Trump Removes NRC Commissioner for Nuclear Safety Overhaul
By Ashley Belanger – Jun 16, 2025
“Serious risks”
Summary
Critics warn that the United States may soon assume greater nuclear safety risks after former President Donald Trump fired Christopher Hanson, one of five members of the independent US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The move follows an executive order directing the NRC to streamline approvals, reduce workforce, and reassess core safety standards.
Background and Context
On Friday, June 13, Hanson received an email notification that he was “effective immediately” removed from the NRC—an action he described as “without cause” and “contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent.”
Originally appointed by Trump in 2020 and renominated by President Biden in 2024, Hanson served as NRC Chair until January 2025. His tenure saw:
- Revised safety regulations for pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs).
- Re-establishment of the Minority Serving Institution Grant Program to diversify nuclear workforce pipelines.
- Implementation of digital-twin simulation pilots to model reactor core behavior under extreme conditions.
Executive Order Demands
In May 2025, President Trump issued an executive order mandating:
- Final decisions on new reactor licenses within 18 months.
- Automatic renewal of existing operating licenses within 12 months.
- Reduction-in-force (RIF) of up to 15% of NRC staff over two years.
- Revision of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model in favor of hormesis-based standards.
Why LNT Matters
The LNT model assumes that any radiation dose—even low-level exposure—increases cancer risk linearly (measured in sieverts, Sv). This approach is backed by long-term epidemiological data on 86,600 survivors of the 1945 atomic bombings in Japan. Under LNT, the permissible dose limit for nuclear workers remains 50 millisieverts (mSv) per year, with public exposure capped at 1 mSv annually.
Technical Implications of LNT vs. Hormesis Models
Hormesis proponents argue low-dose radiation (<100 mSv) may trigger adaptive cellular repair mechanisms. Stephen Bondy, a toxicology professor at UC Irvine, noted in his 2023 review that evidence for hormesis remains “unsettled”. The NRC’s previous risk assessment team used Monte Carlo neutron transport simulations and dosimetry from Cobalt-60 sources to conclude there was “insufficient evidence” to override LNT-based regulation.
If the hormesis model is adopted, dose limits could double to 100 mSv/year for workers, and public limits to 5 mSv/year. Critics warn this shift could complicate emergency planning zones (EPZs), which currently extend 10 miles for detailed evacuation protocols and 50 miles for ingestion pathway assessments.
Potential Industrial and Environmental Impact
Trump’s push aims to accelerate licensing of advanced modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV designs, such as sodium-cooled fast reactors. Proponents in the nuclear industry argue that shorter review cycles using digital twin and computational fluid dynamics tools could bring reactors online faster, reducing carbon emissions by an estimated 150 million metric tons annually by 2035.
However, experts caution that if safety margins are eroded, a single radiological incident—measured in terabecquerels (TBq) of Cs-137 release—could devastate public trust and set back nuclear deployment globally.
Legal and Procedural Challenges
Under the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, the NRC must “minimize danger to life or property.” The proposed rule changes will undergo a shortened public comment period of 30 days, down from the standard 60. Several environmental and public health groups have pledged lawsuits, citing Administrative Procedure Act violations and jeopardizing the commission’s statutory independence.
In response, Senators introduced the Protecting Independent Nuclear Oversight Act, seeking to codify tenure protections for NRC commissioners and curb any future attempts at partisan removal.
Reactions from Washington and Academia
“By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, we risk a serious radiological release that could cripple public faith in nuclear power for decades,”
“Accelerating review times is vital, but not at the expense of rigorous probabilistic risk assessments and human reliability analyses,”
Outlook and Next Steps
As the NRC reorganizes under interim leadership, commissioners will need to balance expedited licensing goals with robust safety analyses in areas such as severe accident mitigation, digital instrumentation cyber-hardening, and spent fuel pool criticality controls.
With congressional hearings scheduled for July 2025, stakeholders—from utility executives to local emergency planners—will scrutinize technical rulemakings published in the Federal Register this fall. The final rule is expected by Q1 2026.
Additional Analysis
1. Advanced Monitoring Technologies
New sensor networks using fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) and real-time gamma spectroscopy can detect anomalous radiation fluxes within milliseconds, enhancing on-site situational awareness. Integrating these technologies into NRC’s inspection protocols could mitigate the need for more conservative dose thresholds.
2. International Comparisons
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to endorse LNT-modeled safety standards. Nations such as France and Japan maintain public dose limits at 1 mSv/year. A pivot to hormesis in the US may fragment global regulatory alignment and complicate cross-border fuel cycle partnerships.
3. AI-Driven Safety Assessments
Machine learning models trained on historical incident data—covering events from Three Mile Island to Fukushima—can predict human error probabilities and system failure modes with >90% accuracy. Embedding AI into NRC risk-informed regulation could expedite reviews while preserving safety margins.
Categories: Tech News