there's a first draft of an outline of some of the recommendations from the blue ribbon commission. i think rather than comment here on the draft things that have been put out, i would rather them give an official report, but we need to -- but let me comment on one or two of them. what one of the things they said goes to senator alexander's point that while there is no more immediate the technology we can use for reprocessing, we should still continue to develop that technology. they have looked at other countries, notably sweden and

finland, where there was a process that seemed to have more acceptance of the local people in those regions of the country. it is the responsibility of the department of energy. as you know, we are positive on nuclear power in the future. whatever occurs, is the department of energy's responsibility to deal with the waste. >> my time is expired. >> i thank you very much. senator johnson? >> secretary chu, welcome. i am pleased to see doe with

their continuing support for deep drilling in south dakota. i appreciate that your agency included $15 million for the project in your f y 12 budget request. i understand doe is nearing conclusion of an internal review of the project. i am interested in its results, specifically, could you talk about how doe is prepared to work with the project team to ensure that your recommendations are known and included in future construction funding? >> i know we are undergoing this review and have not specifically spoken about this yet.

the national science foundation is having some second thoughts which is discouraging to us about that. especially since they started this. in any case, we are trying to figure out a path forward on the investments that have been made by south dakota and the national science foundation. in the interim, we are continuing to get funds to pump the water and continue doing this. if we lose on the long term the support of what was roughly a 50/50 partnership, we are trying to understand how we can go forward in a perhaps reduced program or what our options are especially in what ever funding we will be getting in f y 12 and going forward. these will be a very difficult choices.

there are a few experiments that we would like to have done and we are still committed and like to get those experiments done. i have not seen the report and we will be waiting for that. >> a great deal of activity is already under way at homestead. we had previously hoped that we would be providing more support for these activities. in lieu of significant construction funding and in order to preserve the great progress and investment we have already made, what is doe doing to ensure that no jobs are lost

while you ensure the long-term effect of the project and high energy physics in general? >> we are very aware of that. there is a very dedicated team that has been assembled on this. while we try to put this forward for a 11 and 12, we don't want to lose and anticipate the scientific teams that have developed and just as we don't want the water to come back into the mine. timing know exactly the of how the office of science will bring forward a recommendation to me. i'm sorry it is disappointing but that's all i can say about it.

i have to say that my old laboratory was not believe laboratory so i know personally how it is affecting many people. i will not play favorites but i know personally because i visited the mines in south dakota and i know personally all the investments that south dakota has made in this them. >> could you list a few high priority experiments? >> for high energy physics, we are investing and what we call a high intensity frontier and investing and the highest energy there. right now, because of what happens decades ago with the super collider, the highest

frontier energy machine is turning on. they had a hiccup but they have recovered well from that the cup. -- from that hiccup. we still view high energy physics as a significant part of our program and we still want to go forward. the good news is, american scientists are actively participating in that machine and for the first time, american science is now the lead and one of the major detectors. we also want to make investments here in the united states. we have gone forward and the new director and we collectively made a decision that since the collider is going great guns, we need to invest in the future which is the new sources at

fermi lab. we continue to invest there. one of the experiments is the use of the detector in south dakota. we are especially disappointed in the events that have unfolded last year. >> centre landrieu? -- centre landrieu? >> i want to call everyone's attention to the fact that the mississippi river as we meet here today is slowing at an extraordinary export level. this committee has jurisdiction over water and energy. i want to put into the record the statistics that are startling. the river is flowing at 172 billion cubic feet per week, 7.2

billion cubic feet every hour, and as one article described it, it says it is a snarling, powerful beast barging its way south. this committee has jurisdiction. it has done a remarkable job in the course of the last decade with a lot of help to build the mississippi river system but it will be up to us to watch to see how it works in the coming days and weeks and be prepared to do what we need to do to make sure that people are protected should this ever happen again. i would like to submit that to the record without objection. >> so ordered. i thank you for the comments and i think every member of this committee, i come from earthquake country which has gone through costly and how hard it is -- >> it is not just louisiana, it is tennessee and senator cochran knows what the people in mississippi are experiencing and

a senator from tennessee. three questions quickly -- you and i have spoken several times about this project pending before your department now. the department's loan from supported more than $30 million in loans for 28 clean energy and enhanced automotive in efficiency projects. one of those projects is pending in louisiana right now. it is very timely. our legislature is meeting as we speak. they have reserved $60 million to support this project. the application has been pending before you and your department for two years. do you have any update for us at all on next four works and what the time line looks like and when they might know?

this application we think is quite strong and quite competitive. it could create over 1000 jobs in this part of the country but as importantly as that, it can produce vehicles that can achieve 40 miles per gallon which i know the chair who has been a leader on cafe standards would appreciate, this is new technology. for that combustible engine but a new technology that seems to us to meet the goals of what the president and you are touting. can you give us any of data about where we would be with this application? >> i don't think it would be appropriate in a senate hearing. as a policy, the details of specific loan applications, we have to honor the relationship

we have to the applicant. >> i realize you cannot give the details. generally, does this fit with your goals of creating new automobile companies that are pressing forward with new technologies to produce automobiles back and almost double our efficiency? does that meet with the goals of your department? >> you are asking if we are in favor of the new technology. the answer is yes. we think it plays an important part in helping not only innovative companies but also established companies in developing a new line of automobiles with advanced technology to get better mileage and higher efficiencies. that means that we can again take back a leadership role in

automobiles. to be candid, we had this for 3/4 of a century but it is something that the europeans and the japanese and the koreans are now wrestling with. we are in favor of supporting innovative technologies. >> i don't want to lose my time but if you could please give to my office some time by the end of the week, an update on this -- i've got to tell our legislature something. they have been holding $70 million to fund this. we've got budget constraints like everyone. my second question is -- we have had a breakthrough in this country in finding almost 200 years of natural gas reserves. this is terrific. people want to say we have no reserves of oil which is not true. we have not looked for the oil

and i think we have more but we know how much natural gas we have. the industry surprised itself but what it is finding. on the fracking issue, what is the department doing and are you being aggressive to find some conclusions? we think that fracking is safe under certain circumstances. what are you going to come to a final determination on this so we can take advantage of 200 years of supply of natural gas which can reduce our greenhouse gases by 50%? in 30 seconds or less. >> we have to establish what is really going on and it could be different in different regions of the country. that is why the president asked the department of energy to form this subcommittee. we need to find out -- >> when you expect some results

or conclusions from that to? >> 90 days from now, we will have a preliminary set of recommendations and that subcommittee than those before -- >> i think that is a very important component of our work in this next year. natural gas with a 40% reduction in debt -- greenhouse gases, the technology is there, i think we will find there is a safe path court. if we could take a focus on that. my time has run out. i will submit a question in writing about exporting natural gas and the pending application you have or southwest louisiana. >> thank you. >> senator collins. >> thank-you, senator gramm had to leave and asked that he would be afforded the opportunity to submit questions for the record.

>> absolutely. >> thank you. secretary chu, it is great to see you again. let's begin by thank you for visiting the university of maine last june to see the very exciting research and development technology that is under way in the area of deep water offshore wind. i would say to my friend and colleague from tennessee that deep water wind does not face the same challenges as land- based way and because it can be located out of sight and of the winds are much stronger and more persistent offshore so you have more energy produced. there is the need for investment into the technologies. that is the challenge of putting

wind turbines of sure -- offshore. an excited about the work going on at the university of maine. a key milestone was reached just this month in which three scale models with flooding turbines were successfully tested. that is providing key data to advance the technology. one of my concerns is that our country should not lose the global race in developing deep water offshore wind technology. if you look at this chart, and i believe the secretary has it as well, we are losing the race right now. consented means permited for those who are not into the lego. as you can see, europe is making

considerable investments in deep water offshore wind. asia is as well while the united states relax. and yet, this offers the potential of providing clean domestic energy to large population centers in close proximity to wind resources. i am pleased to see the investment that the department of energy is making. to make sure i understand the department you submitted, it is my understanding that you just delivered the operating plan for the remainder of 2011 to the appropriations committee this week. it includes funding under the category of advanced technology demonstration projects - wind

energy. just to clarify, is the intention of the department to do a competitive solicitation for deep water wind energy using some portion or all of that funding? >> 50 water -- the answer is yes. >> and that is the answer i was hoping to hear. i am pleased that is the case. senator alexander made a very important point to that we have these technologies that will not be able to move forward unless we have a partnership with the federal government, with state government, and with the private sector. i believe that investment of $26.3 million will help jump- start the investment. i would note that the state of maine has passed a bond issue

and is providing millions of dollars for this as well. we have also put together a consortium of private companies in maine that are investing and we are working with a company that is partially owned by the netherlands that also is investing in this technology but it really is very exciting. can you give me some idea of what the timetable for putting out the solicitation for that $26 million is? >> i would need to get back you on the details. we hope it is soon. this is really good. you are on a roll. in a couple of weeks them of that is great news. >> i think it is important we move forward a thed.

>> the best news is that senator alexander said a kind word about wind. >> i sent him a note to. >> i read his book. [laughter] >> i mentioned there is a consortium in maine called the deep sea wind consortium that is led by the university of maine but it is a broad based collaborative effort that involves 35 partners including the state of maine, academic institutions, nonprofits, utilities, industry leaders. we found that kind of collaborative interdisciplinary approach is absolutely essential when you're trying to spur innovation further. when there are a lot of federal agencies that are involved in the effort to jump-start offshore wind, and i am hoping

that we can see a similar car operation -- collaboration among the agencies and departments involved so we can avoid duplication and maximize the efficiency and stretch those resources, could you share with us how the department of energy is working particularly with the department of interior which has some permitting responsibilities but there are other federal partners as well like the national science foundation, the fish and wildlife service? >> because these will largely be in federal waters, is the department of interior is jurisdiction -- the department of interior's jurisdiction they are aware of this but to have to go to the necessary departments. there could be environmental concerns.

you have to make sure you examine them. i think there is a general exile -- but acknowledged that if you can get the technology to work, the opportunity for offshore wind and deepwater wind is there and close to population centers and it is steadier. the opportunities are great but it is one of reliability and that is why we chose to shift the research. onshore wind is a mature technology. to focus on the more innovative aspects is why we repositions the program. >> thank you for your efforts barracs. >> senator murkowski? >> welcome and good to see you

as always. i have a whole laundry list of questions and many of them are questions that were asked of you at hearings before the energy committee back in february and i did that have an opportunity to ask all the questions so we submitted them for the record to be received in writing. we have not yet received those responses. >> really? >> some of the questions i will ask you now are hopefully once you have already passed and are in the mail. -- already asked and are already in the mail. >> i apologize for that. we were trying to get our system to be more responsive. >> we will look forward to receiving them. i want to ask you a little bit about the budget increase for geothermal.

your budget cost for increase in funding is actually tripling in funding from $101 million --to $101 million. i'm a big advocate of geothermal and what we can do with that resource. the question to you this afternoon is whether or not the department will be able to spend this out in a timely way. you have been updated on this but we have been dealing with a project in alaska, and an enhanced geothermal project, which we feel as great hope and prospect and we are really encouraged about it. it is exactly what the department has supported in the past. the sponsors have had a nightmare of issues in dealing with your golden field office. some of the issues have come about because of things the

sponsor was involved with. if you are able to secure more money in the budget for the geothermal component, what assurances can you give us that the department is able to get these dollars out into the field in a timely manner so we can move these technologies? >> i think it was remarked already before -- we have an existence within the department of energy and federal government that you can create a funding organization that is nimble and a thorough and has the high standards of review processes. we're working very quietly on getting that way of doing business out to the rest of the department of energy. it is a process where it is good and there are others that are less good. we are very committed in order

to get these processes moving in a much more efficient way. quite frankly, it would improve the way we do things. i will look into this. we find that sometimes we have a field office that is almost in competition with central headquarters and all of a sudden, the foa starts to debate what is going on. >> i'm glad you recognize that. that seems to be the sense that we have working with constituents on this. if you can look into that -- from the bigger perspective, we want to make sure that if these dollars are directed this way that actually they are being translated out into the field. let me ask you about nuclear and section 302 of the nuclear

waste act. it expressed the identifies at yucca mountain as the sole permanent repository and it for the direct you as the secretary to propose an adjustment to the fee collected from utilities if the amount is insufficient or in excess of meeting construction. given where we are with the attempted withdrawal of the yucca mountain license application, do you believe that the fees that are collected and deposited within the fund are in excess of the amount that is needed? do you think an adjustment of the fee is in order? where do we go with these collection of fees given the status now? >> the status on yucca as yet to be determined.

regarding the fee, we still have a responsibility to deal with their spent fuel. a draft recommendation from the blue ridge commission is that we see a need -- they have suggested, it is just a draft, they have suggested both [unintelligible] it will be dependent on the technology going for. forward. after that, there would need to be a permanent waste disposal site most likely it would be underground. >> as far as what is happening with the collection of the fees, are you looking at whether or not an adjustment might be

appropriate given the fact that you have this withdrawal that is pending? >> we have looked at it. i think your question is, right now it is in limbo but that does not mean that in the future we have this responsibility. we do have this responsibility and because of that, i think it would be unwise to say that for the next five or 10 years, no fee until [unintelligible] but we will need -- it is a virtual bank, if you will. >> the frustration has been that if there is a plan in place, i can understand why i should be to spot -- deposit fees. if there is no plan, you are just collecting fees that seemingly is not going to anywhere. i think you and i both agree that we have to deal with the repository issue. you can also understand the

frustration that you the utilities have out there. i'm over my time and i thank you. >> thank you very much. senator murray? >> welcome to the committee. i am sure you and everyone else in the room knows what i will ask you about. hanford nuclear reservation in my home state of washington. it is the largest federal nuclear cleanup site in the country. it is part of the larger complex that is run by the department's environmental management program. when you go back to d through theoe lineage, it was created to manage this and the government has a fundamental and legal responsibility to clean up the contamination that has been left behind by our nation's nuclear weapons production activity. i am concerned that this

administration does not seem to take these legal obligations seriously. i look at the budgets and see that you continue to increase programs that don't have any legal obligations associated with them. i don't think i am the only one of my colleagues on the subcommittee that is concerned about that. i want to ask you today what is your plan to increase the em budget to meet our legal commitment on cleanups? >> because of the recovery act, with your help and others and the administration, an additional $6 billion we feel we can meet our legal commitment not only your steak but tennessee, south carolina, and other states. going forward past that, this

will be something where we want to do this, for sure, it will be a matter of what happens. we feel comfortable through 2012. beyond that, what will happen in our 2012 budget is the real question. we have put in a request in 2011 and we did not get the full amount of that request in the cr. so we have to make adjustments. all the states have nuclear waste concerns career. we are concerned about this as well. we are trying -- you were not here but when senator alexander said that tennessee has nuclear concerns, they have a higher population and there is not only

nuclear concerns but mercury waste concerns as well. we need to try to make the best technical assessment of the things that have the highest risk and get them handle the most efficient way possible. that is where we. as you know, in order to bring the waste treatment plant on, there was a risk it would go over budget, in other parts of em probe -- portfolio, they have done a very good job and a number of projects that are on time and had a budget that we have dedicated traditional fund. >> overall, the only legal obligations your department has is a nuclear weapons cleanup and waste storage. it is disappointing that we have

to fight the administration year after year to meet those legal obligations. i'm sorry i missed your testimony. i had another obligation but i did read it and it highlights significant increases in a lot of other program offices including those without any legal obligations. em s troubling to see theem budget which is the legal obligation. i will ask you about some specifics. i appreciate the work the department has done on the waste treatment plant and its use of independent reviews. however, i have to tell you that i am concerned about the singular focus on the waste treatment plan. i have been very clear with you and everyone in the department and the administration that if the administration intends to move forward with the proposed modified funding profile for the waste treatment plant, the only successful way to achieve

that is for the administration to increase funding for the entire em program to make sure we meet our legal obligations across the complex. i just don't see that happening. you are keeping up your side of the obligation. the waste treatment plant is a party but we cannot increase funding for that and decrease funding for legal obligations to meet that increased funding level. how are we going to meet all those legal obligations? >> because of the recovery act of investments, will -- we will be meeting our legal obligations in the next couple of years after that there is a concern, i will be honest with you, but there is also -- the president put in a large increase in the

energy budget in part because of the nuclear security issues but also in large part because we think the investment in the research and development activities will position the united states for future prosperity. we don't have legal obligations there but we have to make these calls. you could say how we cannot meet our label -- legal obligations but we will increase funding elsewhere. >> because of the recovery act -- >> we are talking about f. white well then be on. >> i think we will be meeting our obligations. it depends on what the budget will be. the legalalso ssay

obligations of our ways legacy -- our ways to legacy is the third largest government liability -- our waste legacy is though third largest government liabilities. this could be hundreds of billions of dollars in need to develop a plan going forward of how to meet these liabilities. this goes back to how to best spend that money. in order to meet his obligations in a limited budget scenario, are there ways we can do our business better in the way we'd em. >> it has to start with a request by the department of energy saying this is a priority and you have to meet your legal obligation. that is what i expect your

department to do and that's why i am disappointed. it is a legal obligation and a moral obligation and a real obligation. we have wasted our nuclear facilities that is leaking for the columbia river. we expect your department to let congress know what the obligations are and how we need it within your budget and that is what i am requesting. >> thank you very much. you might want to stay for the first question. i have become very interested in the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly follow daichi. we have 104 nuclear power plants in this country. california has two and we have around two dozen plants that are of the same model as the boiling water reactors da atiichi. some have said we have something better and daiichi says they

have upgraded. in looking at the two nuclear power plants in california, and particularly the spent fuel part of it which is what senator murray is really referring to, in a sense, the fact that the spent fuel pools are to some extent fallible. they arere-stacked and in have large numbers of rods and then. they are kept there for as long as 24 years. the ranking member and i and the head of the energy commission said this is good for 100 years. i don't know how anybody knows that this stuff is good for 100 years. i also sought dry casks and the

transference of the rods into casks. i was told that they were specially built for transfer to some former repository. i have come to my own conclusion that the way we best protect americans is having some regional facilities where the storage of nuclear waste can be done over the hundreds of years, supervised by government, otherwise, though knows what mother nature will bring down? i never remembered funnel clouds in the pacific or level of her kids we have had. last night, the television said a tornado may be on the ground in a part of virginia. who knows what might happen? i am very concerned that we really need to pay attention to

spent fuel and what happens to it. do you have any comments on this subject? i would appreciate hearing them. >> ok, regarding the spent fuel, certainly at accident at fukushima is something of the nrc is paying a lot of attention to. i am guessing what would probably happen is under the nrc jurisdiction. when you have a pool of spent fuel with water it is a higher risk -- higher risk rather than a drycask storage.

it is very passive and more combustible. transitioning to the so-called dry cask storage is something i anticipate will be happening. that is one of the preliminary draft recommendations of the blue ribbon commission. i don't want to second-guess what the nrc will be doing about this. it is something they are saying that yes, there'll be a number of drycask facilities and that is one of their recommendations them i was very impressed with the testimony of a m doctoroniz on the subject area. let me go on to your renewable

loan guarantee program. i believe you have to it million dollars in the budget for that. you have sent letters to renewable energy developers who had applied for loan guarantees saying your applications were on hold because doe the leaves but have trouble making the september 30 construction start requirements. developedow how we wind and solar power without a very aggressive loan guarantee program. i thought we had it. putting these projects on hold and with so little in your budget really concerns me. i don't know anybody that can do it without a loan guarantee. >> this has to do with the fact

that if you did not have it at a certain time, a condition alone, that goes through the approval process, that you have conditions that would have to be met and you have to start on the project before september 30. we looked at the portfolio of our projects. with these conditional loans, we could see that we could use the remaining funds but we did not think it would be fair to those companies to continue investing in this knowing that as we approach the september 30 deadline where they would still have to do other things like secure 20% funding and other conditions in each loan was different. we felt it would not be fair to say it is put on hold until there is a path going forward.

we have asked for continued funding. i know the senators are looking for other mechanisms to finance these things. i am supportive of a type of loan program. i want to work with congress on that. >> thank you very much. we will see what we might be able to do. we will certainly consult you. i have to excuse myself. i have to speak on the floor for the with which they voted spending on at 4:30. may i turn it over to you? you can go full bore a [laughter] . >> i wanted to follow up about the loan guarantees. since nuclear power produces 70% of their carbon-free electricity and green -- and

other grenoble's produce a few percent, why should nuclear power have to pay for its loan guarantee subsidies and wind and solar nothing? >> the reasoning was that nuclear power was the more mature technology. fossil fuel also has to pay for the credit subsidies. the nuclear loans actually should get lower credit subsidy scores. the one we did do with southern and others had a pretty modest subsidy. because it was a more mature technology -- now things have changed. >> didn't you just testified

that wind is a mature technology? >> yes, it is a mature technology and if we are going to fund -- it is a mature technology in the sense that if we are going to fund research and development, we would rather fund research and development in the deeper offshore wind that i am all for that research and development. >> if wind is a mature technology and produces a puny amount of intermittent power, why are you giving it in addition to paying for its loan guarantees and not pay for nuclear power loan guarantees? as if we were building a lot of nuclear plants right now. >> we put in a request for

research in nuclear energy. regarding the loans, if you look at the company's that before have put forward loan applications, they have the assets and one could say that there is not as much of a structure for the deployment of wind. as that goes forward, >> there is a to pull c it oneent subsidy -- there 2.1 cent subsidy for women that you don't have anything like that for nuclear power. >> yes and no. there is no tax credit, for example, i agree with that.

people against nuclear feel there is other things the government does for nuclear. gosh, i thought you were proudw- ind. [laughter] >> let me ask you one last question. you have a request in your budget for research for the small modular reactor which i know is a priority of yours. it is of many people and it looks like it could be an opportunity for the united states given our experience with small reactors with the navy that these could be reactors that we could build here, sell here, leave the world in building, and they would be cheaper and so there is a nice scenario ahead of us for small modular reactors, perhaps. is the amount of money you have

requested for this year, what will that permit you to do and are you organized to learn anything from the united states navy and its experiences with small reactors? >> it large fraction of the request would be to help firms complete their engineering designs for nrc approval so they can go forward. there's another smaller part that would be for research and development that could complement what is being done. if there are things -- if the industry can invest in research and do it, we would like them to do it. if there are other things -- >> part of your money goes to paying for things that the nuclear regulatory commission would normally pay for. you are helping them pay for

some of their work, is that right? >> it is to help the companies complete engineering design that the nrc would require of them. >> cloquet. >ok. >> we have a lot of experience. the companies that participated in the nuclear navy have experience. why the companies that wants to go forward and get licensing from the nrc. it is a different type of reactor. the navy reactors are highly enriched uranium reactors and a new generation will be designed differently. i asked if we could use their

experience with nuclear reactors from the navy. he said you could not afford my reactors. they are very high-performance reactors. there are things that do lead over. some of the companies that build the navy reactors want to go forward. we are looking at what can we add value to help the industry move along on a path that is important. we both agree that small modular reactors are a different model for how to drive up safety, drive up the effectiveness, drive down the cost, and to recapture the nuclear lead. that is what i have been out in front and pushing small modular reactors.

i think it is an opportunity which is very different because the economy of scale of building a large megawatt reactor because of the costs of the sighting and licensing, now you can build an assembly line plant that you can ship anywhere in the united states or the world. you can write size the generations of the transmission infrastructure at that site. it is a very different model but it means you have to be able to mass produce these reactors with that accommodating number. it is not proven we can do this. we think there is an opportunity there. we were trying to engage with industry and the right economic models to do this. the utility companies -- it is also bite sized -- if you have to spend a billion dollars, they think very hard about that.

you are spending a large portion of the company assets and it was delayed, that would have financial consequences. when it is factory-generated, a lot of those things go away. the uncertainties and delays and schedule, there is another real opportunity that takes away the uncertainty. >> senator feinstein mentions that the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission has said that in their judgment used nuclear fuel rods could be stored safely for up to 100 years. do you disagree with that? >> the fuel rods in that drivecask storage is different than spent fuels and what stores because of things we saw in fukushima. i don't think the nrc said that spent fuel pools -- you want to go to c dryask storage.

>> i think he did? >> he did? >> as long used to have electricity and water, your spent fuel pool should be sporadically safe and not i don't want to contradict the chairman. >> i don't want to misrepresent and be there. -- him either. you cannot but these rods in c a dryask storage immediately is that correct? >> that's correct. >> they have to be cool enough. >> during that time, you have no reason to think they are in a dangerous position -- condition when they are stored under regulations. >> i agree with the chairman on that. you're absolutely right. the first five or six years, they are too hot to the air cooled.

we have a backup systems and backup systems in case the main water supply is interrupted. there is secondary piping and things of that nature. >> there are up to five redundancy. -- redundancies. the back of electricity system goes down and there is another and another. and there is filing a way to get water even if all goes down them. if there is enough available water, the fuel rods would be safe? >> right. cannot be worn under% guaranteed ? no, but there are backup systems that i feel safe about. without trying to contradict the nrc, i think the c dryask stork

-- i think dry cask storage, it does not mean the present storage is in danger in america. >> thanks chu to dr. for coming today. the hearing is concluded. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio]

[no audio] >> several senators said they will not support confirmation of mr. lew. the senate is scheduled to hold a procedural vote on the nomination at 2:00 p.m. eastern and cspan to will have live coverage on cspan 3 this morning, the hearing of the small business committee. there will be looking at a 2010 small-business job act. thaton c-span today, "washington journal" is next. later, president obama will be