^Polaroid 0 

John P. LeFebvre, PE 

Corporate Environmental Manager 

Polaroid Corporation 

1265 Main Street, W2-MZ 

Waltham, MA 02451-1714 

June 29, 2004 

Robert Donaldson 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Waste Prevention 

One Winter Street, 8th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

In Re: Proposed Amendments to 310 CMR 7.00 etseq. 

and 310 CMR 70.00 - Engines and Combustion Turbines 

Dear Bob: 

On behalf of Polaroid Corporation, I am pleased to offer the following comments with 

respect to the above-specified subject. These comments both reiterate and supplement our 

remarks made at public hearing on June 23, 2004. As indicated at that time, our primary interest 

in the proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7, is as they relate to emergency engines and 

combustion turbines. We are pleased to support the proposed amendments in concept, and offer 

our perspective with regards to accomplishing the Department's stated objectives. 

Polaroid commends the Department for taking an approach to emissions limitations that 

normalizes on a national standard, specifically the federal standards at 40 CFR 89. This 

methodology will ensure certainty for the regulated community when making a purchasing 

decision, while also assuring the Department that emissions are maintained at acceptable levels. 

Likewise, the proposed change to 310 CMR 7.05 regarding diesel fuel used in stationary engines 

and turbines is a pragmatic way to ensure improved emission performance across the 

Commonwealth in a cost-effective manner. 

It is at this point that Polaroid's preferred approach to emergency engines diverges from the 

Department's proposal. We believe that the foregoing two points address 99% of the air-quality 

related benefits of the proposal, and that the balance is wasteful window-dressing that is not 

necessary to achieve the desired emission reductions. By way of example, consider the purchase 

of automobiles in the Commonwealth. Massachusetts has established within its regulations that 

motor vehicles sold within its borders will meet California performance standards for emissions. 

It is not incumbent upon the owner that he or she makes certification to some authority that they 

have done so. Given the requirement that only such automobiles may be sold, there is little 

opportunity for other outcomes. Similarly, the Department and EPA have established 

specifications for the gasoline that may be sold to fuel those vehicles. Hence, that is the fuel that 

is available to drivers. Polaroid believes that this worthwhile effort to reduce emissions from 

emergency engines need be no more complicated than buying and driving a car. 
Public Comments of the Polaroid Corporation 

June 29, 2004 

Page 2 

From this perspective, the proposed regulations are somewhat galling to facilities subject to 

Appendix C of the 310 CMR 7 regulations. Appendix C facilities are the largest, most complex, 

most regulated, and possibly most compliant air emission sources in the Commonwealth. The 

Department's proposal will serve to make them more complex on paper, cost them additional 

fees on an annual basis, create additional paperwork burdens for the facilities and the 

Department, while providing no environmental benefit that could not be accomplished with a 

supplier-based regulation. 

According to the Department's supporting material, the universe of regulated emergency 

generators may increase by a factor of three under this proposal. It is Polaroid's observation that 

this premise is consistent with our own inventory. While existing units smaller than 3,000,000 

BTU/hr heat input will not automatically fall into this program, their eventual replacements will. 

At that point the emergency generators become "emission units" under the Department's most 

common implementation of Appendix C regulations. That designation carries with it an annual 

cost in fees and paperwork that yield no environmental benefit. 

Polaroid requests that the Department consider alternatives to its proposed implementation 

strategy for emission reductions from emergency generators. 

The simplest resolution of this Operating Permit facility issue would be to add the following: 

"310 CMR 7, Appendix C (5)(i)21. emergency generators with a rated power output equal to or 

greater than 37kw and a heat input rating less than or equal to 10,000,000 BTU/hr, and 

emergency turbines with a rated power output less than 1 MW." Frankly, we don't believe that 

'C(5)(i)' is the best place to address this issue, but it is the easiest. More appropriate, in our 

opinion, would be to re-craft 'C(5)(h)' as follows: ".. .The Department shall exempt the emitting 

device(s) if it is exempt from preconstruction review and approval pursuant to 7.02(2)(b)7. or 15. 

The Department shall also exempt devices subject to 7.02(8)(i), 7.03(10) or 7.26(42), provided 

that they are not subject to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources pursuant to 40 

CFR 60 or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants pursuant to 40 CFR 63." 

While the preceding paragraph provides solutions to the (unintended?) consequences of the 

proposed regulations with respect to Operating Permit facilities, Polaroid does not feel that these 

represent optimal solutions. We are of the general philosophy that all parties are best served by a 

scheme that provides for the least process while affording the fullest protection. Foremost 

among our recommendations is the supplier-regulated scheme already discussed. Under this 

scenario, proposed section 7.26(42) would be composed of only subsections (a) and (b) with 

minor modifications. Operational concerns of the Department, proposed as subsection 

7.26(42)(d) would be addressed elsewhere in "7" so as not to create applicable requirements in 

the operating permit sense. 

A similar proposal would be essentially as put forth by the Department with the exception 

that 7.26(42)(d) would not be included. Again, those issues of concern to the Department can be 

incorporated elsewhere as "generally applicable requirements" rather than applicable 

requirements. 

At this point, Polaroid offers more specific comments on individual sections of the 

Regulations as offered for amendment. 
Public Comments of the Polaroid Corporation 

June 29, 2004 

Page 

310 CMR 7.02(8)ffl3.b. and c. 

These sections of the regulations as proposed (and as they exist today) are inconsistent with 

the nature of the devices being addressed. There is only one operational restriction placed on 

emergency generators subject to these sections - that is run hours. Said restriction is to ensure 

that these engines never achieve their inherent potential as major sources of nitrogen oxides were 

they to be operated excessively. There are no limits on fuel type or quantity, nor on heating 

value. There is no reason to require a monthly log that tracks such information as the 

information does not tie back to any requirement. Owners have an obligation under 310 CMR 

7.12 to supply a calendar year estimate of emissions from their facilities, but the manner of doing 

so is not specified, and the information required by 7.02(8)(i)3.b. is not necessary to meet the 

7.12 obligation. Fuel use by emergency generators is sufficiently small that monthly deliveries 

do not occur, and the tanks are of a size such that they often do not provide inventory-quality 

information with regards to the contents. In fact, individual generator/tank sets may receive no 

fuel deliveries in a calendar year. It is common practice for facilities to meet their 7.12 

obligation by reviewing site-wide deliveries and apportioning fuel amongst the collection of all 

equipment that uses diesel fuel, and again amongst equipment that uses natural gas. Simply put, 

it is impractical to comply with the language of 310 CMR 7.02(8)(i)3.b. 

Polaroid requests that 310 CMR 7.02(8)(i)3.b. be amended to read, "A log of hours of 

operation." We further request that 310 CMR 7.02(8)(i)3.c. be deleted. 

310 CMR 7.02(8Ki)5. and 310 CMR 7.03fl0¥b) 

These sections are completely duplicative of the proposed 310 CMR 7.05(l)(a)3. As a 

matter of form, Polaroid opposes unnecessary language. As a matter of impact, the placement of 

this unnecessary language in these sections tempts the reader to believe that an "applicable 

requirement" exists, when in fact it is really the restatement of a "generally applicable 

requirement" found elsewhere. 

Polaroid requests that these two sections be removed. 

310 CMR 7.03a0)(cl 

This section calls for maintenance of records consistent with 310 CMR 7.02(8)(i)3. through 

5. However, 7.02(8)(i)5. is not a recordkeeping requirement. Regardless of the Department's 

decision with respect to our comment requesting the deletion of 7.02(8)(i)5., Polaroid believes 

that this section should end with the phrase, "...310 CMR 7.02(8)(i)3. and 4." 

310 CMR 7.05(TKa)3. 

First, Polaroid is mildly concerned with the somewhat generic reference to the federal 

standard for sulfur in fuel limits. Our concern is with respect to the availability of ULSD at the 

time of effectiveness of this regulation. We understand from discussion with the Department 

that ULSD should be widely available late in 2006. Presumably, these proposed regulatory 

changes would occur sooner than that timeframe. Polaroid requests that the Department review 

the adequacy of the proposed language to ensure that there is no possible interpretation that 

would require the use of ULSD prior to its actual widespread availability. This could be a 

particular problem for facilities subject to the Appendix C regulations. 
Public Comments of the Polaroid Corporation 

June 29,2004 

Page 4 

Secondly, Polaroid observes that the proposed language for this section provides for a very 

protracted implementation of ULSD use by generators and turbines below the current 

applicability thresholds. Provided that the Department's estimates of availability and cost 

differential are accurate, we suggest simplifying the language of this section as follows: "310 

CMR 7.05 (l)(a)3. Stationary Engines and Turbines - Diesel Fuel. On and after [SIX 

MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE] no fuel supplier shall offer for sale, for use in any 

engine rated at a power output equal to or greater than 37 kw, or any turbine rated at a power 

output equal to or less than 1 MW, any diesel fuel that fails to comply with the applicable U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency sulfur limits for fuel pursuant to ..." 

310 CMR7.26(42VbU. 

As discussed earlier, Polaroid believes that the proper implementation of this program is 

through the suppliers. Accordingly, we offer the following alternative language: "... at the time 

of installation. No emergency engine subject to 310 CMR 7.26(42)(b)l. shall be offered for sale 

that has not obtained a certificate of conformity from the Administrator pursuant to ... For units 

that burn natural gas exclusively, the supplier may provide a letter or other documentation stating 

that the engine meets the applicable non-road emission limitations." 

310 CMR 7.26(42Kc). 

To be consistent with our earlier comment, we believe that this section is also redundant, and 

should be removed. 

310 CMR 7.26(42Kd)4. 

The Department has strayed onto a murky landscape with this proposed section. We 

understand the concern that exists with respect to the placement of emergency engines in urban 

settings, but we would caution the Department not to lose sight of two facts. These engines 

rarely operate, and the Department's authority is limited to those matters impacting upon 

ambient air. As currently configured, many industrial emergency engines do not impact upon 

ambient air, whereas if installed pursuant to these stack height requirements they might. It is not 

uncommon to find industrial installations wholly within buildings - exhaust is through wallmounted louvers. Likewise, engines are sometimes offset from a building where satisfying these 

requirements would require a self-supporting stack three or more stories tall. Polaroid believes 

that this proposed section is inappropriately onerous for large facilities while providing no 

environmental benefit. We further note that the Department is already sufficiently empowered 

under its authority to regulate "a condition of air pollution" as to address urban concerns that 

exist with current and future installations. 

Polaroid requests that proposed 310 CMR 7.26(42)(d)4. be changed to read as follows: 

"Stack Height and Emission Dispersion All emergency engines and turbines shall utilize an 

exhaust stack that discharges so as not to cause a condition of air pollution (310 CMR 7.01(1))." 

310 CMR7.26(42Hd)5. 

This is unnecessary in that all sources must comply with 7.06. There is no more point to 

including this language here than in any, and every, other section of 310 CMR 7. It is redundant 
Public Comments of the Polaroid Corporation 

June 29, 2004 

Page 

and should not be included. Additionally, whereas emergency engines and turbines are 

combustion devices and presumably sources of "smoke," 7.06(l)(b) does not apply regardless. 

310 CMR7.26(42He)l. 

As indicated repeatedly, Polaroid believes that this program is best served by a methodology 

that minimizes process and puts primary responsibility upon the supplier, the entity best in a 

position to ensure that the Department's objectives are achieved. Accordingly, Polaroid urges 

the Department to remove this section. 

Alternately, Polaroid requests the elimination of the second sentence of this section. As 

discussed above and below, the purchaser is not truly in a position to control the emission 

performance of the equipment in question. The acquisition of certified equipment is the limit of 

available options for the purchaser. 

310 CMR 7.26(42Hel2. and 3. 

These provisions appear pointless and, to the extent that the Department would attempt to 

enforce them, exceptionally unfair. Any engine installed pursuant to these proposed regulations 

would necessarily be certified as to its ability to meet the emission limits. Only the supplier is in 

a position to control an engine's adherence to required emission limits. Does the Department 

anticipate requiring facilities to replace units that fail to meet required limits for the life of the 

unit? Any expectation for the purchaser to ensure emission limits for the life of off-the-shelf 

equipment of this nature transfers responsibility from the only entity with control of the matter -

the manufacturer - to the end user. This is inappropriate. Polaroid urges the Department to 

remove these sections. 

310 CMR 7.26(42Hf). 

Whereas the program as outlined by the Department's proposal calls for a one-time only ERP 

certification of emergency engines, Polaroid is of the opinion that this section should reference 

the accuracy certification at 310 CMR 7.01(2). Subsequent to initial installation, all future 

regulatory obligations derive from 310 CMR 7, not 310 CMR 70. This is also consistent with 

Polaroid's recommendation that emergency engines not be subject to the unnecessary process of 

ERP. Polaroid suggests that the last sentence of this section be changed to read, "The owner or 

operator shall certify that records are true and accurate in accordance with 310 CMR 7.01(2)." 

310 CMR 7.26f42)(f).2. and 3. 

Our discussion with respect to 310 CMR 7.02(8)(i)3.b. and c. is applicable here as well. 

Please change 310 CMR 7.26(42)(f)2. to read, "A log of hours of operation." Please also delete 

proposed 310 CMR 7.26(42)(f)3. 

Finally, Polaroid wishes to address the proposed 310 CMR 7.26(43) section in a general 

manner. We have "heard" from various sources that the emission limitations as proposed are 

only achievable through the use of natural gas. We are not in a position to evaluate this issue on 

its technical merits. However, most in New England are well aware of the precarious nature of 

the region's supply of natural gas. Without accepting responsibility for its role, the Department 

has aggravated the situation through its interpretative application of BACT to projects in the 

Commonwealth. Polaroid appreciates the value of technology-forcing regulation and recognizes 
Public Comments of the Polaroid Corporation 

June 29, 2004 

Page 6 

that the approach has played a valuable role in the improved air quality that we all enjoy. 

However, we urge the Department to be very certain that the emission limits it promulgates in 

final form are truly achievable with a diverse fuel mix. A de facto "natural gas only" policy in 

the Commonwealth does not make for sound economic policy, and is not required to provide for 

clean ambient air. 

Polaroid wishes to reiterate its general support for the development and implementation of 

these regulations. We believe that significant benefits can be realized at relatively small cost. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

Very Truly Yours, 

Cc: Sonia Hamel, Office of Commonwealth Development 
^Polaroid 

Polaroid Corporation 

1265 Main Street, W2-MZ 

Waltham, MA 02451-1714 

June 22,2004 

Department of Environmental Protection 

436 Dwight Street, Room 303 

Springfield, MA 

Preliminary Comments 

Proposed Changes to Regulations for 

Engines and Combustion Turbines 

My name is John LeFebvre, Corporate Environmental Manager with the Polaroid 

Corporation. These comments are offered on behalf of Polaroid with respect to the Department 

of Environmental Protection's proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7, as they relate to emergency 

engines and combustion turbines. We are pleased to support the proposed amendments in 

concept, and offer our perspective with regards to accomplishing the Department's stated 

objectives. 

Polaroid commends the Department for taking an approach to emissions limitations that 

normalizes on a national standard, specifically the federal standards at 40 CFR 89. This 

methodology will ensure certainty for the regulated community when making a purchasing 

decision, while also assuring the Department that emissions are maintained at acceptable levels. 

Likewise, the proposed change to 310 CMR 7.05 regarding diesel fuel used in stationary engines 

and turbines is a pragmatic way to ensure improved emission performance across the 

Commonwealth in a cost-effective manner. 

It is at this point that Polaroid's preferred approach to emergency engines diverges from the 

Department's proposal. We believe that the foregoing two points address 99% of the air-quality 

related benefits of the proposal, and that the balance is wasteful window-dressing that is not 

necessary to achieve the desired emission reductions. By way of example, consider the purchase 

of automobiles in the Commonwealth. Massachusetts has established within its regulations that 

motor vehicles sold within its borders will meet California performance standards for emissions. 

It is not incumbent upon the owner that he or she makes certification to some authority that they 

have done so. Given the requirement that only such automobiles may be sold, there is little 

opportunity for other outcomes. Similarly, the Department and EPA have established 

specifications for the gasoline that may be sold to fuel those vehicles. Hence, that is the fuel that 

is available to drivers. Polaroid believes that this worthwhile effort to reduce emissions from 

emergency engines need be no more complicated than buying and driving a car. 

The Department has fallen into the common trap of drafting a regulation predicated on the 

worst behavior of the regulated community, rather than the most common. Given the knowledge 

of what is required, most businesses will comply. Under the construct outlined above, leveraged 

on supply-side availability, a company would require a certain level of criminal intent to avoid 

compliance. 
Polaroid Corporation 

1265 Main Street, W2-MZ 

Waltham, MA 02451-1714 

Polaroid 

June 22, 2004 

Department of Environmental Protection 

436 Dwight Street, Room 303 

Springfield, MA 

Preliminary Comments 

Proposed Changes to Regulations for 

Engines and Combustion Turbines 

My name is John LeFebvre, Corporate Environmental Manager with the Polaroid 

Corporation. These comments are offered on behalf of Polaroid with respect to the Department 

of Environmental Protection's proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7, as they relate to emergency 

engines and combustion turbines. We are pleased to support the proposed amendments in 

concept, and offer our perspective with regards to accomplishing the Department's stated 

objectives. 

Polaroid commends the Department for taking an approach to emissions limitations that 

normalizes on a national standard, specifically the federal standards at 40 CFR 89. This 

methodology will ensure certainty for the regulated community when making a purchasing 

decision, while also assuring the Department that emissions are maintained at acceptable levels. 

Likewise, the proposed change to 310 CMR 7.05 regarding diesel fuel used in stationary engines 

and turbines is a pragmatic way to ensure improved emission performance across the 

Commonwealth in a cost-effective manner. 

It is at this point that Polaroid's preferred approach to emergency engines diverges from the 

Department's proposal. We believe that the foregoing two points address 99% of the air-quality 

related benefits of the proposal, and that the balance is wasteful window-dressing that is not 

necessary to achieve the desired emission reductions. By way of example, consider the purchase 

of automobiles in the Commonwealth. Massachusetts has established within its regulations that 

motor vehicles sold within its borders will meet California performance standards for emissions. 

It is not incumbent upon the owner that he or she makes certification to some authority that they 

have done so. Given the requirement that only such automobiles may be sold, there is little 

opportunity for other outcomes. Similarly, the Department and EPA have established 

specifications for the gasoline that may be sold to fuel those vehicles. Hence, that is the fuel that 

is available to drivers. Polaroid believes that this worthwhile effort to reduce emissions from 

emergency engines need be no more complicated than buying and driving a car. 

The Department has fallen into the common trap of drafting a regulation predicated on the 

worst behavior of the regulated community, rather than the most common. Given the knowledge 

of what is required, most businesses will comply. Under the construct outlined above, leveraged 

on supply-side availability, a company would require a certain level of criminal intent to avoid 

compliance. 
Public Comments of the Polaroid Corporation 

June 22, 2004 

Page 2 

From this perspective, the proposed regulations are somewhat galling to facilities subject to 

Appendix C of the 310 CMR 7 regulations. Appendix C facilities are the largest, most complex, 

most regulated, and possibly most compliant air emission sources in the Commonwealth. The 

Department's proposal will serve to make them more complex on paper, cost them additional 

fees on an annual basis, create additional paperwork burdens for the facilities and the 

Department, while providing no environmental benefit that could not be accomplished with a 

supplier-based regulation. 

According to the Department's supporting material, the universe of regulated emergency 

generators may increase by a factor of three under this proposal. It is Polaroid's observation that 

this premise is consistent with our own inventory. While existing units smaller than 3,000,000 

BTU/hr heat input will not automatically fall into this program (fuel-use excepted), their eventual 

replacements will. At that point the emergency generators become "emission units" under the 

Department's most common implementation of Appendix C regulations. That designation 

carries with it an annual cost in fees and paperwork that yield no environmental benefit. 

Polaroid requests that the Department consider alternatives to its proposed implementation 

strategy for emission reductions from emergency generators. 

Foremost among our recommendations is the supplier-regulated scheme already discussed. 

Under this scenario, proposed section (42) would be composed of only subsections (a) and (b) 

with minor modifications. Operational concerns of the Department, proposed as subsection 

(42)(d) would be addressed elsewhere in "7" so as not to create applicable requirements in the 

operating permit sense. 

A similar proposal would be essentially as put forth by the Department with the exception 

that (42)(d) would not be included. Again, those issues of concern to the Department can be 

incorporated elsewhere as "generally applicable requirements" rather than applicable 

requirements. 

Yet another approach would be to proceed with the regulations roughly in the form proposed, 

but with additional changes made within Appendix C to indicate that emergency engines smaller 

than 10,000,000 BTU/hr heat input qualify under Appendix C (5)(h) or (i). There is support for 

this approach in that the plain language of C(5)(h) already indicates that the Department intended 

to exempt emergency engines from Appendix C applicability. Moreover, some 70% of the 

future regulated units are not emission units now - this would only serve to maintain the status 

quo. Unfortunately, regional implementation of the operating permit program has taken it away 

from its original intention, and led us to this point, where the engine regulations as proposed 

constitute an unfair, and likely unintended, burden on facilities subject to the Appendix C 

regulations. 

Polaroid wishes to reiterate its general support for the development and implementation of 

these regulations. We believe that significant benefits can be realized at relatively small cost. It 

is our intent to make additional and more detailed comments in writing prior to the June 30 

deadline. Thank you for this opportunity.