PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5456)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 22, 2015
Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act
This bill prohibits the Department of Energy (DOE) from making an expenditure from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the costs incurred by DOE in connection with the transportation, treating, or packaging of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in a repository site, to be stored in a monitored, retrievable storage site, or to be used in a test and evaluation facility, or for the costs associated with acquisition, design, modification, replacement, operation, and construction of facilities at such a site, unless DOE has entered into an agreement to host a repository with:
the governor of the state in which the repository is proposed to be located,
each affected local government and any contiguous local government through which spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will be transported for disposal at the repository, and
each affected Indian tribe.
Any such agreement must be written and signed by all parties, shall be binding on the parties, and shall not be amended or revoked except by mutual agreement of the parties.
People & committees
Sen. Reid, Harry [D-NV] · D–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5456)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1825 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 S.1825 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 S.1825 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 S.1825 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.