1a. According to Houck (2003) and Babich (2005), what is the major benefit of a technology-based approach to risk regulation, as compared to a health-based approach? (one paragraph answer)

1b. Drawing on our class discussion of the regulation of aircraft paint or chlor-alkali plants (but not both), explain why the benefits of a technology-based approach to risk regulation may not be as great as Houck and Babich argue. (one paragraph answer)

1c. The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA to use a health-based assessment to determine which air pollutants should be listed, and regulated, as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under section 112 of the CAA. How successful was this endeavor? Did EPA ever list mercury as a HAP under the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments? (Note the date: 1970, not 1990).

Partial answer: See the first paragraph under "Mercury and MACT" of Heinzerling and Steinzor (2004, 34 ELR 10305-6).

1d. Explain how the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments modified section 112. Is mercury currently listed as a HAP under section 112? Is mercury currently regulated under section 112? Is mercury currently regulated at all under the Clean Air Act?

Partial answer: See Heinzerling and Steinzor (2004, 34 ELR 10305-6) for an explanation of how the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments changed section 112. First question: Yes. Second question: Yes. Third question: Yes, certainly under section 111, pursuant to the March 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule.

On 8 May 2007 I corrected the answer provided for the first and second questions.