Dear Governor Chafee:

Located on the University of Rhode Island’s Narragansett Bay campus, the Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center has operated for nearly fifty years.  Construction on the 2-megawatt research reactor began in 1962 and reached criticality, or stable research usability in 1964.  Professor Dan Hirsch, the president of the non-profit nuclear policy organization Committee to Bridge the Gap, has commented that a reactor at this age is “old in terms of safety, security, and usefulness.”  In the wake of Japan’s nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, it is critical that we reevaluate the use value of this facility and address the potential risks it poses to the Rhode Island community. What is the lifespan of this reactor? Is the state of Rhode Island taking a risk by continuing to operate this aging facility?

Similar research reactors from the same generation and with similar wattage have already been decommissioned at the Universities of Washington, Illinois, and Virginia.[1][1]  Reactors such as these, which produce no power and act primarily as a neutron source, can incur tremendous costs and introduce dangerous security concerns into the community.  Today, similar non-nuclear research can be conducted on a smaller scale and in a safer environment.  Neutron generator development, for example, offers similar research opportunities but with “smaller, lighter, less expensive systems with longer lifetimes and higher outputs.”[2][2] 

In assessing the utility of nuclear research in Rhode Island, we must consider the threats posed to the community, the costs imposed upon the state, and the alternative research opportunities available now and in the future.

SECURITY CONCERNS

The initially projected operational lifetime of most nuclear reactors is 30 to 40 years.[3][3]  When a reactor exists beyond this time frame, its usefulness and stability must be assessed consistently and rigorously.  Because the reactor in Narragansett is quite small and dedicated to research, its security threat is easily underestimated.

However, a 2008 report published by the Government Accountability Office suggested that the security of many licensed research reactors required reassessment.  “Although less powerful than commercial nuclear power reactors,” the report states, “research reactors may still be attractive targets for terrorists.”[4][4]

Like many other research reactors in the nation, the Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center converted to low-enriched, non-weapons grade uranium in 1994.  The primary security concerns at facilities such as this are for the potential theft of nuclear fuel, the targeting of the reactor with an automotive bomb, and the possibility of an errant, though catastrophic, reaction.  Facility director Terry Tehan has verified that the enacted security system is fully prepared to coordinate a response to any of these scenarios.  His most recent publicly expressed defense plan, however, only includes unarmed campus police in the first line of defense.  Armed Narragansett town police would need to be alerted and brought to the reactor in the event of an emergency or security breach.[5][5]  Secondary lines of defense—that is, armed lines of defense—would be required to navigate a facility access route that has been designed in a purposely byzantine manner.

More than its security threat to the community, however, the reactor presents hazardous potential health risks.  Professor Hirsch, of Committee to Bridge the Gap, has commented that the reactor’s proximity to water raises the possibility of dispersal of radioactive contamination of a New England water source.  Elevated radionuclide levels in drinking water can have toxic effects, producing cancers in the bones and massive impairment of the kidneys.[6][6]  In the event of a meltdown, a radiation leak would affect every individual on the East Bay campus.  But fallout effects of such an event would also include contamination of the land, soil, and water in the region.

FINANCIAL COSTS

The cost of safely and effectively maintaining the Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center should also be considered in light of recent economic pressures.  While the state’s deficit continues to rise, crucial public services have been slashed significantly.  As you are aware, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras has most recently fired every single Providence school teacher and prepared the district for the closing of four elementary schools.  These measures occur, of course, with the concern that the state and city budgets cannot support current educational infrastructures.

It is an irony, then, that funding for the Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center has so consistently avoided making similar sacrifices.  In fact, funding directed toward the Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission is expected to rise to $1.5 million in fiscal year 2011.[7][7]  The most recently released minutes from the Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission indicate a refusal of the 5, 10 and 15 percent budget cuts recommended by the Office of the Governor.[8][8]  The Atomic Energy Commission has justified noncompliance with these recommendations on the basis that it would jeopardize fulfillment of their extended license renewal requirements.

In addition to expanding its budget this fiscal year, the Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission described in a letter to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission an expected annual increase of 3 percent in requested revenues from the state until fiscal year 2015.[9][9]  $38,467 of this proposed budget increase was dedicated to raising payroll for personnel.  The most dramatic increase in payroll belongs to Dr. Tehan, who received $118,838 in fiscal year 2003 and is slated to receive $160,962 in fiscal year 2012.[10][10]  A summary of Dr. Tehan’s salary since fiscal year 2003 accompanies this letter. 

The cost of maintaining the Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center—in terms of both budget and community risk—cannot be overstated.  Now, more than ever, we must reevaluate the utility of nuclear energy and research in Rhode Island.  Following in the example of similar research reactors at other universities, I strongly encourage that you consider a decommission of the facility.

Sincerely,

Ray Rickman

101 Dyer Street

Providence, RI 02903

rickman@rickmangroup.com