the proposed rule is penny wise for nuclear plants and operators, but pound foolish for communities which have already been largely ignored.

You cannot, no one can point to a single environmental impact that this facility would have on the host community.

No one has ever done this before in congressional history.

The Senate Committee will be accepting questions from Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and Senator Inhofe and other members who have a concern on this.

We will be bringing that message back to Washington, DC.

I don't think that is going to be acceptable to the people here in Plymouth.

What I have found over the years, Dr. Singh, is that you may be making personal commitments right now, and don't worry about it.

The decision was political, that they were going to stick the people in Nevada with the nuclear waste site.

We are in a period of great tension with the Russians right now.

Let's put a process in place that doesn't necessarily elicit this level of public skepticism because it has been transparent.

What protections are there to ensure that Holtec doesn't cut corners to do the lowest cost decommissioning possible?

I think it is very important that Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute be a part of this process.

There was a clear failure there to anticipate those safety problems.

Has any plant ever been told that it needs a new NEPA review?

I would ask you to respond in a very timely fashion, especially since you are going to be having a public hearing up here.

These are the issues that they are concerned about, the impact on the community, on safety, on the water, on the economy, on the fishing industry.

the proposal will allow for three times as much water released in 1 year as Pilgrim has ever released in the past.

I think the people who are going to be attending the public hearing have a right to know what the answers to those questions are before you have the public hearing.