PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 15, 2011
Protecting Neighborhoods from Oil Pollution Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue final regulations requiring an owner or operator to permanently close any oil storage or processing facility that: (1) is located within one mile of 100 or more residential units if two or more discharges of more than 40 gallons of oil occur at such facility within any 10-year period, or (2) is the source of groundwater contamination affecting 100 or more residential units. Requires such closures to be completed by specified deadlines.
Requires such regulations to define "permanently close" to require: (1) all liquid and sludge to be removed from each container and connecting line associated with such facilities; (2) all such connecting lines and piping to be disconnected from such containers and blanked off, all valves (except for ventilation valves) to be closed and locked, and conspicuous signs to be posted on each container stating that it is a permanently closed container and noting the date of closure; and (3) other applicable laws to be followed with respect to clean up and remediation of any other contamination at, or originating from, such facilities.
Prohibits the Administrator from including in such regulations exemptions to any of the requirements of this Act for discharges resulting from an act of God, an act of war, or U.S. negligence.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Administrator to waive the requirement for closure of such facilities or grant an extension of the closure deadline if the Administrator determines that such owners or operators have taken or are taking all practicable steps to remediate the condition requiring closure.
Requires such conditions requiring closure to be considered to be: (1) a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States for the purposes of federal removal authority and civil enforcement, or (2) an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons or to the welfare of persons for the purposes of emergency powers.
People & committees
Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11] · D–VA
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 Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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 14, 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.3426 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.3426 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.3426 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.3426 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.