Ballard Spaly1735 Market Street, 51st Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 

TEL 215.665.8500 

FAX 215.864.8999 

www.ballardspahr.com 

November 19, 2014 

Via E-mail and U.S. Mail 

Karen Smith 

Air Management Service 

321 University Avenue, 2d Floor 

Philadelphia, P A 191 04 

Brendan K. Collins 

Tel: 215.864.8106 

Fax: 215.864.9514 

collins@ballardspahr.com 

Re: Air Management Service's "Revision" of Proposed Update to State Implementation Plan 

Revision Demonstrating Reasonably Achievable Control Technology ("RACT") related to 

the Temple University Health Sciences Campus 

Dear Ms. Smith: 

On behalf of our client, Temple University- Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education 

("Temple University"), we submit the following comments on Air Management Service's ("AMS") 

November 12, 2014 revision to its published September 20, 2014 proposal to update the State 

Implementation Plan ("SIP") to demonstrate reasonably achievable control technology ("RACT") 

implementation for Philadelphia County. A copy of this putative revision is attached here. 

In essence, this revision (which erroneously refers to the Temple University Main Campus rather 

than the Health Sciences Campus) informs Temple University that AMS will be "including a 

maximum combined heat input limit for No. 6 oil because EPA commented that we need to have 

limit for No. 6 fuel oil, and we are proposing a maximum of 500,000 MMBtu/year combined." 

First of all, while the university appreciates AMS sharing its plans in advance, this revision fails to 

meet applicable requirements for publication and proposal of revised permit terms. AMS now 

proposes to include an entirely new limit on Temple University's facility that was not offered for 

public comment. This new restriction, which limits the total input of one type of fuel, is not a 

"logical outgrowth" of AMS's September proposal, and so it must be published and offered for 

comment. Though AMS has asked Temple University for comment on this proposed revision, the 

university has not been given the full comment period provided for by enabling legislation and prior 

practice. Therefore, prior to taking any action with respect to Temple University's air permit for the 

Health Sciences Campus, AMS must publish the proposed permit terms and provide a full 

opportunity for public comment. It is immaterial that AMS has a December deadline to submit 

RACT approvals to EPA. This circumstance, entirely of AMS's own making, does not excuse AMS 

from observing the requirements of law regarding notice and comment. 

DMEAST #20359550 v3 

Atlanta I Baltimore I Bethesda I Denver I Las Vegas I Los Angeles I New Jersey I New York I Ihiladelphia 1 Phoenix 1 Salt Lake City 1 

San Diego I Washington, DC I Wilmington I www.ballardspalrr.com 
Karen Smith 

November 19,2014 

Page2 

Second, AMS lacks legal authority to impose such a restriction on Temple University's facility. 

Temple University respectfully submits that, per its comments on the September 20, 2014 published 

proposal, this revision suffers from the same fundamental defect: AMS is simply ttying a different 

mechanism to dictate the type of fuel Temple University can use at the three boilers at the Health 

Sciences Campus. As described in Temple's October 20, 2014 comments, such an exercise of 

authority is inconsistent with the common understanding of "control technologies" that can be 

required through RACT and is contrary to the RACT analysis prescribed in state regulations. AMS 

cannot dictate which of the permitted fuels Temple University can burn, whether by time, heat value 

or season. 

Third, AMS has provided no technical justification for the new proposed limit. The only basis AMS 

cites to justify this new limit of500,000 MMBtu/year while burning No.6 fuel oil is EPA's request 

that there be a limit on No.6 fuel oil at the Health Sciences Campus. However, the existing RACT 

approval for this facility already contains an overall heat input limitation of 673,894 MMBtu per 

rolling 12-month period, a limit that applies to all fuels, including No.6 oil. In addition, the Health 

Sciences Campus boilers have an emission limit of 56.3 pounds ofNOx/hour, regardless of which 

fuel is used and how many boilers are operating. Moreover, AMS's "revision" contains absolutely 

no information as to how the limit was derived, or otherwise supporting the need for a limit of 

500,000 MMBtu/yr while burning No.6 fuel oil. Temple University finds that this omission 

materially impedes its ability to comment on whether the newly proposed limit is appropriate. 

Regrettably, AMS appears to have dismissed out of hand an alternative proposal from Temple 

University to allow the Health Sciences Campus to achieve the presumptive RACT for No. 6 fuel oil 

by burning No. 2 fuel oil instead. Temple University continues to believe that alternative, if 

implemented, would satisfy the letter and spirit of the RACT process and respectfully requests that 

AMS reconsider it is an option for RACT. 

In closing, while Temple University is sympathetic to the significant time constraints AMS is under 

to finalize a RACT demonstration that will ultimately be approved by EPA for incorporation into the 

Pennsylvania SIP, the September 20, 2014 proposal and November 12, 2014 revision to the proposal 

exceed its authority vis-a-vis the Health Sciences Campus. The November 12 revision does not 

address, much less allay, any of the concerns Temple University raised in its initial comments. 

Rather, the revision compounds those concerns due to the arbitrary limit imposed without any legal 

or technical rationale. Despite these concerns, Temple University remains committed to working 

withAMS to develop an appropriate RACT for the Health Sciences Campus. 

BKC:sfs 

DMEAST #20359550 v3 
Karen Smith 

November 19, 2014 

Page 3 

Attachments 

cc: Kurt Bresser 

Rahel Gebrekidan 

Ed Weiner 

Patrick O'Neill, Esq., Philadelphia Law Department 

Donna Mastro, Esq. USEPA Region III 

DMEAST #20359550 v3 
From: Rahel Gebrekidan [mailto:Rahel.Gebrekidan@phila.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:40 AM 

To: Kurt Bresser; cmaye@CompliancePlace.com 

Subject: Re: Temple Main RACT 

Kurt, 

I just want to let you know that we are including a maximum combined heat input limit for No.6 oil because EPA commented that 

we need to have limit for No.6 fuel oil, and we are proposing a maximum of 500,000 MMBtu/yr combined. 

Sincerely 

Rahel GelJrelcidan 

Environmental Engineer 

Air Management Service 

Phone 215-685-9429 

Fax 215-685-7593 

E-Mail Rahel.qebrelcidan@phila.qav 

2