CALPINE TWO ATLANTIC WI-.M I 

THIRD FLOOR 

BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02110 

617.723.7200 

617.723.7635 (MAIN FAX) 

February 20, 2004 

Karen L. Regas 

DEP/BWP/Business Compliance Division 

One Winter Street, 8th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

Re: Proposed Changes to 310 CMR 7.00 

Dear Ms Regas: 

The purpose of this letter is to submit comments on the proposed changes to 310 CMR 

7.00 on behalf of Dighton Power Associates (DPA), a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Calpine Corporation (Calpine). The DPA facility in Dighton Massachusetts is a natural 

gas fired combined cycle power plant generating a nominal 170 megawatts of electricity 

for distribution to the wholesale power market. In general, we support the Department's 

changes to the rules, as they clarify several definitions and incorporate recent regulatory 

changes at the Federal level. Our comment focuses on one issue of concern related to the 

proposed change to the continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) requirements, 

as described in the following paragraphs. 

Calpine respectfully urges the Department to either simplify or delete the proposed 

changes to Appendix C (9)(c)(2) of 310 CMR 7.00 regarding the applicability of Federal 

performance and siting requirements for CEMS. We believe that the proposed changes to 

this section create unnecessary confusion over applicable CEMS requirements, restricts 

the Department's flexibility in making decisions to resolve conflicts between 40 CFR 

Part 60 and Part 75, and provide the potential for unwarranted changes to CEMS 

requirements at existing permitted facilities. Calpine suggests that the Department keep 

the original language in Appendix C (9)(c)(2), add a reference to 40 CFR Part 75, and 

replace the words "... as applicable" to "... as determined by the Department," or delete 

Appendix C(9)(c)(2) altogether. Either of our proposals provides the necessary linkage 

to the two Federal CEMS requirements and retains the Department's flexibility to 

interpret these requirements and provide clear guidance to permittees regarding their 

monitoring obligations. 

Our specific concern with the proposed changes to Appendix C (9)(c)(2) is that it applies 

to facilities in which the Department has made a prior determination to apply the federal 

regulations ".. .independent of the terms of the applicable requirements promulgated or 

approved by EPA.. .Such determinations shall be made using a permit issuance, renewal, 

or major modification process..." There is nothing in the paragraph that protects 

facilities currently holding valid operating permits from having to repeat the approval and 
public comment process during each operating permit renewal after the proposed 

regulation is promulgated. Facilities like DPA have made major investments in CEMS 

technology on the basis of specific CEMS requirements established in operating permits 

by the Department. Although we believe that it is reasonable for the Department to 

revise its regulations to incorporate additional Federal requirements and support the 

specific inclusion of Part 75 CEMS requirements, we do not believe it is fair to expose 

permittees to potential major operating or capital expense during each permit renewal. 

On behalf of Calpine, I would like to thank the Department for the opportunity to 

comment on the proposed changes to 310 CMR 7.00. If you require further information 

or clarification of our comments please call me at 617-557-5333. 

Sincerely, 

Donald Neal 

Safety, Health and Environmental Manager 

cc: Matt Palmer, DPA 

John Winkler, DEP Southeast Region Air Quality 

Sharon Weber, DEP Air Assessment Branch