^Polaroid 

John P. LeFebvre. PE 

Corporate Environmental Manager 

February 17, 2004 

Polaroid Corporation 

1265 Main Street, W2-MZ 

Waltham. MA 02451--1714 

Karen L. Regas 

DEP/BWP/Business Compliance Division 

One Winter Street, 8th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

Attention: 310 CMR 7.00 Comments 

Dear Karen: 

The Polaroid Corporation, having already submitted written and oral comments at the 

February 12, 2004, hearing, is pleased to offer these additional comments with regard to 

proposed action by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or "the 

Department") to revise 310 CMR 7.00. 

310 CMR 7.02(2)(a) and 7.02(2)(f) 

Polaroid notes some tension between these two provisions. Paragraph "(a)" specifically 

precludes the provisions of paragraph "(f)" as it states that all of "(g)," including "(g)7'\ are not 

available if an existing approval would be contravened. We suggest that some language be 

added to clarify the relationship between these provisions such as: "310 CMR 7.02(2)(f) 

Exemptions for Actions that Contravene an Issued Plan Approval. Notwithstanding 310 CMR 

7.02(2)(a), and except as provided in 310 CMR 7.02(4)(a)3 and 4 ..." 

Presumptive LPA's 

Polaroid discussion with DEP personnel following the public hearing made it clear that the 

source of our concern around presumptive LPA's needed further explanation. 

Proposed 310 CMR 7.02(4)(b) would eliminate the sentence "The calculation can consider 

proposed limitations or restrictions on operating rate or short and long term emissions, provided 

that these conditions become federally enforceable upon plan approval." This is a critical 

concept in the use of LPA's and provides for their utility with what might otherwise be an 

installation subject to federal non-attainment NSR. A reader is fully aware (currently) that these 

restrictions are available through the LPA process. With the proposed language, the definition of 

potential emissions governs. That definition provides for self-imposed limitations to the extent 

that they are contained in the "source's plan approval." What is not clear to Polaroid, is whether 

a presumptive approval would carry the same federal enforceability, and therefore safeguards, as 

an 'actively' issued Department approval. Perhaps this concern could be addressed with 
Comments on Proposed Changes to 310 CMR 7, et. Seq. 

February 17, 2004 

Page 

some additional language at the end of proposed 310 CMR 7.02(3)(b)2. "This 'presumptive 

approval' shall be a plan approval as that term is used in 310 CMR 7.02(3)(a), and the applicant 

may act in accordance with all the conditions specified in the application. The applicant shall 

also be restricted to all limitations stated in the application designed to restrict operating 

parameters and/or emissions for the purpose of federal enforceability." 

310 CMR 7.02(3)(g) 

Polaroid both supports and opposes changes to this provision. The deleted language is 

unnecessary, but so is the proposed additional language. Moreover, the proposed language uses 

the term "air contaminant," which is not part of the MEPA protocol and may lead to confusion. 

We suggest that the proposed language not be added. 

310 CMR 7.02(4)(c) 

Polaroid wishes to reiterate its opposition to the elimination of this provision. Appendix C 

sources are already subject to requirements that will ensure the Department has an opportunity to 

review modifications to the facility before they occur. This proposed elimination appears to be 

in direct conflict with the concept being pursued by the Department with the proposal of 

presumptive LPA's. 

310 CMR 7.02(8Ki)5. 

While this provision is proposed for elimination, references to it are still present in 

7.02(8)(i)l.b. and 7.03(10), and a title has been proposed for it. 

310 CMR 7.03(8) 

Polaroid supports this proposed change as it focuses the effect of the provision on actual 

emissions. 

310 CMR 7.03(23) 

Polaroid opposes the addition of declaratory language to this section on the belief that it is 

both bad practice and, in this case, wrong. While it is helpful to readers of the regulations to 

point out instances where other regulations, particularly federally regulations, may be relevant, it 

is not appropriate for the Department to make pronouncements regarding the applicability of 

regulations promulgated by third parties. In this particular case, the Department's statement is 

demonstrably false as the EPA has provided correspondence to the contrary under certain 

circumstances. If the Department is inclined to add language to the temporary boiler provisions, 

they should change "... is subject to New Source ..." to "... may be subject to New Source ..." 

310 CMR 7.06(l)(c) 

Polaroid encourages the Department to rethink its proposed action for opacity. It is far too 

bureaucratic a process for such an insignificant issue, with absolutely no benefit to the 

environment. 
Comments on Proposed Changes to 310 CMR 7, et. Seq. 

February 17,2004 

Page 3 

310 CMR 7.12(2)(a) 

Polaroid was truly shocked to see the proposed date change. The Department should be all 

too aware of the difficulties of meeting a March 1 deadline for this reporting. The proposed date, 

of course, was roughly the annual deadline prior to August 2001. At that time, the Department 

itself extended the reporting date to a reasonable time frame. Prior to that change it was standard 

operating procedure to immediately issue a request for extension to the Department upon receipt 

of the reporting package. Rolling up the volume of data required for a manufacturing operation 

to make a SEISS report is no small task. Simultaneously, there are other reporting obligations 

that facilities have for the March 1 date, and the site personnel must coordinate several 

certifications with the responsible official. 

Please leave this provision unchanged. 

310 CMR 7.18(8)(d) 

Polaroid applauds this long overdue measure. It is this type of rational perspective that 

serves to free up both Department and facility resources without harm to the environment. 

310 CMR 7.18(27) 

As the Main Street, Waltham facility currently holds a RACT approval issued on the basis of 

this provision, Polaroid wonders as to the effect of eliminating the requirements. May we, 

without prejudice, submit a RACT Plan for approval based on the generic RACT requirements? 

310 CMR 7, Appendix C(8)(c)4 

The Department has narrowed the scope of this provision from all actions under 7.02 to just 

7.02 (4) and (5). However, these types of approvals are not required for modifications made 

under a RACT approval. Polaroid believes that the same consideration should be made for 

RACT approvals issued by the Department and requests that this section be additionally 

modified to so reflect. 

Polaroid thanks the Department for the opportunity to offer these comments, and applauds its 

efforts to simplify and improve the 310 CMR 7 regulations. 

Sincerely;