130 missile to its target, Clark said: "All of a sudden at the very last instant, with less than a second to go, he caught a flash of movement that came into the screen, and it was the train coming in. Unfortunately, he couldn't dump the bomb at that point. It was locked, it was going to the target--and it was an unfortunate incident which he, and the crew, and all of us very much regret."

The revelation that Clark used accelerated video images "in no way changes the basic facts that they were not able to divert the missile before the train came into their field of vision," Crowley said yesterday. If the tape had been played at real speed, it still would have shown that the weapons officer had just two or three seconds to react to the train, Pentagon officials said.

The jet, however, fired a second missile moments later. In his April briefing, Clark said smoke from the first missile had obscured the view, preventing the air crew from seeing the train with its engine ablaze.

Nearly all of the video footage that has become a staple of American air campaigns is processed by combat camera crews and shows events at normal speed, Crowley said. But, he added, intelligence technicians also convert the videotapes into computer data in a two-stage process that accelerates and compresses images. The result is video that runs at 2.7 times real speed and that easily can be downloaded into a personal computer. The computer files are analyzed to determine whether airstrikes destroyed their intended targets, Pentagon officials said.

When Clark started the April 13 briefing, he told reporters that the videotape of the train was "hung up in a computer problem." Then, as the briefing was about to end, he displayed the footage.

The Pentagon revisited the matter yesterday in response to allegations in a German newspaper that the video images had been manipulated. "The heart of this is simply whether this video was manipulated, and our answer is no, it was not, definitively not," Crowley said.