PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 8, 2011
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Enhancement Act of 2011 - Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in carrying out the Estrogenic Substances Screening Program: (1) not later than one year after this Act's enactment, to publish a plan for the identification of endocrine disrupting substances that may be in drinking water for testing and a schedule for issuing test orders for all substances by not later than 10 years after this Act's enactment, with the goal of testing all substances that have been placed on the Drinking Water Preliminary Contaminant Candidate List and all substances for which a national primary drinking water regulation has been promulgated; (2) to give priority in selecting substances for listing to substances that pose the greatest public health concern; (3) not later than two years after enactment of this Act, to publish guidance on developing or updating protocols for testing of possible endocrine disruptors; (4) not later than five years after enactment and every three years thereafter, to determine whether to revise screening protocols based on significant improvements in the sensitivity, accuracy, reliability, reproducibility, or efficiency of such protocols and to require the use of screening protocols that eliminate or reduce the number of animals used; (5) not later than 180 days after this Act's enactment, to publish an electronic, publicly searchable database that contains information regarding the testing program; and (6) within six months after receipt of testing results, to determine whether to take administrative action related to the substance.
Authorizes the Administrator to accelerate testing for a substance if: (1) such substance is known to be found in sources of drinking water; (2) a substantial population is known to be exposed to the substance; and (3) the substance is either suspected to be an endocrine disruptor or has a structural similarity to a substance known to be an endocrine disruptor. Requires the Administrator, not later than one year after this Act's enactment, to publish guidance on how the Administrator will make determinations on whether to require accelerated testing for such substances.
Authorizes any person to petition the Administrator to identify a substance pursuant to the plan and to issue an order requiring the substance to be tested on an accelerated basis.
People & committees
Rep. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA-7] · D–MA
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 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 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.553 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.553 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.553 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.553 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.