Gov't posts sensitive list of US nuclear sites

By H. JOSEF HEBERT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The head of the agency responsible for the country's nuclear weapons says a list of nuclear sites accidentally made public does not include classified information about weapons-related facilities.

Thomas D'Agostino head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, told a Senate hearing Wednesday the sites on the list are of civilian facilities and that none of the information is classified. Still, he said he's concerned the list could provide an "easy locator" for uranium storage sites and other facilities related to the country's civilian nuclear program.

The 266-page document was accidentally put on the Government Printing Office Web site. It is information that is to be provided as part of an international nuclear inspection program.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government accidentally posted on the Internet a list of government and civilian nuclear facilities and their activities in the United States, but U.S. officials said Wednesday the posting included no information that compromised national security.

However, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, questioned about the disclosure at a House hearing, expressed concern with respect to a uranium storage facility at the department's Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The facility holds large quantities of highly enriched uranium, which if obtained can be used to fashion a nuclear weapon.

"That's of great concern," said Chu, referring to the Y-12 site. "We will be looking hard and making sure physical security of those sites (at Y-12) is sufficient to prevent eco-terrorists and others getting hold of that material."

But later Chu told reporters that while the disclosure may be embarrassing "there's no secret classified information that's been compromised (and) the sites and everything are public knowledge" already available elsewhere.

But, he added, the list "gathers it up" in a single document, and that is of some concern.

The 266-page document was published on May 6 as a transmission from President Barack Obama to Congress. According to the document, the list was required by law and will be provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Some of the pages are marked "highly confidential safeguards sensitive."

Chu said he had no details as to how the document was released, beyond that it involved the government printing office. "Someone made a mistake," said Chu, appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee .

Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the document had been reviewed by a number of U.S. agencies and that disclosure of the information did not jeopardize national security. He said the document is part of an agreement on nuclear material inspection under the IAEA's nuclear nonproliferation effort.

"While we would have preferred it not be released, the Departments of Energy, Defense, and Commerce and the NRC all thoroughly reviewed it to ensure that no information of direct national security significance would be compromised," LaVera said in a statement.

An Energy Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly, said none of the sites on the list are directly part of the government's nuclear weapons infrastructure.

In addition tothe Y-12 facility, the document includes some facilities at the Energy Department's Hanford nuclear site in Washington state and various civilian nuclear fuel processing sites including uranium enrichment facilitates, according to government officials.

Uranium stored at the Y-12 site is scheduled to be moved into a new $549 million high-security warehouse in 2010, said Y-12 spokesman Steve Wyatt. The 300-by-475-foot, fortress-like warehouse, under construction since 2004, will replace several aging vault-like storage facilities.

Beth Hayden, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the agency reviewed the document as it relates to civilian facilities with NRC licenses and "we are confident that information of direct national security significance was not compromised."

The NRC has jurisdiction over commercial nuclear power plants and civilian uranium processing and storage facilities.

The publication of the list was first reported in an online secrecy newsletter Monday. The document had been posted on the Government Printing Office Web site, but has since been removed from that site.

In a statement, the Government Printing Office said Wednesday: "Upon being informed about potential sensitive nature of the attachment in this document, the Public Printer of the United States removed it from GPO's Web site pending further review. After consulting with the White House and Congress, it was determined that the document, including sensitive attachment, should be permanently removed from the Web site."

The GPO said it processes and produces approximately 160 House documents during the two-year congressional cycle, and the list was received by the agency in the normal process and produced under routine operating procedures.

The document includes both government and civilian nuclear facilities, all of which have various levels of security, including details and location of nation's 103 commercial nuclear power reactors, information readily available from various sources.

The document details the location of the nuclear sites and what is being done there.

For instance, there are nuclear reactors at the Westinghouse Electric Company in Pittsburgh, Pa. This facility is currently working on research into what happens when there are accidents with the nuclear reactors. The project started in 2006 and is expected to end in 2012, according to the document.

Associated Press reporter Pamela Hess in Washington and Duncan Mansfield in Knoxville, Tenn., contributed to this report.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCsPqjzeLAVBSZ0nrjjDm7Ywu-sAD98JCJHO0

The Politics of Mining Uranium [in VA]

JEFF E. SCHAPIRO TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST

Published: April 5, 2009

The water that originates in Lake Gaston slakes the thirst of sailors, Marines and their families at bases across South Hampton Roads. Bouchard's command from 2000-03, the Norfolk Naval Base, is home to 65,000.

Should harm come to the water supply, that "would be a severe threat to national security," says Bouchard.

As a former commander of Norfolk Naval Base and a nuclear weapons officer who worked on Russian atomic secrets at the National Security Council, Joe Bouchard knows something about uranium.

As a Ph.D. and Democratic delegate from Virginia Beach who works on environmental and scientific issues on two important House committees, Bouchard also knows something about the politics of uranium.

Bouchard is a skeptic on a proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County that foes fear will, among other things, poison the water supply of Virginia Beach, about 100 miles downstream. He favors a study of the proposal but insists it be free of influence by either side.

Bouchard has no doubts what could drive a decision by the General Assembly to lift a 27-year prohibition on uranium mining: money. He is sharing this view with an opposition that seems to believe outrage alone is sufficient to stop the project.

About three weeks ago, Bouchard met in Virginia Beach with mine opponents, some of whom had motored east from Pittsylvania, more than 200 miles away. He prepared a PowerPoint presentation that neatly captures the obstacles they face.

While not intended as such, Bouchard's talking points could have been those of industry:

Mining promotes energy independence. It could hold down electric rates. It complements existing nuclear design and construction operations in Lynchburg and Newport News.

Mining is potentially hugely profitable, and, by extension, a potent source of local and state tax revenue. A mine would generate jobs in a region rapidly losing them to the collapse of manufacturing.

"These are powerful arguments that will carry great weight with the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, General Assembly and probably a majority of the voters in Virginia," warns one slide in italics that call attention to the hearts-versus-pocketbook nature of the uranium debate.

That Virginia's government, because of the right-to-work law and sky's-the-limit political contributions, is gamed for big business is old news.

So, too, is the occasional result: Virginia can be an inattentive steward of the environment. A reminder these days is the slow suffocation of the Chesapeake Bay.

In his presentation, Bouchard touches on environmental and safety concerns, including disposal of radioactive detritus and the peril to water pumped through a pipeline from Lake Gaston to Virginia Beach.

Virginia Beach, population 425,000, opposes the mine until scientific authorities -- independent of an industry willing to pay $1 million for a state study -- can prove there is no threat to the public.

Neighboring Chesapeake, with 215,000 souls, is leery about the mine. Norfolk may yet take a position, worrying for its 235,000 residents.

But the health-and-environmental argument that is dismissed as the preoccupation of greens in jeans plays into an issue that perhaps only a Joe Bouchard, a man schooled in war and peace, could appreciate.

The water that originates in Lake Gaston slakes the thirst of sailors, Marines and their families at bases across South Hampton Roads. Bouchard's command from 2000-03, the Norfolk Naval Base, is home to 65,000.

Should harm come to the water supply, that "would be a severe threat to national security," says Bouchard.

And so another front opens in the battle over uranium mining.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/columnists_news/article/JEFF05_20090404-220007/249158/