PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 5, 2011
Ban Toxic Dispersants Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to authorize a dispersant, chemical, or other spill mitigating device or substance that is not included on the National Contingency Plan's schedule to be used in carrying out such plan only if such device or substance is proposed to be included on such schedule.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a revised regulation for the development of the schedule for the use of such devices and substances. Requires the Administrator, with respect to such substances, to: (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 such spill mitigating substance used, be measured and made publicly available on a daily basis; and (3) require the public disclosure of all ingredients of such substance. Requires the Administrator to: (1) require the manufacturer of such a device to study its risks and effectiveness; (2) provide a mechanism for the delisting of any such 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 such substance or device prior to delisting it.
Directs the Administrator to: (1) study such potential risks and impacts, including acute and chronic risks, from the use of such substances that may be used to carry out such Plan; (2) impose a temporary moratorium on approval of the use of dispersants until the study is complete; (3) review the schedule for the use of such 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 such substances or devices to offset the costs of evaluating their use.
People & committees
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-8] · 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.3562 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.3562 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.3562 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.3562 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.