PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 21, 2015
Ban Toxic Dispersants Act of 2015
This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to revise requirements governing the schedule of the National Contingency Plan for removal of oil and hazardous substances.
A dispersant, chemical, or other spill mitigating device or substance that is not included on the schedule may be used in carrying out the plan only if it is proposed to be included on the schedule.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must issue a revised regulation for the development of the schedule for the use of those devices and substances. In issuing the regulation, the EPA must: (1) establish minimum toxicity and efficacy testing criteria; (2) establish a requirement that the volume of oil or hazardous substance discharged, and the volume and location of any spill mitigating substance used, be measured and made publicly available on a daily basis; and (3) require the public disclosure of all ingredients of those substance. The EPA must: (1) require manufacturers of mitigating devices to study their risks and effectiveness; (2) provide a mechanism for the delisting of a substance or device that poses a risk to or impact on human health, water quality, or the environment; and (3) initiate a formal review of the potential risks and impacts associated with a substance or device prior to delisting it.
The EPA must: (1) study those potential risks and impacts, (2) impose a moratorium on approval of the use of dispersants until the study is complete, (3) review the schedule for the use of the devices and substances and revise it as necessary every five years, and (4) establish a schedule of fees to be collected from the manufacturers of the substances or devices to offset the costs of evaluating their use.
People & committees
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] · 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 Environment and the Economy.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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.1922 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.1922 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.1922 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.1922 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.