The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't saying much about the recently reported security breach at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

But this tight-lipped stance is loose in comparison to what it would have been a couple of years ago, according to commission spokesman Neil A. Sheehan.

For several years after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the commission not only didn't talk about the nature of security issues at nuclear plants, he said, they didn't talk about them at all.

Now, the public can access sparse summaries of security inspection results on the commission's Web site.

"It has not been that long since we started putting out these security inspection cover letters," he said. "Before, we weren't even doing that."

Until roughly a year ago, if a person searched the security portion of the commission's Web site, he said, "you'd get nothing."

Earlier this month, a self-identified security breach at Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt., was reported - the latest in a string of problems to plague the plant.

Sheehan declined to comment about the incident, saying, "Primarily, we do not discuss the results of our security inspections other than to let the public know if a security issue has been identified and whether immediate corrective actions have been put in place."

Describing this as a tightening of policy in response to Sept. 11, Sheehan said if terrorists interested in striking a nuclear power plant were aware of vulnerabilities, "it would make it much easier for them to launch an attack."

In the wake of the recent security issue, Rep. Paul W. Hodes, D-N.H., said, "Obviously, any time there is an incident at a nuclear plant which could affect the heath and safety of workers at the plant or residents, it's of concern," Hodes said.

In an e-mailed statement, Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., wrote, "Safety and security must be a priority for any power plant, and the NRC has indicated that Vermont Yankee responded appropriately. I have made an inquiry with the NRC seeking specifics surrounding recent press reports and will continue to monitor the case."

Senators Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., were unavailable for comment.

"Nuclear plant safety is a top priority for Congressman (Peter) Welch," said Andrew Savage, communications director for the Vermont Democrat. Residents living near a power plant, Savage said, "need confidence that the NRC is the cop on the beat, ensuring plant safety."

Meanwhile, "Senator (Judd) Gregg's office has been in touch with the NRC regarding the recent security breach at Vermont Yankee and we will continue to monitor this situation closely," Laena Fallon, press secretary for the New Hampshire Republican, wrote in an e-mail.

However, if the results of Hodes' efforts are any indication, none of them will get much more out of the commission.

"We have been in touch with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who, for security reasons, have not at this time released information," Hodes said.

Besides not commenting on the nature of the security breach - other than to say it didn't happen because of an inattentive employee - the NRC isn't specifying the violation's severity either.

A letter about the incident available on the commission's Web site and written by Marsha K. Gamberoni, director of the division of reactor safety, identifies the violation's danger level as "greater than Green."

This is higher than the lowest level on the commission's color spectrum of concern, but is a standard way the NRC describes security issues, according to Sheehan.

As for what exactly qualifies as a security problem, he listed an example of not properly maintaining security cameras, and having a hole in a fence.

Previously, security breaches were reported when undercover federal regulators successfully transferred a fake gun onto the site by undercover federal regulators in 1998 and when the plant 2001 failed to pass a commission security test in 2001.

Standing in stark contrast to the amount of information available about the Vermont Yankee incidents in 1998 and 2001 is the information void of recent years.

In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, the commission disabled its Web site as federal regulators eyed what information could be accessed and used by a terrorist, according to Sheehan.

"The world changed for us on 9/11," he said. "In August of 2001, we made available more information about plant security than we would ever make available today."

The temporarily disabled Web site was followed by a decision - by a President-appointed group that oversees the commission - to reduce the amount of security information accessible by the public, Sheehan said.

This policy was loosened about a year ago as the commission weighs the public's dueling interests for safety and information, according to Sheehan.

"We're continuing to grapple with that," he said. We're trying to balance the need to keep the public as informed as possible about what's going on at these plants with the need to protect them as well."

Hodes said he understood both priorities.

"It's a difficult balance to achieve. ... Obviously, we're all for open and transparent government," he said. "And at the same time, nuclear plant security in the post-9/11 world is a concern."

Moving forward, Hodes said he'll continue making inquiries about the incident and will seek assurances that the security issue won't be repeated.

Meanwhile, just because New Hampshire and Vermont residents may not have heard of security breaches at Vermont Yankee during the last several years, doesn't mean they didn't happen, according to Sheehan.

"There were numerous security reviews going on," he said. "We were not releasing any of the information related to those activities."