Pavement Cleaning BMPs for California Roadway Sweeping

1. Pavement Cleaning BMPs for California Roadway Sweeping Seminar Sponsored by: Co-Sponsored by:

2. Roger C. Sutherland, PE Pacific Water Resources, Inc. (PWR)Gary Minton, PhD, PE Pacific Water Resources, Inc. (PWR) Presented by: Minimizing Stormwater Runoff Pollution through Sweeping Program Maximization

3. AN URBAN MYTH Cleaning Streets IS NOT an Effective BMP W.Q. Benefits of Street Sweeping

4. Nationwide Urban Runoff Program(NURP) 1982 Conclusion “Street sweeping is generally ineffective as a technique for improving the quality of urban runoff.” W.Q. Benefits of Street Sweeping

5. What Has Changed by 2006 Improved Sweepers NPDES Permits TMDL Compliance Public Expectations are Greater “End-of-Pipe” Treatment is Very Expensive W.Q. Benefits of Street Sweeping

6. Accurate pollutant load estimation and the ability to accurately estimate the pollutant load reductions associated with specific BMP applications is critical to the development of successful NPDES and TMDL implementation programs Major Take Away Points

7. Pollutant washoff from streets and parking lots is the greatest single source of urban stormwater pollution Street dirt accumulated on streets and parking lots is the greatest contributor to pollutant washoff from streets and parking lots Newer sweepers are more effective at street dirt pick-up Major Take Away Points

8. Street cleaning improves stormwater quality Pollutant washoff reductions by pavement cleaning are very cost effective Major Take Away Points

9. Pacific Water Resources has the tools and experience needed to accurately estimate pollutant loads and the pollutant reduction benefits of specific pavement cleaning practices Major Take Away Points

10. Sediment Heavy Metals - lead, copper, zinc, etc. Nutrients – phosphorus and nitrogen Oxygen Demand Bacteria and Viruses Other Toxics - TPH, PAH’s, Pesticides, etc. Litter and Trash Studies since the 1960’s show that primary pollutants found in urban stormwater include: Background Information

11. The first comprehensive study of stormwater pollutants listed the primary sources of urban stormwater pollution as: • Debris and contaminants from streets • Contaminants from open land areas • Publicly used chemicals • Air-deposited substances • Ice control chemicals • Dirt and contaminants washed from vehicles APWA 1969 Chicago Study

12. The study indicated that debris and contaminants from streets are the most readily controllable source of urban stormwater pollution • The study also noted that the most significant component of street debris, in terms of producing water pollution through runoff, is the “dirt and dust” fraction of street refuse smaller than 1/8 inch (i.e. street dirt is defined) APWA 1969 Chicago Study

13. 1972 USEPA Study Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants Sampled street dirt from eight different cities throughout the U.S. and concluded the following: • Street dirt is highly contaminated with urban runoff pollutants • Most street dirt was inorganic mineral similar to sand and silt Most of the pollution is associated with the fine sizes of the street dirt Street Dirt Characteristics

14. Fraction of Total Constituent Associated with Each Particle Size Range (% by weight) <43 microns 43 – 246 microns >245 microns Total Solids BOD COD Volatile Solids Phosphates Nitrates Kjeldahl Nitrogen Heavy Metals (all) Pesticides (all) Polychlorinated Biphenyls 6 24 23 26 56 32 19 38 33 57 34 36 45 40 56 43 20 40 8 23 41 49 27 66 51 73 34 1972 USEPA Study Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants Street Dirt Characteristics

15. 1972 USEPA Study Motor vehicles were identified as a major source of street surface contaminants Leakage of fuel, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and coolants Fine particles worn off of tires and clutch and brake linings Particle exhaust emissions Dirt, rust, and decomposing coatings which drop off of fender linings and undercarriages Vehicle components broken by vibration or impact (glass, metals, etc.) Street Dirt Characteristics

16. Over $30 million was spent studying the characteristics and potential control of urban stormwater runoff quality at 28 U.S. cities between 1979 - 1982 USEPA 1982 NURP Study

17. City Sites Bellevue, WA Champaign Urbana, IL Milwaukee, WI Winston-Salem, NC 2 4 2 2 Street cleaning was investigated in the following U.S. cities: USEPA 1982 NURP Study

18. The studies used either a paired basin or serial basin approach with continuous sampling of end-of-pipe urban runoff quality occurring under either swept or unswept conditions The resulting runoff quality data was analyzed statistically, not explicitly. Computer models of that era were not considered to be reliable or accurate USEPA 1982 NURP Study

19. NURP evaluated street cleaning performance as measured by the percent change in the site median Event Mean Concentration (EMC) for each pollutant of interest NURP concluded that street sweeping using equipment of that era was generally ineffective in reducing the concentrations of pollutants commonly found in stormwater USEPA 1982 NURP Study

20. However, the actual data analyses of the five major pollutants (TSS, COD, TP, TKN, and Lead) at each of the 10 sites where street sweeping was investigated showed that under swept conditions EMCs were actually reduced in 60%of the 50 pollutant/site investigations Increases in site median EMCs were reported for 16 out of the 50 pollutant/site investigations, with 9 of those from the two North Carolina sites NURP Study – Actual Data Analyses

21. TKN TP COD TSS Pb % EMC Reduction 100 50 0 (50) (100) MATTIS NILLINOIS CBD N CAROLINA JOHN ST. SILLINOIS RESIDENTIAL N CAROLINA LAKE HILLS WASHINGTON MATTIS SILLINOIS JOHN ST. NILLINOIS SURREY DOWNS WASHINGTON STATE FAIR WISCONSIN RUSTLER WISCONSIN NURP Study – Actual Data Analyses

22. We now know that these EMC increases resulted from the NURP era street sweeper’s inability to pick up significant amounts of the “dirt and dust” fraction of the accumulated street dirt (i.e. less than 1/8 inch) Intense rain storms (which occur more frequently in North Carolina) were then able to efficiently transport the remaining unarmored material which led to higher pollutant concentrations for the swept condition USEPA 1982 NURP Study

23. Why does this matter now? Technology has greatly improved the sediment pick up performance of all types of street cleaners Because of the NURP conclusion, most stormwater people including most consultants and NPDES coordinators believe that street cleaning is ineffective at reducing pollutant loadings in stormwater USEPA 1982 NURP Study

24. Early Street Cleaning Studies (NURP Excluded) US Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, California (1963) San Jose, California (1979) Alameda County, California (1981) Washoe County, Nevada (1982) Ottawa, Ontario (1983) Toronto, Ontario (1986) City of Portland, Oregon (1988, 1990, 1993) Washington County, Oregon (1995) Street Cleaning Studies

25. PWR’s Recent Street Cleaning Studies Port of Seattle, Washington (1998) Livonia, Michigan (2001) Jackson, Michigan (2001) Gresham, Oregon (2003) West Linn, Oregon (2004) Yakima County, Washington (2004) Cross Israel Highway, Israel (2004) Street Cleaning Studies

26. Other Recent/Ongoing Street Cleaning Studies Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (2002) Baltimore, Maryland (2005) Madison, Wisconsin (Ongoing) Seattle, Washington (Ongoing) Street Cleaning Studies

27. Environmental and public health reasons Improves esthetics Reduces pollutant loadings Reduces gross solids and street litter Improves air quality Why Sweep?

28. Phase 1 or 2 NPDES permit TMDL Plan implementation Legal Compliance Why Sweep?

29. Streets are the largest single source of nonpoint pollution under the control of the jurisdiction Likely the cheapest BMP based on $ per pound of pollutant removed Unlike most other BMPs, sweeping can have an immediate impact Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness Why Sweep?

30. Streets and parking lots cover ~20% of the landscape Likely contribute half if not more of the toxic pollutants Structural treatment can cost ~$25 to ~$50 per pound of pollutant removed Sweeping costs $2 to $5 per pound of pollutant removed Is Sweeping Cost-Effective?

31. No one has considered or evaluated the integration of sweeping with structural treatment, whether new or redevelopment With effective sweeping, it is possible to use much smaller structural treatment systems or possibly eliminate the use of structural controls in some situations And to use the monies saved (fee-in-lieu) to support the sweeper program Is Sweeping Cost-Effective?

32. The number 1 reason to sweep is: Sweeping Improves Water Quality Number 1 Reason to Sweep

33. Box-Whisker Plots Cleaning Improves Water Quality

34. Baltimore Street Cleaning Pilot Study Copper concentration declined Cleaned Not Cleaned Cleaning Improves Water Quality

35. Baltimore Street Cleaning Pilot Study Total nitrogen concentration declined Cleaned Not Cleaned Cleaning Improves Water Quality

36. Baltimore Street Cleaning Pilot Study Reduction of higher concentrations for total phosphorus Cleaned Not Cleaned Cleaning Improves Water Quality

37. Comparison of Not Cleaned to Cleaned Pavement 1.2 1.0 0.8 Zinc (mg/L) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Cleaned Not Cleaned Cross Israel Highway (CIH)Stormwater Quality Study Cleaning Improves Water Quality

38. When sweeping to improve water quality: Sediment and associated pollutant pick-up efficiency should be an important aspect of street cleaner selection Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

39. Pick-up efficiency is a function of: Initial accumulation - Magnitude - Particle size distribution (PSD) Street texture and condition Type of sweeper Forward speed of sweeper Interference with parked cars Street surface moisture Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

40. Most Street Cleaning Programs Request Pick-up Performance Demonstrations of Candidates Cleaners However, the test conditions rarely involve realistic day-to-day sweeping conditions. Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

41. Typical Unrealistic Test Conditions Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

42. Pick-up Performance Testing for City of Seattle Spreading a Realistic Amountof Street Dirt Simulant Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

43. Pick-up Performance Testing for City of Seattle Testing the Sweeper Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

44. Pick-up Performance Testing for City of Seattle Testing the Sweeper Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

45. Pick-up Performance Testing for City of Seattle Vacuuming the Remaining Simulant Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

46. Test Results New or Used RemainingMass(gms) Initial Mass(gms) Pick-up Mass(gms) ForwardSpeed (mph) Pick-up % Manufacturer Model Type 9081 2.7 Used 783.8 86.3 124.2 Broom Bear Mechanical 8.7 1.6 1807.3 New 18162 99.5 Elgin Geo Vac Vacuum 1816 1.5 1807.9 New 99.6 8.1 Crosswind Regenerative 96.8 2.7 94.7 Used 1719.2 1816 Patriot Mechanical Mobile New 36.7 871.3 96 1.4 9081 M6000 Mechanical 9081 99.1 8.1 1.4 899.9 New Schwarze Regenerative A8000 1.2 New 892.9 98.3 9081 15.1 Tennant Centurion Mechanical 1816 58.7 2.1 New 96.8 1757.3 435 Regenerative 1.8 New 1816 71.9 1744.1 96.0 Tymco 600 Regenerative Pick-up Performance Testing for City of Seattle • Estimated after the tests. • Entire accumulation was placed in a 2-foot wide area along the simulated curb line. Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

47. Pick-up Performance Testing for City of Seattle Conclusions Test conditions were ideal so the pick-up percentages are too high and not representative of actual field conditions Forward speeds were too slow Older sweepers performed poorly Mechanical sweepers performed as well as regenerative air machines Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

48. Pick-up Performance Testing for City of Seattle Approximately 50 different sweeper models are available for purchase Only 9 have been tested under ideal sweeping conditions Testing of these and most of the other models should be conducted on real street conditions with forward speed held between 4 to 6 miles per hour Street Cleaner Pick-up Performance

49. Type of sweeper used(pick-up performance is most important) Forward speed of the sweeper(4 to 6 miles per hour is recommended) Parked car interference(requires a political will, ordinances and enforcement whose fines can be used to support the cleaning program) Frequency of street cleaning(usually varies by land use or street categories) Street Cleaning Programs Can Control

50. But how does a street cleaning program determine the most cost-effective or best program for reducing stormwater pollutant washoff? For accurate estimates, computer modeling must be used PWR uses a model they developed called SIMPTM Street Cleaning Programs Can Control