C-1 APPENDIX C
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Appendix C presents the responses to comments received during the public comment period from November 5 thro ugh November 26, 2007. During this period, the District received five comment letters from the following individuals:

• Derek Schrock, Research Director at Halton Company on November 7,
2007

• Robert Ajemian, President of Gr een Kitchen Designs on November 13,
2007

• Kevin Westlye, Executive Directo r of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association on November 13, 2007

• Dan Hopkins, President of Crest Dis tribution and Supply on November 19,
2007

• Sally Rump, California Air Resources Board on November 21, 2007

Derek Schrock, Research Director at Halton Comp any, November 7, 2007,
via e-mail:

Comment: Mr. Schrock commented that the measurement technique being proposed for Regulation 6, Rule 2 requires a paper filter in the 1 st half of US EPA
Method 5 that does not differentiate the si ze of the particulates. US EPA Method 5 thereby captures the entir e range of particulates emitted from the stack and not just the particulates from 0.3 to 10 microns to which the proposed regulation
limits its definition of PM 10 . To measure only particulates from 0.3 to 10 microns, Mr. Schrock suggested using a cascade impactor that uses several stages of paper filtration to limit the size of particulates captur ed on the filters.

Response: This comment was also rais ed during the public workshop held on October 23, 2007. Following the workshop, District staff changed the definition of
PM 10 in the proposed rule, consistent wi th US EPA Method 5, to include all particulates less than 10 microns.

Robert Ajemian, President of Green Kitchen Designs, November 13, 2007,
via e-mail:

Comment: Mr. Ajemian had two concerns regarding the pr oposed regulation. First, restaurant owners may by-pass t he regulation by purc hasing an under-fired charbroiler that is less than 10 square feet grill surface area. Secondly, the requirements for under-fired charbroilers do not minimize the emissions of air toxics and organic compounds that ma y be a greater health hazard than particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. Air toxics may beC-2 significantly reduced by including adsorb ant in the control device, at minimal
additional costs.

Response: The 10 square f oot grill provision in the proposed rule is an easily identifiable visual determination of the ap plicability of a rest aurant to the rule requirements. This is impor tant in order for the Distric t to optimize utilization of its inspection resources when there are over 15,000 restaurants in the District. This rule targets the largest restaurant s with the highest emissions by focusing on facilities with large grills and that grill significant quantities of beef.

The proposed rule does reduce air toxics emitted from under-fired charbroilers. In a 2003 study conducted by the Nati onal Cheng Kung University in Taiwan 1

, researchers determined that particulates, not gases, emitted from restaurants had the highest carcinogenic potency. Large molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s) known to be carcinogenic are exhausted in the particulate phase. The proposed rule w ould reduce the amount of particulates emitted to the atmospher e and thereby, minimize t he amount of PAHs and the potential health hazard associated with under-fired charbroiling.

Staff investigated controls that r educe emissions of organic compounds and particulate matter from under-fired char broilers, but determined that none that
were cost-effective at this time. This proposed rule focuses on reducing harmful particulate matter through the use of cost-effective controls.

Kevin Westyle, Executive Director of Golden Gate Restaurant Association, November 13, 2007, via e-mail:

Comment: Mr. Westyle st ated that he discussed the proposed rule at the November meeting of the Public Affairs Committee of the Board of Directors of
the Golden Gate Restaurant A ssociation. He stated, “The proposed rule for existing under fire char broilers se ems reasonable. The 800# per week of beef grilled on the char broiler as the trigger mechanism of the requirement for new equipment to limit emissions was view ed as an effort to be reasonable.

The proposed rule for new equipment beginning in 2010 was hotly debated. At
the conclusion of the discussion overa ll agreement was r eached that a new
restaurant would know in adv ance if the installed 10 square feet of under fire char broiler they would tr igger the need for increased em ission filtration. Serious concern exists for the carbon footprint of the catalytic oxidizer, and for the net gain for the environment.

1 Li, Chun-The; Lin, Yuan-Chung; Lee, Wen-Jhy; and Tsai, Perng-Jy. 2003. Emissions of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Carc inogenic Potencies from Cooking Sources to the Urban Atmosphere. Environmental Health Perspectives . Volume 111, Number 4, pp. 483- 487. April 2003.C-3 The proposed rule that in 2013 any exis ting restaurant with 10 square feet of under fire char broiler would need to install new equipment for increased
emission filtration was not well receiv ed at all. People have designed their
kitchen and invested their m oney under a certain set of rules, and feel changing
the rules after the fact is unfair. We strongly encourage you to continue the 800# per week of beef guideline into 2013 and beyond.”

Response: The exemption for under-fir ed charbroilers grilling less than 800 pounds per week of beef does continue a fter 2013. The proposed rule would exempt any person who operat es an under-fired charbroiler in a restaurant that grills less than 800 pounds of beef per week on the under-fired charbroiler. An analogous exemption exists for persons operating restaurants with chain-driven broilers. The exemptions apply regar dless of when the proposed rule would otherwise require installation of an emission control devi ce. Thus, the exemption
the commenter refers to would not cease to apply in 2013.

Also, staff notes that all control devic es that may be used to comply with the proposed rule will generate carbon either directly by converting organic compounds into carbon dioxide or indirect ly through the use of electricity. Overall, however, most of the control devices require minimal electricity to operate. Catalytic oxidizers, required for chain-driven charbroilers, use no additional energy and benefit human health by converting a significant quantity of hazardous compounds into ca rbon dioxide and water.

Dan Hopkins, President of Crest Di stribution and Supply, November 19, 2007, via e-mail:

Comment: We fully support th e District’s direction to de velop and enforce control
of commercial under-fired charbroiler emissi ons. Areas of the proposal we would like to address are the following: Secti on 6-2-204 Demand Ventilation Controls:
Use of Demand Ventilation Controls should be required in the rule. All restaurants currently operating can use these controls. They are readily available. Almost any elec trical engineer is able to design a system using them and the IMC Building codes s upport their use. The amou nt of energy reduced
and the associated cost is substantial. T he return on investment is usually under 12 months. Reducing energy demand and costs is the only way the rule can provide a financial incentive for the ow ner to keep his equipm ent operational and
continue to reduce emissions. If the rule is too expensive to follow, the operator will find a way around the rule . If reducing emissions is profitable then operators will be enthusiastic about doing it. Using Demand Ventilation Co ntrols is the way to do this. Without the adoption of a De mand Ventilation Controls provision in the rule, successful emission control from this stationary pollution source will be
difficult at best.

Response: District staff acknowledges the commenter’s support of this regulation. The purpose of t he regulation is to minimize emissions of particulateC-4 matter, which can be achieved by in stalling controls. Demand ventilation systems do not reduce particulate matter or organic compounds. Staff concurs that properly designed demand ventilation may reduce t he volume of air needed for ventilation and would, in turn, reduce energy demand and lower energy bills. In the Bay Area, Pacific, Gas, and Electr ic (PG&E) offers not only rebates for energy efficient equipment, but also provides energy audits and demand/response programs for the food service industry.

Sally Rump, California Air Resources Bo ard, November 21, 2007, letter sent
via e-mail:

Comment: The Air Resources Board has reviewed Rule 6-2, and based on the
information available to us at this ti me, we have no comment s. The rule was examined by the Enforcement Division and by the Stationary Source Division.

Response: Comment is acknowledged.