PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 28, 2013
Dry Cask Storage Act - Directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish a procedure to require the designation of spent nuclear fuel contained in storage pools as qualified to be placed in dry cask storage when the fuel has cooled sufficiently to permit it.
Requires all spent nuclear fuel that is contained in storage pools and qualified to be placed in dry cask storage to be moved, within 15 years of enactment of this Act, to dry casks certified by the NRC.
Requires the fuel, within one year after being designated as qualified to be placed in dry cask storage, to be moved from storage pools and placed in certified dry casks. Requires such casks, to the extent appropriate after a cost-benefit analysis, to be stored temporarily in hardened onsite storage facilities.
Directs the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to determine compliance costs for the owner of the spent nuclear fuel, and to reduce by that amount the amount due from the owner to the Nuclear Waste Fund pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
People & committees
Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.3354 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.3354 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.3354 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.3354 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.