In what some have deemed an illegal move, President Trump last week abruptly fired Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Christopher Hanson, whom he had appointed back in 2020 and whom President Biden had named as chairman and reappointed just last year. To date there is no nominee to fill the now-empty position, which may be the subject of litigation.
Speculation is that Hanson and Trump had a conflict of vision about the independent agency’s mission. White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly explained that “all organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction. President Trump,” she added, “reserves the right to remove employees within his own executive branch who exert his executive authority.”
Predictably, the anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement from Edwin Lyman, its director of nuclear power safety, that Hanson’s firing and other Trump actions “could have serious implications for nuclear safety.” He bluntly added that the NRC should (over) protect health and safety “without regard for the financial health of the nuclear industry.” [Or, as the UCS would say: Not On Planet Earth.]
An irate Hanson threatened legal action, claiming his firing violated federal law and longstanding precedent. He justified his work at the NRC, stating his mission had involved “preserving the independence, integrity, and bipartisan nature of the world’s gold standard nuclear safety institution.” Speculation is that, despite glowing speeches about the increased NRC workload emerging from the nation’s nuclear revival, he was not a happy warrior.
Did Commissioner Hanson object to President Trump’s May 23 executive order directing the NRC to fast-track the permitting of new reactor designs and to review and replace its unreasonable (below ambient) safety limits for radiation exposure with science-based limits? Or did he object to the NRC establishing fixed deadlines for evaluating and approving licenses of 18 months for constructing and operating new reactors and 12 months for renewing existing licenses?
A more likely reason is President Trump’s directive for the NRC to reform its culture and procedures to promote nuclear energy while ensuring reactor safety. The order requires the NRC to “consider the benefits of nuclear power to our economic and national security in addition to traditional concerns regarding safety, health, and environmental factors.”
Hanson, who has a bachelor’s degree in religious studies and master’s degrees from Yale Divinity School and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, stated upon his firing that, “My focus over the last five years has been to prepare the agency for anticipated change in the energy sector, while preserving the independence, integrity, and bipartisan nature of the world’s gold standard nuclear safety institution.”
For a deeper dive into Hanson’s philosophy of nuclear energy management, consider a speech he gave in March 2024 at the NRC’s 36th annual regulatory information conference.
Noting that the NRC “is laying the groundwork for things like technology-inclusive licensing, regulation of fusion energy, and microreactors,” Hanson boasted that the NRC and other regulators worldwide “will have more work to do than we have had in a while” [literally its entire 50-year history]. One reason was the increased desire for nuclear energy to power gigantic data centers, artificial intelligence, and other emerging high-energy-using technologies.
Hanson bragged that the “sustained, strong safety performance” of America’s operating nuclear reactors that has bolstered nuclear energy’s credibility and provided the foundation for its near-certain coming expansion. While just five years ago (at the end of President Trump’s first term), “projected shutdowns and decommissioning [were] becoming a regular part of the discussion,” for the first time in history, the NRC was evaluating a request to reactivate a shut-down reactor.
Is that not evidence that these reforms are so urgently needed?
Hanson went on to tell the assembled bureaucrats that “we need to be ready for emerging needs and seek opportunities for process improvements” at a time when the NRC’s workload projections are increasing rapidly. [During 50 years of saying “no,” their jobs were simpler?]
Yet, even with the 2024 election nine months away, Congress and the Biden White House were promising to increase U.S. nuclear power generation. “We are projecting an influx of new power uprate applications – muscles we haven’t exercised in over a decade,” Hanson told the gathering. Those “sore muscles” were amazingly able to shrink approval timelines for risk-informed programs at operating reactors and even get through “more complex reviews.”
Perhaps Trump’s knock on Hanson was that he appeared to speak more as a gatekeeper for regulatory control than as a partner in building a nuclear future for America. For 50 years, the NRC had acted as “Dr. NOPE,” thwarting efforts by determined scientists and engineers eager to supply the nation with abundant, reliable nuclear energy.
Even though he had spent 25 years in the private sector, Hanson seemingly was, in the President’s view, prouder of the NRC’s 50-year history of stifling the development of nuclear energy in the U.S. than of its opportunity to partner with scientists, engineers, and others to redesign its regulatory framework to facilitate rapid growth of safe and affordable nuclear energy for America’s future.
What President Trump says he needs is a referee, not an opposing head coach.
This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy