C-1 

APPENDIX C 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

Appendix C presents the responses to comments received during the public 

comment period from November 5 through 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 Green Kitchen Designs on November 13, 

2007 

• Kevin Westlye, Executive Director of the Golden Gate Restaurant 

Association on November 13, 2007 

• Dan Hopkins, President of Crest Distribution and Supply on November 19, 

2007 

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

Derek Schrock, Research Director at Halton Company, 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 1st half of US EPA 

Method 5 that does not differentiate the size of the particulates. US EPA Method 

5 thereby captures the entire 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 PM10. 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 captured on the filters. 

Response: This comment was also raised during the public workshop held on 

October 23, 2007. Following the workshop, District staff changed the definition of 

PM10 in the proposed rule, consistent with 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 proposed regulation. 

First, restaurant owners may by-pass the regulation by purchasing 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 may be a greater health hazard than 

particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. Air toxics may be 
C-2 

significantly reduced by including adsorbant in the control device, at minimal 

additional costs. 

Response: The 10 square foot grill provision in the proposed rule is an easily 

identifiable visual determination of the applicability of a restaurant to the rule 

requirements. This is important in order for the District to optimize utilization of 

its inspection resources when there are over 15,000 restaurants in the District. 

This rule targets the largest restaurants 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 National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan1

, 

researchers determined that particulates, not gases, emitted from restaurants 

had the highest carcinogenic potency. Large molecular weight polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) known to be carcinogenic are exhausted in the 

particulate phase. The proposed rule would reduce the amount of particulates 

emitted to the atmosphere and thereby, minimize the amount of PAHs and the 

potential health hazard associated with under-fired charbroiling. 

Staff investigated controls that reduce emissions of organic compounds and 

particulate matter from under-fired charbroilers, 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 stated 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 Association. He stated, “The proposed rule for 

existing under fire char broilers seems 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 viewed as an effort to be reasonable. 

The proposed rule for new equipment beginning in 2010 was hotly debated. At 

the conclusion of the discussion overall agreement was reached that a new 

restaurant would know in advance if the installed 10 square feet of under fire 

char broiler they would trigger the need for increased emission 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 Carcinogenic 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 existing restaurant with 10 square feet of 

under fire char broiler would need to install new equipment for increased 

emission filtration was not well received at all. People have designed their 

kitchen and invested their money 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-fired charbroilers grilling less than 800 

pounds per week of beef does continue after 2013. The proposed rule would 

exempt any person who operates 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 regardless of when the proposed rule would 

otherwise require installation of an emission control device. Thus, the exemption 

the commenter refers to would not cease to apply in 2013. 

Also, staff notes that all control devices that may be used to comply with the 

proposed rule will generate carbon either directly by converting organic 

compounds into carbon dioxide or indirectly 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 carbon dioxide and water. 

Dan Hopkins, President of Crest Distribution and Supply, November 19, 

2007, via e-mail: 

Comment: We fully support the District’s direction to develop and enforce control 

of commercial under-fired charbroiler emissions. Areas of the proposal we would 

like to address are the following: Section 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 electrical engineer is able to design a system using them 

and the IMC Building codes support their use. The amount of energy reduced 

and the associated cost is substantial. The 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 owner to keep his equipment 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 Controls is the way 

to do this. Without the adoption of a Demand 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 the regulation is to minimize emissions of particulate 
C-4 

matter, which can be achieved by installing controls. Demand ventilation 

systems do not reduce particulate matter or organic compounds. Staff concurs 

that properly designed demand ventilation may reduce the volume of air needed 

for ventilation and would, in turn, reduce energy demand and lower energy bills. 

In the Bay Area, Pacific, Gas, and Electric (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 Board, 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 time, we have no comments. The rule was 

examined by the Enforcement Division and by the Stationary Source Division. 

 

Response: Comment is acknowledged.