Emission Controls for Existing Underfired Charbroilers

Online comments: 3

• Daniel Bersohn

  The UL standards listed for commercial kitchen pollution control units does not include UL 8782 which is referenced by IMC 2021 which is the basis for the current code revision cycle in NYC. This standard must be referenced as newer (and current) products are likely to be listed to this standard. The correct standard reference for a recirculation hood for electric commercial cooking is UL 710B. UL 710 is generic to commercial kitchen hoods whose capture efficiency is assured at lower airflow rates, but does not address, as far as I’m aware, significant reduction in PM 10 beyond simple hood filters designed to reduce grease accumulation in ductwork. It’s not clear if baffle filters in a simple UL 710 hood the 25-75% reduction requirement in the fall back compliance pathway. The rule should be clearer about technologies achieving the required performance of the fall back path.

  It’s also worth noting that an airflow increase will result in reduced PM concentration at the same cooking load/effluent production rate. This offers a pathway for juicing field compliance testing. The rule should restrict hoods to the lesser of rated flow rate for UL 710 hoods or the hood’s maximum flow rate as per NYC Energy Code.

  63-02 (c) is at an odd stringency compared to its neighboring paragraphs as it requires recertification biennially. This seems impractical and of limited compliance value. How is it reasonable to expect someone installing a sub par machine that conditions would magically change allowing for the installation of something better two years down the line? This only makes sense when, for example, ongoing construction unrelated to the restaurant is preventing PCU installation or will in future modify something that will facilitate PCU installation. The recertification should simply involve documenting the issues in the prior report haven’t changed. That shouldn’t require a design professional. The rule text is unclear when it seems the intent is “If you don’t have space or money to support the installation of a full PCU then and if you’ve got no filters in your hood, then put in at least a UL 710 hood to replace the not great one you’ve got.” It’s still not clear if baffle filters in a standard hood sit in the 25-75% reduction range or what technology that might be other than an undersized PCU. But the only other reason to revisit a variance as paragraph c envisions would be a change of ownership of the restaurant (a capital intensive business event that can support PCU installation) or a DOB alteration permit that shows significant other investments in the facility on the scale that would be a associated with PCU installation. So in a sense perhaps this report needs a CPA to demonstrate hardship as much as it needs a PE or RA to show feasibility issues.

  FDNY’s review of PCUs is for fire safety, why is their approval noted as a condition of the rule rather than an informative note? Is FDNY conducting pollution control efficiency tests to certify products as compliant with DEP rule required performance? No it seems DEP is offering that to manufacturers elsewhere in the proposed rule.

  Comment added January 21, 2025 10:56pm

• Megan Rickerson

  If the city is going to mandate that small businesses upgrade or completely get rid of char broilers they need to create tax breaks or programs that provide monetary support to help these businesses with the unexpected cost that they must incur. If the city truly wants to support its small restaurants like it constantly says that it does, then it will help these businesses and not leave them to foot the bill. It is becoming increasingly difficult to run a small bar/ restaurant in the city and this adds one more expense and burden. We are all for bettering the environment but we run the risk of losing legacy businesses if they cannot afford the upgrade.

  Comment added January 26, 2025 6:05pm

• Michael Seilback

  New York City’s new charbroiler emissions rule is a vital step toward cleaner air and healthier communities. By targeting the city’s current largest local source of air pollution, this rule could prevent up to 300 deaths annually while reducing asthma rates, especially in vulnerable neighborhoods including the South Bronx and Northern Manhattan. This rule was developed with input from multiple stakeholders and will help provide healthier air for workers, restaurant patrons, and all New Yorkers. Healthy air is a right for New Yorkers, and this initiative brings us one step closer to that goal. We applaud New York City’s forward movement on this and urge lawmakers to continue the effort to lower emissions and enact this rule.

  Comment added January 28, 2025 5:36pm