PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 30, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1012 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1012 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1012 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1012 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would change which civilian nuclear reactors receive priority when the Secretary accepts high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel for storage or disposal. Priority would depend on the reactor's operating status, the surrounding population, earthquake hazards, and national security concerns from continued storage. The proposal concerns the order of acceptance, without setting a removal deadline.
In determining the order in which the Secretary will accept high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel for disposal or storage, the Secretary shall prioritize high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel from a civilian nuclear power reactor based on the operating status of the civilian nuclear power reactor, the population of the area in which the civilian nuclear power reactor is located, the earthquake hazard of the area in which the civilian nuclear power reactor is located, and national security risk related to the continued storage of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel in the area in which the civilian nuclear power reactor is located
Section 1 names the proposal the Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 2025. Section 2 would add a new acceptance-priority requirement to section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
This Act may be cited as the Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 2025.
Section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
The highest-priority category would combine all four listed conditions: a reactor decommissioned or being decommissioned, located in an area with the largest population, the highest earthquake hazard, and a significant national security concern from continued waste or fuel storage.
giving highest priority to a civilian nuclear power reactor that is— (A) decommissioned or decommissioning; (B) located in an area, as determined by the Secretary, the population of which is the largest; (C) located in an area with the highest hazard of an earthquake, as indicated by the Seismic Hazard Maps published by the Director of the United States Geological Survey pursuant to section 5(b)(3)(J) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977; and (D) located in an area, as determined by the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security), where the continued storage of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel poses a significant national security concern.
For the population condition, the Secretary would determine the relevant area. For the earthquake condition, the proposal would use the United States Geological Survey's Seismic Hazard Maps to indicate earthquake hazard.
(B) located in an area, as determined by the Secretary, the population of which is the largest;
(C) located in an area with the highest hazard of an earthquake, as indicated by the Seismic Hazard Maps published by the Director of the United States Geological Survey pursuant to section 5(b)(3)(J) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977;
The Secretary would consult the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security when determining whether continued storage in an area poses a significant national security concern.
(D) located in an area, as determined by the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security), where the continued storage of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel poses a significant national security concern.
The supplied action snapshot, updated July 30, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 5, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-30T12:51:54Z. 2025-02-05: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2025-02-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; absent member requests, disclosures, committee reports, and conference materials prevent conclusions about those materials or formal earmark status beyond the supplied text.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception warranting a separate targeted-benefit finding was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. The main policy's intended beneficiaries alone do not establish such a finding. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 30, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI