U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–823PDF 2017

H.R. 4084, NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION 

CAPABILITIES ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

December 3, 2015 

Serial No. 114–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEPHAN KNIGHT, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

December 3, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Witnesses: 

Mr. John Kotek, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. 

Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Dr. Dale Klein, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Texas 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Mr. Ray Rothrock, Partner Emeritus, Venrock 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 50 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Alan Grayson, Minority Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 62 

(1) 

H.R. 4084, NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION 

CAPABILITIES ACT 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to 

order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time, and we expect votes to be called 

just any minute. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘H.R. 4084, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act.’’ 

I am going to defer my opening statement. I know the Chairman 

has graciously agreed to, and the Ranking Member has also, to be 

put in the record. So good morning. I thank you all for coming. And 

I would like to thank Ranking Member Johnson, who’s not here, 

and Chairman Smith for cosponsoring this bill with me. It is an absolute honor to work with fellow Texans to establish policies that 

keep America globally competitive, support innovation in our economy, and actually promote national security goals. And I would 

also like to think other cosponsors from this Science Committee. 

As the Energy Subcommittee’s legislative business for 2015 

draws to a close, we’re going to be work with this stuff. You can 

read the rest of my statement in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman WEBER. With that, I’m going to introduce the witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. John Kotek, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy at the DOE. Mr. Kotek 

previously served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

the Office of Nuclear Energy. In addition, Mr. Kotek—am I pronouncing that correct—okay—received his bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering from the University of Illinois and his MBA from 

the University of Maryland. 

I will now yield to the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. 

Smith, to introduce our second witness. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our second witness today is Dr. Dale Klein, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research for the University of Texas System. In 2006, Dr. 

Klein joined the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and was later appointed Chairman by President Bush, where he served until 2010. 

As Chairman, Dr. Klein was the Principal Executive Officer and 

Official Spokesman for the NRC. He was responsible for the administrative, organizational and long-range planning, budgetary, and 

personnel functions of the agency. Prior to joining the NRC, Dr. 

Klein was the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, 

Chemical, and Biological Defense programs. He also served as the 

Vice Chancellor for Special Engineering Programs at the University of Texas and as a Professor in the Department of Mechanical 

Engineering at the University of Texas. Dr. Klein holds a Ph.D. in 

nuclear engineering from the University of Missouri. 

Dr. Klein, thank you for making the trip from Austin today. We 

look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
9 
10 
11 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Ray Rothrock, Partner Emeritus 

of Venrock. Mr. Rothrock has had a career in venture capital spanning over 25 years, successfully investing in over 50 startup companies. Mr. Rothrock received his bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering from Texas A&M, his master’s degree in nuclear engineering from MIT, and his MBA from Harvard. 

I now recognize Mr. Kotek for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN KOTEK, 

ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member 

Grayson, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify at today’s hearing. 

I appreciate the Committee’s interest in research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies. 

The Department of Energy does not have a position on the legislation but it is consistent with much of the work currently being 

done by DOE. 

As has been noted before this Committee in the past, nuclear energy continues to play a vital role in the President’s energy strategy for a sustainable, clean energy future. Nuclear energy has provided nearly 20 percent of electrical generation in the United 

States over the past two decades and currently produces more than 

60 percent of America’s carbon-free electricity. 

As the United States leads the global transition to a low-carbon 

economy, the continued development of new and advanced nuclear 

energy technologies along with support for currently operating nuclear power plants is an important component of our clean energy 

strategy. 

Because nuclear energy innovation is at the heart of today’s 

hearing, let me focus my oral remarks on DOE’s research and development programs for advanced reactor technologies. 

Future-generation reactor systems may employ advanced technologies and designs to improve performance beyond what is currently available. More advanced reactor designs with coolants other 

than light water, often referred to as generation IV designs, may 

enable reactors to operate at higher temperatures and with increased efficiencies. Continued R&D in this area is essential for the 

long-term prospects of nuclear energy. 

Advanced reactor technologies considered in DOE’s R&D program reside at different technology maturity levels with R&D efforts mainly focused on three advanced concepts: liquid metalcooled fast reactors, fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature reactors, 

and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. 

DOE has also initiated studies on how to optimize the integration of nuclear energy and variable renewable energy sources 

through collaboration between my office and the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. These studies will not only examine integration of current light water reactor technology, but 
12 

also advanced reactor technologies that have the potential to provide high-temperature process heat in addition to electricity. 

As noted in the proposed legislation, investments in the infrastructure to support advancement of nuclear technology are also 

critical. Research, development, and demonstration programs are 

dependent on an infrastructure of experimental and computational 

facilities, access to critical materials and data, and highly trained 

scientists and engineers dedicated to meeting the needs of the nation. 

The proposed legislation identifies three specific requirements for 

DOE to address in the areas of high-performance computing and 

supportive research, a versatile neutron source, and enabling nuclear energy innovation. NE programs are currently working across 

these three critical areas. 

The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors or CASL, a DOE Energy Innovation Hub centered at Oak 

Ridge National Lab, was established to provide leading-edge modeling and simulation capability to improve the performance of currently operating reactors. This successful program has now expanded beyond operating reactors to support modeling and simulation for small modular reactors. Additionally, our Nuclear Energy 

Advanced Modeling and Simulation program is addressing modeling and simulation needs for nuclear fuels and for advanced nuclear reactors. As these tools are developed and integrated, NEAMS 

will be able to provide nuclear technology designers with a truly 

predictive capability that spans from the fuel pellets to the entire 

plant to better predict the performance, reliability and economics 

of advanced nuclear power plants. 

With respect to a new versatile neutron source, DOE is evaluating the potential need for a new research reactor capability. To 

support the development of advanced reactor technology options, 

the Department has undertaken a study to determine the needs of 

the advanced nuclear reactor community and to develop options, including the key features and timing for a possible advanced test or 

demonstration reactor to support research, development and demonstration, and eventual commercialization of advanced reactor 

systems. 

And finally, with respect to enabling nuclear energy innovation, 

NE identified that improvements can be made to accelerate the innovation of nuclear technologies. To further enable this goal, NE 

launched the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, or 

GAIN, during last month’s White House Summit on Nuclear Energy. GAIN will provide the nuclear energy community with a single point of access to the broad range of resources, people, facilities, 

materials and data at our Idaho National Lab and across the DOE 

complex. Focused research opportunities and dedicated industry 

engagement will also be an important component of GAIN, ensuring that DOE-sponsored activities are impactful to companies 

working to realize the full potential of nuclear energy. 

Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Grayson and members of the 

Committee, thank you again for inviting me to discuss this legislation and the work that the Department and the Office of Nuclear 

Energy are currently doing, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 
13 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kotek follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Kotek. 

We have been joined by the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the gentlelady from Texas. You’re now recognized for your 

opening statement, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, and I apologize for being 

late—I knew the vote was coming, and I thought this would follow—on the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, which I 

am very pleased to cosponsor with you, and I’d like to thank our 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Mr. John Kotek, for 

agreeing to be here today on such short notice, and I hope that our 

friends in the Senate will take away that ‘‘Acting’’ very soon. 

As I have noted before, nuclear power plays a vital role in providing our country with clean, reliable energy. I live in an area 

where there’s nuclear energy. Nationally, it produces almost 20 

percent of our total electric power and provides almost nine percent 

of the electricity generated in our great State of Texas, all with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. 

But there currently are technical, economic, and policy challenges that prevent nuclear energy from playing a larger role in enabling our clean energy future. The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act takes several positive steps to address these challenges. Implementing the provisions in this bill will help accelerate 

the development of advanced nuclear energy technologies that are 

safer, less expensive, more efficient, and produce less waste than 

the current generation of nuclear reactors. 

I look forward to hearing from the distinguished panel that we 

have here today on any improvements we can make to this legislation to achieve these goals. 

I’d like to express my appreciation for the process we followed to 

put this bill together. Majority and Minority staff worked closely 

together every step of the way, from engaging stakeholders through 

the helping to craft and incorporate suggested changes to bill language. This is a great example of what we can achieve when we 

put politics aside and join forces to address the challenges facing 

our nation’s research enterprise. 

I thank all of you for being here, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
22 
23 

Chairman WEBER. I want to thank the gentlelady from Texas, 

and when we opened, I said that I really appreciated you and 

Chairman Smith’s cosponsoring and helping with this bill, so I 

thank you very much. 

Dr. Klein, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DALE KLEIN, 

ASSOCIATE VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH, 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber, 

Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you 

today along with my colleagues to discuss H.R. 4081. 

As a former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a 

Fellow of the American Nuclear Society, and a Research Administrator at a major university, I applaud the committee for introducing this legislation and I hope that it kick-starts a broader effort by all the relevant committees of jurisdiction to review and update federal nuclear energy policy. 

While I currently serve as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research at The University of Texas System and serve on two utility 

boards, my comments today represent my views, not those of my 

employer nor the boards on which I serve. 

In order to understand the importance of this legislation, it’s important to step back and appreciate the larger global context. Currently, there are nearly 2 billion people who still lack basic access 

to electricity, and many more whose current access is unreliable. 

Add to that the increasing urbanization of the developing world, 

with its attendant air quality issues, and finally the need to significantly reduce global carbon emissions, and you have what is perhaps the largest civilian technology infrastructure challenge in 

world today. 

One thing is clear: Any successful response to this challenge will 

by necessity include a significant role in nuclear energy, and if the 

United States wants to exert its influence on safety, security, and 

non-proliferation under which this global growth takes place, it 

must be a leader in nuclear technology development. 

H.R. 4084 is an important first step toward aligning federal nuclear policies with today’s realities, and if enacted, I believe would 

create a more collaborative relationship between the government 

and the public-private sector to advance nuclear science and public 

innovation. 

It is important to understand, however, that success will require 

other policy changes that extend beyond the jurisdiction of this 

committee. For instance, I believe it is inconceivable that any nuclear technology can achieve commercialization without the beneficial scrutiny of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I know that 

many may question my use of the word ‘‘beneficial’’ when you talk 

about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, however, its role in protecting the public and the environment are fundamental to any 

successful nuclear energy technology. The NRC remains the best 

agency to address these requirements. 

I should note that the Committee staff provided me with the July 

2015 testimony by NRC Chairman Burns and of Mr. Todd Garvey, 

Legislative Attorney for the Congressional Research Service, con-
24 

cerning the authority of the NRC to address advanced reactor designs and licensing. After reading their statements I was once 

again reminded why I became an engineer and not a lawyer. But 

I believe that there was agreement that the NRC has the authority 

and is fully capable of providing the review and guidance needed 

to support innovative technologies. The real question is how do you 

provide funds to the NRC in order to carry out this activity. 

My second point is more of a cautionary note directed to my good 

friends at the Department of Energy where I encourage them to 

view this opportunity to change their approach to managing construction projects and public-private partnerships. I would encourage the Committee to consider implementing guidance to Section 7 

that would direct the Department to identify governance approaches in addition to contractual mechanisms that would facilitate partnering with the private sector. 

My last point is that most nuclear projects today involve some 

level of international collaboration and foreign involvement. While 

continued U.S. competitiveness is an important issue, we must also 

recognize the benefits of collaboration. Therefore, we must be mindful of the restrictions and barriers that we have to international 

collaborators. I would encourage the Committee to look at activities 

that would remove barriers with no loss to our national security 

goals. 

I hope that this legislation will provide Congress and the Administration a common ground to rebuild our national security science 

and technology infrastructure and reinvigorate the collaborative relationship between the government and the private sector. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Klein. 

Mr. Rothrock, you’re now recognized for five minutes to tell us 

how to pay for this. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. RAY ROTHROCK, 

PARTNER EMERITUS, VENROCK 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Well, let’s start with some big checkbooks. 

Good morning, Chairman Weber. Thank you very much for this 

opportunity, Ranking Member Grayson, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Johnson and members of the Subcommittee. I really appreciate you all introducing this bill H.R. 4084, Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act. It’s also nice to be among a bunch of fellow Texans. I appreciate that. 

This bill comes at a very important time in the history of nuclear 

power and clean energy, and I’m delighted to share with you today 

my experiences in the nuclear innovation ecosystem that exist in 

the United States and how this bill fits in that particular ecosystem. 

My journey to this table, I think, started when I was asked to 

testify how venture capital could assist in the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future some years ago, which led to 

my co-producing the movie Pandora’s Promise, which ultimately led 

to a handful of citizens getting together and addressing these problems. 

So why nuclear power now? Well, it would be quite irrelevant if 

not for the fact that there are over 40 nuclear startups in North 

America now. Please cue the slide. 

[Slide] 

As we began our journal across the county in the last several 

years, we discovered a very large group of startup companies, over 

40, backed by $1.6 billion of private capital, not government capital, private capital. ThirdWay, based here in Washington, documented this more completely and presented this slide. The needs 

of these companies are all the same. They need patient investors 

with deep pockets, modern computational capability, nuclear-qualified laboratory space to prove their designs, and ultimately the approval of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The findings of these 

40 startups was very exciting to us and also was a surprise to virtually everyone we’ve talked to, including people in the government. 

So the entrepreneurs running these companies have all concluded that there is a need for a new reactor design to address 

many things that Ranking Member Johnson mentioned about economics, for example. I live and work in the Silicon Valley and have 

for nearly three decades, and I’ve witnessed from time to time the 

way to solve a problem is to get many people working on that problem, many innovators, and in the Silicon Valley we call that many 

shots on goal. It provides not only competition but it creates speed 

of solutions, and at the end of the day, we all win. Many shots on 

goal require lots of ideas, lots of innovators, lots of capital, and I 

would say that with the 40 startups we have in the United States, 

we’re well on our way to having many shots on goal. 

But they can’t do it alone. It requires a partnership with the government. For good and obvious reasons, nuclear development by its 
32 

very nature and by law requires the government. None of these 

guys are going to succeed if they try to do this in the Silicon Valley 

or in a laboratory in New Mexico. It requires nuclear-qualified lab 

facilities, and this bill talks about bringing some of that capability 

to them. 

The national labs of our country are the finest in the world. I visited many of them, and I’ve personally spoken to their leaders who 

are eager to assist, so your bill is well timed. 

Also, I want to in the spirit of a good signal to this community 

congratulate the Department of Energy, the White House, at the 

White House, the GAIN program, which was just referred to by Mr. 

Kotek, and all his staff was very well received from the community, 

and I’ve met subsequently with many of them. It’s very compelling. 

It’s very attractive to the private sector. But I will add this. After 

nearly 30 years of venture capital and having seen tens of thousands of business plans with very ambitious goals, it is all in the 

execution, and so I look forward to helping, whatever I can do to 

help the Department of Energy execute the GAIN program. 

There is one—well, I’ll skip that. The second signal, operating 

concepts of nuclear innovation facilities, so I personally went out 

and surveyed as many of these folks as I could subsequent to being 

invited to speak here, and a couple of things to point out. This 

needs to be a very focused program. It needs to operate pretty 

quickly, so I would recommend a single point of contact for these 

private companies. They should all submit a work plan that’s approved by whatever lab or whatever designated facility is created. 

They need to be able to pay for it and they need to be able to prove 

that they can pay for it, which requires teaming with the investors. 

There is an issue with the way national laboratories charge out 

some of their overhead. I’ve talked to several national laboratory 

directors about this, and I’m sure we can solve that problem, but 

I would recommend some sort of grant that’s a non-cash kind of a 

grant such as $1 of startup capital, $2 of government capital, that 

gets into the accounting of it all. I don’t mean to get into the—their 

details there but it’s something that needs to get sorted out, otherwise it’ll just create more friction in the process. 

Intellectual property should belong to the company. The liability 

should be well understood as everyone goes into this. Everyone 

needs to be safety-trained on health physics and other safety 

issues. Information sharing and consultation is very important, and 

I think embedding the NRC in the process will be a very important 

element as well. 

There’s one question that comes to mind, and I’m nearly out of 

time, but quickly, there is confusion or—well, there is confusion out 

there. Can a startup company, even if they have the permission to 

use the DOE facility, can they build a reactor without the approval 

of the NRC on DOE property? This is a legal issue that was asked 

and answered years ago, thought resolved, but if you ask people in 

the system, they are very confused by it. 

So I just want to say in conclusion, I support this bill. I hope this 

and many others that will follow will put the United States back 

into leadership position that has been suggested here. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and we need to hurry. 

Thank you. 
33 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothrock follows:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Chairman WEBER. We need to hurry about this bill, or about voting? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Both. Well, we appreciate that, Mr. Rothrock, 

and we are going to recess. It’ll probably take us somewhere 

around 35, 45 minutes, and then we will be back. 

We are recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. We are reconvened, and if I can find my 

place in my notes, we’ll get started here. Thank you all for waiting 

for us. 

Okay. The Chair’s going to recognize himself for five minutes. 

Mr. Kotek, you mentioned that the Office of Nuclear Energy is 

working to address each of the major areas of H.R. 4084 including 

Section 7, which Mr. Rothrock actually referenced, to enable the 

private sector to partner with national labs. Do you see any major 

impediments for DOE to carry out the National Reactor Innovation 

Center as basically described in Section 7 of the bill? 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. The timing is actually quite interesting. I mentioned in my testimony, we 

have the GAIN initiative that we just announced last month. 

Through that, we’re trying, I think, to address some of the things 

that you’re getting at in your bill in terms of providing better access for companies and innovators to the set of tools, capabilities, 

codes, facilities, et cetera that exist at our national laboratories. So 

that I think gets at part of it. 

Another thing that has been raised with us is the possibility of 

building privately funded reactors facilities at DOE laboratories, 

and we’re engaged in a process right now where we’re working 

through just what would the specifics of an agreement like that be, 

and so at this point I can’t say for certain that we’ve got these particular obstacles, but as we go through that process of working 

through what it would take for a private company to be able to 

build on a DOE site, I would suggest that we continue to work with 

your staff to communicate what issues may have arisen and figure 

out what the resolutions to those things might be. 

Chairman WEBER. But you don’t see any stumbling blocks to trying to establish this kind of cooperative effort to—— 

Mr. KOTEK. I think broadly speaking, no, and we’re—we’ve been 

listening, frankly, to you and to folks like Mr. Rothrock and some 

of the innovators in nuclear to try to address just the types of challenges you folks are working to address. 

Chairman WEBER. And you see the need, right? 

Mr. KOTEK. Oh, absolutely. 

Chairman WEBER. Good. 

Mr. KOTEK. Yes, and that was really part of the motivation. I 

mean, a lot of the credit for the GAIN initiative comes from this 

larger conversation we’ve been having again with your folks in the 

drafting of this bill but also with Mr. Rothrock and others who 

want to innovate nuclear and want to get better access to our capabilities. 

Chairman WEBER. Good. 

And Mr. Rothrock, a question for you. In your testimony, you 

also pointed out that the U.S. government oversight of nuclear en-
51 

ergy R&D is required by law, and that advanced nuclear startup 

companies will need some degree of partnership from the federal 

government, and I think it was you who said, was it one dollar of 

private money and two dollards of—did you have that backwards? 

No, that’s not the question. So how do you envision the National 

Reactor Innovation Center and Section 7 of this bill, 4084? How do 

you envision that center assisting with this effort? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Thank you. I envision it assisting very hands-on. 

There is—and there is already an existing example, the Mojave Air 

and Space Port in Mojave, California, 27 private companies, $3 billion of private investment on an old military base run by private 

enterprise but under the auspices of the FAA. It’s not exactly what 

we’re talking about here because at a facility like the national lab, 

you have people, skilled workers. You have the machines to turn 

the equipment, to build the equipment, to monitor the safety of it 

and the health physics. That’s what we need. You know, getting a 

permit to create even a subcritical pile at a facility other than a 

national lab would be impossible in this country. 

So I see it being very direct, hands-on, in the lab with the private-company people and the laboratory people working hand in 

hand to demonstrate whatever it is they’re trying to prove or show, 

and then also have the NRC embedded in that process too so they 

will not be surprised by something that’s discovered. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, that’s a good point. We’re going to go 

there with Dr. Klein here in just a second. 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Okay. 

Chairman WEBER. But the point is that if this were a transportation bill or if this was infrastructure, a building, for example, we 

would call this a public-private partnership. 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Exactly. 

Chairman WEBER. And so kind of along those same lines. 

And Dr. Klein, moving to you, as former Chairman of the NRC, 

what R&D capabilities do you think would be necessary for the 

NRC to help, as Mr. Rothrock just lined out, timely license and advanced reactor design? 

Mr. KLEIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. 

One of the challenges that the NRC has is, they need data to 

make their safety analysis, so that’s why this bill is so important 

to provide the nuclear infrastructure, to provide data for which the 

NRC can then make a safety case, and I worry about our country 

losing its nuclear infrastructure and leadership. 

Chairman WEBER. I do too. 

Mr. KLEIN. I’ll give you a specific example. I’ve been asked by 

Terra Power to help guide them on some nuclear licensing activities for their design that Bill Gates is partially supporting. So 

Terra Power is a design for a fast reactor, and the fuel elements 

will be in there for longer than we’ve ever had this done before. So 

obviously for any kind of licensing, whether it’s in China or in the 

United States, you need some data. In order for Terra Power to do 

some fuel-quality studies, the only place they could go to do that 

work is the BOR–60 reactor in Russia, and I think that’s a sad 

state of our nuclear leadership that we do not have the capabilities 

to do some of those science studies in the United States. 
52 

Chairman WEBER. Well, and I appreciate you saying that. So if 

the NRC was actually involved from the very get-go in watching 

this data get compiled, would that help in two ways? Would the validity of the data and timeliness so you don’t have to go back and 

reevaluate? 

Mr. KLEIN. Right. It would be very beneficial for the NRC to be 

involved early and often. The NRC has a very good technical staff, 

and I think they can make decisions, but getting the data and understanding the quality of the data is necessary. 

Chairman WEBER. And of course, going back to my discussion 

with Mr. Rothrock, I would point out that actually the funding for 

the NRC is actually a public-private partnership in some sense of 

the word. So thank for you that. 

And I’m going to yield to Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rothrock, your testimony focused on shots on goal, the idea 

that if you let a thousand flowers bloom, some of them will actually 

bloom, and you also gave us a map that showed startup companies 

all over the country, dozens of them, focusing on developing fission 

concepts. How many shots on goal do we have funded by the federal government now in terms of fusion research, making fusion research work, making it economical and a net producer of energy? 

How many? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. There are seven that were on that map that are 

fusion specifically, and there are two that I’m aware of that are privately financed. The rest are government. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. And historically, what are the main investments that we’ve made in fusion research over time? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Well, there’s the ITER project in France, which 

we’ve been contributing to, and there is the NIF facility at Livermore, which is a national ignition facility. Those are the two main 

ones that I’m aware of. There may be some smaller experiments in 

laboratories and universities but that’s it primarily. 

Mr. GRAYSON. How much of federal funding for fusion goes to 

merit-based review of potential proposals that are innovative and 

high risk, high reward? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. I don’t know. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Is it a large percentage or a small percentage? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Probably—it’s probably a small percentage. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you think it should be more? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Absolutely. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Why? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. I think we should double our R&D budget everywhere on this topic. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Tell me why. Why do you say that? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Because just as you opened with the notion of 

many shots on goal, you’ve got to have a lot of ideas tested in the 

earliest days to find out if they have merit and then they will eventually move forward. If they do have merit, they can seek private 

funding like many fission projects have and a few fusion projects 

have and receive that funding. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Kotek, what do you think? 
53 

Mr. KOTEK. Thank you, sir. My office, of course, doesn’t fund the 

fusion energy research in DOE. That’s a different part of the organization, so I’m not intimately familiar with the funding. 

With respect to your specific question about how much goes to 

innovative concepts, while I don’t know off the top of my head, I 

can certainly work with my colleagues to get you an answer on 

that. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Klein, do you want to weigh in on this? 

Mr. KLEIN. Anything that enhances U.S. leadership in nuclear 

technology is money well spent. If you look at one of the programs 

that actually was funded by DOE that was a game changer was the 

genome project and so the Atomic Energy Act was what let them 

do that funding, and so we’ve all seen the results of that. I think 

the federal government has a responsibility to do high-risk research that then can be turned over to the private sector for innovation. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Back to you, Mr. Rothrock. I understand 

that there was a milestone reached by Tri Alpha Energy recently 

and that you’re familiar with that. Can you explain that, please? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Sure. For fusion reaction to occur, you need to 

contain the hot plasma and you need to have it at a sufficient temperature that the nuclei will combine. Their milestone event was 

the containment of plasma at will in a controlled environment, and 

that is a huge milestone in the plasma universe. 

Mr. GRAYSON. So tell us what the next step would be. 

Mr. ROTHROCK. To take that same plasma and heat it up to the 

point where it will ignite and the nuclei will combine, creating the 

fusion process. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Is there a timeline for that? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Yes, probably 5, six years from now. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Why so long? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Well, we have—it takes about a year and a half 

to build the machine and another year and a half to run the data 

and then probably another year and a half to get it vetted by the 

world science community. Part of Tri Alpha’s efforts recently has 

been to get the data out into the science world to have it vetted 

and confirmed that it is in fact good. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Let’s suppose that happens and it works. 

What does that mean for the world? What does that mean for 

America and the world? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Well, it’s extraordinary. In Tri Alpha’s case, it is 

a fuel cycle that doesn’t produce any neutrons so it is basically the 

radiation of a hospital, which means you can build very large, highdensity electric power plants without the neutron radiation issue 

that you face with a fission plant. It would be extraordinary. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Is that because of the fuel? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Fuel cycle. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you want to explain that? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. The fuel cycle of Tri Alpha is a proton boron reaction, which produces three alpha particles, which are helium 

with no neutrons. So it uses the soft X-rays to convert to heat to 

make steam to make electricity. The other fusion cycles, DT, that 

are being pursued at NIF and other places produce neutrons, and 

neutrons are very—they make everything radioactive. 
54 

Mr. GRAYSON. The deuterium tritium cycle? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. DT cycle, yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. Mr. Kotek, do you want to address the idea 

of what it would mean for America and the world if we had a successful fusion program? 

Mr. KOTEK. Well, certainly as part of the Administration’s all-ofthe-above energy strategy, we’re pursuing fusion research in a wide 

range of non-emitting technologies, and so any advancements that 

would make more non-emitting technologies available in the commercial marketplace would be a great thing. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Dr. Klein? 

Mr. KLEIN. I think if we can make commercial fusion, it’ll be a 

game changer. The question will be, can we do it economically and 

what are the technical issues to overcome. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What do you mean by ‘‘game changer’’? 

Mr. KLEIN. It would be providing electricity to the public at hopefully a reasonable cost with less radiation involved, and an abundant fuel supply. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. I’ll yield back. Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

Let’s see. Mr. Loudermilk from Georgia, you’re recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the witnesses, thank you for bearing with us during the craziness getting 

down to vote, and I appreciate you being here. Being from Georgia 

with the new standards that are coming, if they continue to promulgate, which hopefully they don’t, but if they do, we’re looking 

at losing a lot of our coal-fired plants and so we’re going to rely 

more heavily on nuclear, which we do have the first nuclear new 

reactors going in at Plant Vogtle, which I visited a few months ago 

with Chairman Weber. 

But Dr. Klein, you brought up something that’s very interesting 

to me. I chair the Oversight Subcommittee, and so efficiency and 

management of these projects is very important, and you brought 

up in your written testimony, you alluded to it in your verbal testimony, that DOE project managers as compared to the private sector equivalents have little incentive to control project costs, which 

of course overruns can hinder the advancement of future projects, 

also because of the lack of funds, and we all want to be very efficient, and I agree with you on that, but on the other hand, in a 

previous hearing regarding nuclear research and development in 

the testimony was that there’s in some cases too much regulation 

and that stifles innovation, and so I wondered if you could just 

opine on where is that balance? What are some of the specifics that 

you would like for us to implement in Section 7 to strike that balance? And I agree with you, too much regulation or too little oversight can cause waste, too much regulation causes waste as well. 

If you would, sir? 

Mr. KLEIN. Sure. Thank you. 

As a recovering regulator from the NRC, one of the things that 

I think makes the NRC a better regulator is having to deal with 

the back-fit rule where you do have to make a risk-benefit choice. 
55 

I think something like a risk-benefit back-fit rule would help DOE 

and their project management. 

You know, regulators always tend to be conservative. If five 

guards are good, 10 are even better, so why not do it. So there 

needs to be a check and balance, and I think on DOE, if they had 

the incentive to do like a back-fit rule, to do a risk-benefit analysis 

on the regulatory changes I think it would help the American people. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. 

Mr. Kotek, would you or Mr. Rothrock also like to weigh in on 

this at any stage if you have anything to add? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Sure. With regard to the regulation of the—getting through the design cycle and review, an issue that all the 

startup companies that I’ve interviewed face is that it takes a lot 

of money, a long time, and it’s not predictable. We have in our government FAA, FDA. They’re very dangerous processes, things that 

can be scary technologically, but we have processes in place to get 

those through to a point where the public—where they’re safe for 

the public to use and they benefit the public. That system does not 

exist at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it needs to be addressed, and some of us are working with various people. Chairman Burns is well aware of this. I’ve spoken to him personally 

about it. But it is something very important to build a risk-based 

analysis, technology-neutral analysis rather than prescriptive work. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Kotek? 

Mr. KOTEK. Thanks. With respect to that particular issue of regulation, one of the things that we’re doing in our organization is 

working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to help them as 

they prepare to receive applications for advanced reactors. So 

they’ve got extensive experience dealing with water-cooled reactor 

technologies but not really with molten salt or metals, et cetera, or 

gas-cooled reactors. And so we’ve been working with them over the 

last several years to develop generic design criteria that could be 

used in the licensing of advanced reactor types, holding workshops 

with them, had a very successful one back in September. We’ll hold 

another one early next year to try and help them understand what 

are the issues that they’re going to have to confront as they start 

receiving some of these advanced reactor designs, and we found 

that the NRC to be a very willing participant in those discussions 

under the leadership of Chairman Burns. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back my remaining 30 seconds. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman, and my good friend 

from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to just ask you to describe the difference between the 

process here for bringing a reactor online versus, let’s say, in 

France. I’ve always heard that sometimes it may be easier in that 

part of Europe to bring a reactor on to the market versus in America. Can you kind of explain the differences? 

Mr. KLEIN. That’s a very good question. One of the challenges 

that we have in the United States is, we have a lot of vendors and 

a lot of different utilities. France has the advantage of having one 

vendor, government-owned, one utility, countryowned, and so 
56 

therefore they have a standardized plant, and what they do is, they 

will wait ten years before they’ll come out with a new model. So 

all the advances that they will make, they will bucket those until 

they come out with their next model. So really, the France technology is developed out of Westinghouse’s technology so it’s originally rooted in U.S. technology but their standardized plants, one 

vendor, makes their licensing more simple. I think in the United 

States, we could do it just as fast once we get the standardized reactors through the design certification and the building process like 

we’re doing for Vogtle 3 and 4. 

Mr. VEASEY. So there’s no safety issue at all with them bringing 

them on faster? Because I know that some people will say no, if 

you bring them on faster, maybe you’re giving up safety but you’re 

saying that there’s no safety at all, it’s just the process is what’s 

different? 

Mr. KLEIN. Yeah, it’s a preapproved standardized process, no 

compromises on safety, so their reactors are as safe as ours. 

Mr. VEASEY. You know, one of the—you know, we have a nuclear 

power plant in the part of Texas that I’m from. I live in Fort 

Worth, and we have one down in Comanche Peak not too far away, 

and, you know, one of the issues that always comes up is storage 

of nuclear waste, and of course, you know, you can store on site or 

move it to a secondary location but of course moving that to a secondary location has always been, you know, controversial whether 

it’s, you know, Yucca, West Texas. Like what do you think are the 

long-term solutions for dealing with that problem of nuclear waste? 

Mr. KLEIN. Well, I visited Comanche Peak several times. That’s 

a very nice facility, safely run. One of my most frustrating activities I had as Chairman of the NRC was the pulling of the Yucca 

Mountain license application. My job as Chairman was to determine whether it was safe or not. We had a staff of 150 that were 

marking that technical determination, and they never had the opportunity to finish that. That application was over 8,000 pages, referenced over a million pages of other additional data, and so my 

frustration part was that as the NRC, as the regulatory body to 

make the safety analysis of that case, we never had that opportunity. So that’s one issue. 

At-reactor storage is safe. Having a centralized storage is safe. 

But we really need as a Nation to move towards a permanent disposition program. It’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. 

Mr. VEASEY. So for instance, like how could a plant like, let’s say, 

Comanche Peak or another plant around the country safely store 

spent fuel? 

Mr. KLEIN. You can safely store dry cask storage for over a hundred years so it’s not a near-term issue, but it is one in which I 

think as a Nation we need to progress towards a permanent strategy, and right now we don’t have one as a Nation. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. Dr. Klein, thank you. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I’d 

like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the Chairman 

of the full Committee on moving forward with this bill, and it’s a 
57 

very significant issue that we have to deal with, and I don’t think 

we’ve dealt with it, and we’ve let ourselves get behind. I was just 

over in France where they of course get most of their electricity 

from nuclear energy, and they made those—they made certain 

technology decisions earlier on that gave them that capability, and 

they have not had the ups and downs and the problems with being 

dependent on energy from another country. 

About the issues we were just discussing, in terms of storage, do 

we not have the technological capability now of building nuclear reactors that will not have this leftover waste? And in fact, I’ve been 

told by several major companies that it is now within our capability 

to build nuclear power plants that actually eat the waste that 

we’ve had from the past ones. Why are we focused at all on building anything that has leftover waste problem when we have the capability to do something else? The gentleman is shaking his head. 

Go right ahead. 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Yes, we do have that capability. There are a 

number of advanced reactors in design today by startup companies 

that I showed earlier that would like to burn up all the spent fuel. 

There is an enormous amount of energy stored in those pools at 

these existing reactors, and the site already exists, the fuel pool is 

there. Why wouldn’t we build a reactor just to consume all that 

fuel? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much would it cost—I mean, I was here 

earlier for—sorry, we had to go out and vote and all these other 

things. How much would it cost—I noted the billion and a half dollars that’s being invested in the private sector in this whole goal. 

How much would it cost to build one of these? I know about five 

or six different, you know, high temperature gas-cooled reactor, 

pebble-based reactor and thorium reactors. They’ve all been—I like 

them all. I’m not—I don’t have an expert in these like you fellows 

do. I didn’t have to tell which is best. But why are we not—first 

of all, how much would it cost to build a prototype of one of those 

small modular reactors that does not have the waste problem? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Boy, I need to be careful here, but we’ve done 

that estimate at the company Transatomic and we think it’s about 

five years and $300 million we could demonstrate that capability. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So five years and $300 million. Would we 

have a prototype then or just demonstrating the—— 

Mr. ROTHROCK. Demonstrating the ability to burn spent fuel and 

to consume it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, again, if we’re going to have 

a future in nuclear energy, let’s not build light water reactors that 

add more waste and can’t handle the major problem that we have 

when we have the capability of moving forward, but again, building 

a couple—500 million bucks or something like that to build that 

prototype, that maybe—is there a way we can facilitate those people in the private sector to move forward with that type of expenditure? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. We’ve had numerous conversations with Idaho 

National Lab about putting that prototype there, what it would 

cost, what it would take. Mr. Kotek’s department is well aware of 

some of these ideas. These are early conversations. But we think 

it’s quite doable. 
58 

Mr. KOTEK. Yeah, and Congressman, if I could add to that, we 

certainly are in discussion, have been made aware of companies 

that are interested in potentially working with the Department of 

Energy to build prototypes, for example, on DOE sites. We’re going 

through the process now of understanding just what would the contractual relationship need to look like. 

With respect to—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What—yes. Go ahead. 

Mr. KOTEK. With respect to the question about waste, I do think 

it’s important to note that you never make all of the waste go 

away, even if you have a full recycle system where you’re recovering all the uranium, plutonium, what we call minor actinide elements, you still have some very long-lived wastes that are left, and 

so we will always need some sort of a long-term waste isolation capability to support nuclear. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, but not at the scale. 

Mr. KOTEK. I understand. I just wanted to make—I felt I needed 

to make that clarification. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If it was—if the scale was smaller, this would 

not be as great a challenge by definition, and look, we need to move 

forward, not base—again, light water reactors, they’ve been around 

since before I was born. We don’t need to move forward and facilitate the production of nuclear reactors based on that when we have 

other options. I mean, I understand even—is it Lockheed now that 

has a possibility of a fusion reactor, small fusion reactor? Is that— 

has anybody looked at that? 

Mr. ROTHROCK. They do. It’s an experiment at this point, and it’s 

very small. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And is that real? Is that—— 

Mr. ROTHROCK. I don’t know. I’ve not—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Any comments on it? Is it just some kind of 

a dream that isn’t attached to reality there? 

Again, there’s—we have some new weapon systems right now 

that we need small modular nuclear reactor in order to make those 

weapon systems work, and I sure hope that’s one part of the formula but the other part of the formula is, our grid. The grid is vulnerable, and if we can have small modular nuclear reactors, we can 

take the public off the grid. We can have—each community can 

have their small reactor and you’re not going to have this vulnerability that we have now with some solar surge or some nuclear explosion up in the atmosphere. We need to move forward in a rational way, and I’m afraid that we’re moving forward with big companies now that basically want to build what they’ve already built, 

and I hope that’s not the case. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for leading the 

fight to put this bill through and get this passed. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. Does that mean you’ve 

signed on to our bill? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think I already have. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and 

the members for their questions. The record shall remain open for 

two weeks for additional comments and written questions from the 

members. 
59 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(61) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
62 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER ALAN GRAYSON

Æ