Ms. Sandra Schubert

Legislative Counsel

Earthjustice

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 702

Washington, D.C. 20036

Mr. John Stanton

Vice President, Air Programs

National Environmental Trust

1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Suite 500

Washington, D.C. 20036

Ms. Martha Keating

Consultant, Clean Air Task Force

7508 Thunder Mountain Road

Efland, North Carolina 27243

Mr. Michael Shore

Southeast Air Quality Manager

Environmental Defense

2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330

Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

Mr. Patricio Silva

Midwest Activities Coordinator

Natural Resources Defense Council

1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Ms. Schubert, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Keating, Mr. Shore, and Mr. Silva:

This letter is in response to your letter of December 17, 2001 to the
co-chairs and members of the Utility MACT Working Group. In that letter,
you expressed concern that the Agency was not moving forward to
establish section 112(d) standards for hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) other than mercury.

The Agency is aware of its obligations resulting from its determination
in December 2000 that regulation of HAP emissions from oil- and
coal-fired electric utility steam generating units is appropriate and
necessary. In forming the Utility MACT Working Group under the Clean Air

Act Advisory Committee, we noted in both the draft "Charge and Process"
document (see attached) and in the opening presentations that the scope
of the rulemaking included all HAP listed under section 112. However, we
have also tacitly acknowledged that the main focus of the Working
Group's effort should be mercury, the HAP which we have said throughout
was of greatest concern.

At the December 18, 2001 meeting of the Working Group, we raised the
issue of whether the Working Group wished to deal with the issue of
non-mercury HAP emissions from this

source category. At the next Working Group meeting (February 5, 2002),
the Agency will provide the members of the Working Group with a
spreadsheet of all the non-mercury HAP data that we have available and
we will discuss this topic further. Following that discussion, we will
poll the members of the Working Group to determine if a majority of
members wish to deal with the issue of non-mercury HAP emissions. If
they do, we will develop a plan for doing so in the context of the
Working Group's activities. If a majority of the members of the Working
Group indicate that they do not wish to pursue this topic, it will not
be discussed further in the context

of Working Group meetings. Should the decision of the Working Group be
not to address these non-mercury HAP, this will not preclude interested
groups, such as yours, from continuing to discuss the issue with the
Agency independent of the Working Group's activities. In either

event, the Agency will fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act
in accordance with the schedule contained in the Settlement Agreement
between the Agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council in *Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}.*, No. 92-1415
(D.C. Cir.).

We hope that this adequately addresses your concerns, and we appreciate
this opportunity to be of service.

Sincerely,

Sally Shaver, Director

Emission Standards Division

John Paul

Regional Air Pollution Control Agency

Attachment

cc: Utility MACT Working Group Members