clean roads to clean air booklet - change is in the air

8/6/2019 Clean Roads to Clean Air Booklet - Change is in the Air

1/38

CleanRoads ToCleanAir


2/38

Clean Roads to Clean Air

By Dr Christopher Morgan (Toronto Environment Office) and Vesna Stevanovic-

Briatico (Transportation Services), City of Toronto

In Brief

The City of Torontos Clean Roads to Clean Air initiative was conceived as a potentialmeans of cleaning the Citys air of a city-wide and year round health based problem

linked to invisible fine particulate matter1 which is particulate matter less than 10

microns aerodynamic diameter (PM10) which includes particulates less than 2.5 micronsaerodynamic diameter (PM2.5). The Citys recent purchase of new technology

sweepers has been determined in large measure, but not exclusively of regular

operational and economic considerations, by a performance standard that was

incorporated into sweeper purchase requirements to ensure particulate matter was bothremoved from the streets being swept, and was not redistributed into the air Torontonians

breathed. Recently acquired new technology sweeper purchases are being subjected to

city-wide and street specific ambient air quality monitoring to confirm that such newsweepers do indeed clean the air.

In the Beginning

In 2000, the City of Torontos Air Quality Improvement Branch (part of the Toronto

Environment Office) began employing air quality modelling to assess the Citys

temporal and spatial local (ie neighbourhood level) air quality variability2. The air

quality model results revealed that Toronto had an air quality problem with fineparticulate matter which exceeded the ambient standard concentrations both city-wide

and year-round. Limited provincial air quality monitoring data did not support themodelled result but was shown to have been collected too high above ground and too far

from highways. A detailed literature review and scientific analysis revealed that fine

particulate matter (PM10) is seldom found more than 3 meters above ground level unlesssignificantly disturbed by strong winds3. As such monitoring data obtained at greater

1 Fine particulate matter (PM) is sized in microns based on aerodynamic diameter. Normally, we speak

of PM10, PM2.5 or increasingly PM1.0. Higher number sizes include the lower number sizes within them.

As a point of reference, approximately 9,200 PM10 or 150,000 PM2.5 particulates could fit on the head of a

pin (of 1.7 mm diameter), or approximately 285 PM10 or 4,600 PM2.5 particulates could fit on the period (of0.3 mm diameter) at the end of this sentence.2 The Province of Ontario monitors air quality at four stations within Toronto. These stations provide

general or average conditions but the AQIB was tasked to determine the local temporal and spatial

variability and significance of air quality across the City. To which end, a Toronto specific version of

CALPUFF was employed to model current air quality and air quality improvements achieved under various

scenarios.3 Watson J. & Chow J (Ed) 2000 Reconciling Urban Fugitive Dust Emissions Inventory and Ambient

Source Contribution Estimates: Summary of Current Knowledge and Needed Research. Desert Research

Institute, DRI Document No. 6110-4F, May 2000 reveals 80% of PM is found within 2m of ground level.


3/38

heights may not adequately portray the concentrations experienced by people who walk,cycle, drive or reside at ground levels. Air quality modeling as undertaken by the City of

Toronto depicts the concentrations of ambient criteria air contaminants at the height air is

breathed by people rather than the heights that are used to collect data to be correlatedwith epidemiological data to assess health impacts. On-street air quality monitoring

subsequently confirmed the Citys air quality model results.

The bottom line here is that concentrations of fine particulate matter in excess of the

health based standards are exceeded at nose-level across the whole of the City on a

year round basis. It is also very unlikely that the City of Toronto is any different in this

than every other similar sized City in North America. The invisible contaminant offine particulate matter has indeed also been a hidden issue in that solutions to the issue

were not readily understood or available until recently.

So what is fine particulate matter?

Particulate matter implies no chemistry within its description; it is defined simply by itsphysical characteristic. Obviously each particle has a chemistry and often smaller

particles, or chemicals, bond to the surfaces of such particles. And the chemistry of such

particles does impact humans when breathed-in and eventually breathed-out (as with

inhalable PM10) or breathed-in and stays-in (as with respirable PM2.5 which enters theblood system through the lung wall). But the bio-chemical impacts are simplified and

related only to the surrogate of the size of the fine particulate matter.

Why is it important?

The most significant human health consequences of fine particulates are associated with

cardio-vascular and pulmonary impacts. Though the respiratory impacts, such as asthma

and chronic bronchitis, have, until recently, been thought the more significant it hasnow become recognized that the heart and arterial disease related cardio-vascular impacts

are the more significant.

And where does it come from?

Globally, fine particulate matter comes from a variety of natural and artificial sources.

But in an urban environment, such as Torontos, the sources of the coarser fineparticles (PM10) are largely from fugitive road dust and construction track-out; and the

finer fine particles (PM2.5), which are also a subset of PM10, are largely the nitrates and

sulphates created in the combustion of gasoline and natural gas as come from tail-pipesand furnace flues. Fugitive road dust is the by-product of the wearing down of road

surfaces and vehicle tires as well as particles from brake wear and vehicle tailpipe

emissions and is considered to be the most significant source of PM10 and PM2.5 inToronto.

If such fugitive road dust is not removed by sweeping or removed by rain events (orflushing) it remains on the surface to be re-entrained and re-contaminate the air and re-


4/38

deposited only to be re-entrained every time a vehicles tires passes over it. The greaterthe traffic volume and speed the greater the amount that is re-entrained to be constantly

present in the air. The roads with heavy and swiftly moving traffic see the most

particulates re-entrained to create the highest ambient air concentrations that impactmotorists, cyclists, pedestrians and the occupiers of all adjacent lands.

Rule 1186: Appendix A

Air quality modelling had provided Toronto staff with a belated recognition of the

magnitude of the problem in Toronto, but it was readily apparent that Toronto, as with all

municipalities, being responsible for the sweeping of streets, could do something aboutit. Attempting to discover how well other municipalities handled the removal of fine

particulate road dust led us to Rule 1186.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) of the California Air

Resource Board (CARB) Test Protocol of September 1999, was developed and finally

approved with help from manufacturers, to test and to certify street sweepers ascompliant if they met a standard evaluation criteria4. This has become known as being

PM10 compliant or Rule 1186 compliant.

Toronto staff were initially encouraged to learn that PM10 compliant sweepers could bepurchased that could remove PM10 from city streets. The inherently implied 80% of

material removed was also considered very helpful. But subsequently, after analysing the

significance of the Rule 1186 procedures, Toronto staff were concerned that the Rule wasnot readily applicable to the climate and situation, and the operational preferences, found

in Toronto.

The following were the major points of issue for Toronto: a) the concept of paying for

more expensive sweeper technologies that achieved PM10 compliance by picking-up 80%of a mixture of sand and paint filler (97% sand and 3% paint filler respectively) which

could permit a sweeper to be PM10 compliant without having picked-up any PM10 was

unacceptable; b) reliance on the need to apply water for dust suppression is notappropriate in Toronto which consistently has two months with average temperatures

below freezing (ie January and February), and as many as 10 months of the year with

some below freezing minimum temperatures, (and further that compliance could be

achieved without any restriction as to the amount of water that could be applied duringthe test); and c) road sweeping in Toronto, other than in the few remaining industrial

areas, occurs on streets with curbs and the Citys operational experience discourages any

use or reliance of gutter booms with shrouds for dust suppression.

Essentially, the City was unwilling to pay a premium for PM10 compliant machines that

could only be compliant in the warmer months of the year, or that might be deemedcompliant if they only picked-up sand (ie if the machines did not actually remove PM10from road surfaces). But the City did want to obtain sweepers that could demonstrably

remove PM10 from roads and from the air.

4 Rule 1186; Appendix A can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R1186a.HTM


5/38

The Citys Protocol

The City developed a testing protocol to evaluate the ability of sweepers a) to actuallyremove fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) from roads surfaces and b) to do so

without polluting adjacent properties and their occupants or other road users either at thetime of sweeping or subsequently.

A test facility was established in a large storage barn (see Figure 1) at Disco Road Yard,

Toronto. A known and large amount5 of 100% paint filler with a median size of 3

microns was spread evenly by consistent hands (see Figure 2) in two thin 50 m teststrips. After a sweeper had swept the test track the remaining residue of paint filler on

the track, and the amount blown on to the adjacent sidewalk and warm up track areas,

was vacuumed by hand and the material collected was weighed. All sub-areas werevacuumed and weighed separately.

The concentration of PM10 and PM2.5 in the air was monitored at all times prior andfollowing each sweeper test (eventually using 8 monitors to gauge longitudinal and

vertical variation) and provided area-under-the-curve values to indicate how much

material was blown into the air. Coupled with the weights of material vacuumed from

beside the test strips a very good comparative picture emerged of the ability of individualsweepers to leave the air clean!

The Toronto Sweeper Testing Protocol was itself test driven (and refined) using severalof the Citys ageing mechanical sweepers and various new technology machines as were

supplied voluntarily by several manufacturers.

Related Testing

In addition to the testing protocol respecting fine particulate matter, an operational

performance evaluation of the street sweepers was also undertaken. Torontos on-street-

sweeping evaluation tested a sweepers efficiency in satisfying several key operationalrelated requirements, including: its maneuverability, its wet condition sweeping

capability, its dustless mode capability, its ability to pick-up of leaves, and to pick-up

large and heavy debris. Further evaluations were undertaken respecting operator

ergonomics, routine maintenance operations and part replacement deliveries.

Fine particulate matter that is flushed into storm drains or is washed into them during

natural rain storm events also pollutes water bodies. The City of Torontos TorontoWater division and Transportation Services division collaborated with the National Water

5 The large amount of material (275 kg) was used in order to provide a sufficiently significant amount of

material to be removed in a sweepers hopper that could be measured as a removed amount when

sweeper weights immediately before and after each test were compared. Subsequently, this weigh a

sweeper based process was dropped from the protocol in favour of alternate measures that had proven more

accurate and reliable. But the large amount of paint filler was retained as we had already successfully

developed many other measurements and practices based on the large amount. It would be possible to

change to a smaller amount in future.


6/38

Research Institute of Environment Canada on a collaborative multi-year study to evaluatethe effectiveness with which the various types of street sweeper technologies can capture

PM10 and PM2.5 particles and keep them out of the storm water runoff.

Comparing Old and New Sweepers

In order to demonstrate that new technology sweepers should be able to clean the air aswell as clean the roads, an application of LIDAR6 was developed to enable us to see the

otherwise invisible particulates. The technique was used first to see particulates in the

air above roads and to help see the extent to which cars and other traffic disturbed

particulates into the air. We also adapted the original concept to examine the extent towhich different sweeper technologies blew particulates into the air.

A procedure was developed using a closed urban road where: first, a car passed throughthe Lidar beam, and after a 20 minute settling period, a sweeper swept its way through

the beam, and after a further settling, the same car passed though the beam once again ad

at the same speed. Several results obtained in this way can be seen in Figure 3 whichshows a comparison between a mechanical sweeper (the type that performed best in the

Citys protocol testing at Disco Road Yard), and a regenerative air sweeper.

Old mechanical sweepers were seen, by their very nature to blow more particulates intothe air than was acceptable. Closed system dustless regenerative air sweepers were

seen as a very major step forward7 for Toronto, one that cleaned the roads and cleaned

the air to the Citys new performance standards.

The City sees many diverse benefits in operating dustless regenerative-air streetsweepers, including: a significant reduction of airborne fine particulate matter at the level

people breathe which will benefit the general health of the Citys residents, workers and

visitors; an improvement in storm water run-off quality and a reduced municipal cost oftreating it; reduced sweeper maintenance costs; reduced sweeper downtime for

unscheduled repairs; reduced amounts of locally added smog contaminants and reduced

locally experienced smog impacts, (which will potentially and appropriately alsopermit dustless sweeping to continue during smog days); and allows an improved level of

street sweeping service to be provided across the City of Toronto and provided year-

round.

Purchasing Sweepers

As part of the City of Torontos procurement process of new sweepers, staff incorporatedthe above testing and evaluation as part of its Request for Proposal process; this was in

addition to the typical mandatory operational specification requirements. The testing and

6LIDAR or LIght Detection And Ranging is similar to radar but uses monochromatic light frequencies

rather than radio waves. The frequency of the lazer was set to 1 micron with a fall-off that covered the

range between 10.0 micron and 0.1 microns perfectly.7 Lidar based evaluation was also undertaken of various operational configurations such as sweeping with

and without water.


7/38

extensive evaluation resulted in the selection of a dustless regenerative-air streetsweeper, which met the Citys fine particulate removal criteria, as well as its operational

and maintenance requirements. The City has purchased 25 such dustless regenerative

air sweepers and hopes to purchase as many more again in future in support of CityCouncils newly and unanimously endorsed, combined air quality and climate change

related policy.

Next Steps

The Clean Roads to Clean Air initiative defined a process that made it possible to

obtain quantitative results of a street sweepers ability to not pollute the air and to cleanthe streets at the same time. The initiative provided the justification for the City to

proceed with the acquisition of 25 dustless regenerative-air street sweepers that can

operate satisfactorily year-round. The testing protocols and criteria that were developedwill provide the bases on which to objectively evaluate the environmental and operational

performance of street sweepers as a part of future purchases. The evaluation process has

provided a framework for the continuous development of new operational practices andprocedures, ensuring that the Citys street sweepingservice is delivered in a safe,

environmentally sustainable, efficient and effective manner. This will be the standard by

which we evaluate all our future sweeper purchases.

In order to advance this standard with both the industry and the government agencies,

Toronto has been working with Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Canada

and Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) to evaluate, adopt and makeavailable the above testing protocols to the industry. ETV is an environmental

technology verification agency and delivers the Canadian ETV Program under licencefrom Environment Canada, while the PAMI is an independent testing agency with

experience and credentials in street sweeping testing. ETV and PAMI were contracted by

the City of Toronto to review the Citys testing protocols a well as to witness the testing.They concluded that the Protocols were fair, comprehensive in their process and properly

executed and resulted in a thorough evaluation of the street sweeper tested. A number of

municipalities in Canada have already expressed interest in, and have indicated supportfor, adopting the Toronto testing protocol and criteria as a new municipal standard for

street sweepers.

Building on the success to date, the next phase of the initiative will be to further developand incorporate best practice methods in the following four areas: an Occupational

Health and Safety appropriate procedural review for the handling of swept materials and

the cleaning of the sweepers; the temporary storage of street sweeping material or debrisand its subsequent disposal; and the quantitative monitoring of the concentration of fine

particulate matter in ambient air above City streets - this to confirm declining levels of

PM10 and PM2.5 in ambient air over time, but also to ensure proper operational proceduresare being followed.

Conclusions


8/38

Addressing environmental concerns, incorporating objective equipment performanceevaluation, and introducing best practice methods in the delivery of future street

sweeping will result in improved air quality and improved human health in the

community, as well as improving storm water run-off quality all while deliveringstandard road cleaning in a cost effective manner, year round.

Word Count = 2591


9/38

Figure 1: Disco Road Yard Sweeper Testing Facility


10/38

Figure 2 Consistent Hands Spreading Test Material At Disco Road Yard

Spreading Test Materials


11/38

Figure 3: Comparative Testing Using Lidar To See The Invisible.

1 2

A

B

C

Regenerative-Air Street Sweeper(Dry Mode)

Mechanical Street Sweeper(Dry Mode)

Pre-Sweep

(CarPassing)

S

weeping

(SweeperPassing)

Post-Sweep

(CarPassing)


12/38

Figure 4: A City of Toronto Dustless Regenerative Air Sweeper On Display


13/38


14/38


15/38


16/38


17/38


18/38


19/38


20/38


21/38


22/38


23/38


24/38


25/38


26/38


27/38


28/38


29/38


30/38


31/38


32/38


33/38


34/38


35/38


36/38


37/38

MODEL 600 CABOVER TRUCK

9/07

200 8 GM/CHEVROLET CT750 0 " T"

SERIES

SPECIFICATIONS

33,000 LB. GVW

(w/Fontaine Dual Steering)2007 EMISSION CERTIFIED

Isuzu 7.8L I6 Diesel Engine - 215 HP @ 2200 RPM, 560 lb-ft torque @ 1450

165" Wheelbase; 134 CA with TYMCO Special Frame DrillingAllison 2500RDS 6-Speed Automatic Transmission w/transmission oil cooler in radiatorTransynd Synthetic Transmission Fluid12,000 lb. Front Axle21,000 lb. Rear Axle, Single Speed (6.17 Ratio)12,000 lb. Front Suspension with Stabilizer Bar21,000 lb. Rear Air SuspensionRear Shock Absorbers & Dust Shields80,000 PSI Frame, 12.69 SMVertical Exhaust Left Side Vertical/Vertical Installed by MonroeIntegral Power Assisted Steering w/18.9" Steering Wheel and Cruise ControlAir Brakes w/12.9 CFM Air Compressor

Bendix AD-IS Air Dryer with automatic moisture ejector with manual drainFuel/Water Separator, Heated, frame mounted spin-on typeSingle Electric HornAdjustable, Individual High Back Air Seats Driver. (Passenger seat added at Fontaine)12 Volt Heavy Duty Batteries - (2) 1500 CCA Maintenance FreeAlternator - 100 AmpAM/FM Stereo Radio with CD Player with clock and seek-scan(6) 11R x 22.5 Tubeless Tires - Duals in Rear 14 PR(6) 10 Hole Disc Wheels - 22.5 x 8.25Tinted GlassDome LightCigarette Lighter with 12 volt power supply post styleMirrors - Western type with Stainless Steel Heads and Spot MirrorsWindshield Wipers, 2 speed and adjustable intermittent wipers w/wet arm washerGauges: Fuel, Volt, Temperature, Oil pressure, Speedometer, Odometer/trip odometer/hourmeter, tachometerFront and Rear Slack Adjusters - MeritorRight side 50 Gal. Fuel Tank (NK8)Air ConditioningTow HooksColor: White

MUST have dual steering installed prior to delivery to TYMCO International, LTD.


38/38

UXILIARY ENGINE: ohn Deere turbochargeddiesel 4045T; 4 cyl.; 4.5 L (276 CID);99 HP @ 2500 RPM; Torque 274 ft. lb.

1400 RPM; 4 cycle; 4.19" bore; 5.00"stroke.

BRASION PROTECTION PACKAGE: Standardhopper screen; protective hopper walliners; suction nozzle liner; pressure wear

pads; heavy duty pressure hose.MBER HIGH POWERED STROBELIGHT:2,300,000 plus candle power with

minimum input of 23 Joules; 60 flashesper minute; with protective limb guard.UTOMATIC SHUTDOWN SYSTEM: Automatic

engine shutdown when engine coolanttemperature is too high, coolant level tooow, or oil pressure is too low.

UXILIARY HYDRAULIC SYSTEM: Electricallyoperates hydraulic system withoutuxiliary engine.

ROOM ASSIST PICK-UP HEAD (DST-6 ) with DUOSKIDS and removable front curtain set

LOWER, Rubber L ned: Aluminum alloy, highvolume open face turbine; Stainless Steel

blower housing with bolt in wear resistantreplaceable liner.

UAL STEERING: Right and left hand steeringwheels with center mounted truckgnition; headlights, dimmer switch,

windshield wipers; integral power.UMP SWITCH IN CAB: Additional dumpswitch on control panel to activate dumpoperation from inside cab.

UST CONTROL with HI/LOW PRESSUREWASHDOWN SYSTEM and HIGH OUTPUTWATER SYSTEM: 220 gallon capacity

polyethylene water tank(s); belt driventriplex piston pump delivering minimumof 3.5 gpm; low water warning light;external water level indicator; gutter

broom(s) and inside hopper nozzles. Self-contained water supply, a spray gun withtrigger control and two interchangeableance lengths of 48" and 36". Additional

nozzles and deflectors strategically located

to control extreme dust.(Additional water capacity NOT available)

USTLESS FILTRATION SYSTEM: An externalmounted modular filtration systemconstructed of 10 and 12 gauge steel shall

be provided to clean all exhausted air.The filter module shall have a minimum14ft3 dust retention hopper and four (4)filters with a filtration efficiency ratingf 99 999% 0 5 i ti l

pplications and may be cleaned withlow-pressure water rinse. In the dry

sweeping mode the filtration systemshall not be affected when encounteringntermittent wet conditions such as rain

puddles, lawn sprinkler standing wateror moisture from melting snow andce. All controls for efficient sweepingpplications shall be automatic andrequire no operator adjustments. Filtercleaning shall be accomplished withntermittent air pulse provided by a belt

driven, liquid cooled engine lubricated aircompressor having a minimum 13.2 CFM

1200 RPM. A shop air connection shallbe provided for filtercleaning without useof sweeper power unit. Includes dust boxdeluge washout system.

HIGH CAPACITY DUST SEPARATORHOPPER: elded steel plate construction

with integral stiffeners; Capacity 7.3 cubicyards volumetric, 6 cubic yards useable;dump door opening 84" x 44", dumpingmethod hydraulic with raker bar.

HOPPER DELUGE SYSTEM High volumesystem attaches to fire hydrant to flushhopper.

HOPPER DRAIN SYSTEM: Allows sweeper tooperate in wet conditions by draining

water picked up.HOPPER LOAD INDICATORS: Frame mountedsensor with audio and visual indicators incab that signal full load.

HOPPER SUCTION PARTITIONHYDRAULIC TANK SIGHT/TEMPERATURE GAUGE

External; mounted on tank.INSTRUMENTS IN CAB: Oil pressure/coolant

temperature gauges; starter; ignition;tachometer; auxiliary engine hour meter;throttle. Paddle switches have illuminatedegend windows for easier night operation.

LINEAR ACTUATOR THROTTLEREAR FLOODLIGHTS (2)REAR MOUNTED ALTERNATING/FLASHING

LIGHTS (2)

REVERSE PICK-UP HEAD SYSTEMSEVERE WEATHER WIRINGSUCTION INLET LINERTWIN GUTTER BROOMS, FLOODLIGHTS,

PARABOLIC MIRRORS with TILT ADJUSTERS:Left and right side mounted 43" diameterwire filled digger type with in cab controlto allow operator to manipulate pitchof vertical diggers to compensate forh i b li dj t bl fl dli ht

WATER FILL HOSE & RACK: lexible 20 foolong water tank fill hose with 2-1/2 inchhydrant coupling with rack mount.System incorporates air gap.ST-6

Dustless Sweeping TechnologyMODEL

DST-6 Mounted on

Chevrolet T- Series Chass

clean roads to clean air booklet - change is in the air

Documents