urban toxic contaminants: removal by urban stormwater...

Urban Toxic Contaminants: Removal by Urban Stormwater BMPs

Welcome to the Webcast

To Ask a Question Submit your question in the chat box located to the left of the

slides. We will answer as many as possible during Q&A.

To Answer a Poll Question Simply select the preferred option. For those viewing this session

alongside several colleagues, respond in a manner that represents your organization as a whole.

We ARE Recording this Session All comments and questions will be recorded and included in the

archives. We will notify you as soon as the recording and related resources are loaded on the web.

We Appreciate Your Feedback Fill out our evaluations – our funders need to hear it!

To learn how you can have access to: FREE Webcasts

Free 1-day design, inspection & maintenance workshops

Intensive master stormwater seminarsDirect On-site technical assistance

Self guided web-based learning modules

Visit: www.chesapeakestormwater.net

Chesapeake Bay Stormwater Training Partnership

Upcoming Webcasts

http://chesapeakestormwater.net/events/categories/webcasts/2016-webcast-series/

• Mar. 10: Managing Pollutants from Developing Lands

• April 14: Algal Flow-way Technologies

Poll Question #1

How many people are watching this webcast with you?

Just me

2-5 people

6-10 people

> 10 people

Poll Question #2

What is your background ?

Local government

Private sector

Regulatory agency

Non-profit

Other…tell us in the chat box

Poll Question #3

How would you rate your knowledge about urban toxic contaminants (1 to 5)

• 1 Beginner

• 2

• 3

• 4

• 5 Expert

Speaker Info

Tom Schueler, Executive Director

watershedguy@hotmail.com

Cecilia Lane, Stormwater Coordinator

watershedgal@hotmail.com

Today’s Agenda

1. Introduction

2. Definition of Urban Toxic Contaminants

3. The Dirty Dozen UTCs in Urban Watersheds

4. Effectiveness of Urban BMPs in Removing Them

5. Risk that UTCs Accumulate in BMP Sediments

6. Watershed Strategies for Reducing Toxics

7. Recommended Approach for Toxic TMDLs

8. Discussion and Resources

Why Worry About Toxics?

The N and P we deal with most often are not particularly cuddly, scary or photogenic

Toxins exert a real impact on both human health and harm aquatic life, fish and wildlife

The public is justifiably concerned about the presence of toxins in the environment

Most of the TMDLs in the country are for toxins

Rationale for industrial stormwater permits

Implications for long term maintenance for stormwater practices

Toxics and TMDLs in the US

Rank Pollutant # of TMDLs in US

1 Mercury 21,545

2 Pathogens 13,016

3 Metals (excluding Hg) 9,828

4 Nutrients 6,034

5 Sediment 3,922

11 Pesticides 1,233

13 PCBs 698

17 PAH and Toxic Organics 158Source: EPA OWOW Website, Accessed July 2015

Project Background

One year research synthesis project that evaluated 35 group of toxins generated by the ag, urban wastewater sectors

Goal: Investigate toxic reduction benefits associated with Bay BMP implementation for the TMDL, and give managers better data for local TMDLs to control toxic pollutants in the watershed

Scope: More than 400 papers reviewed

2. Criteria to Define Urban Toxic Contaminants

1. The toxin is primarily associated with urban land use, compared to other sectors in the watershed.

2. The toxin is either generated within the urban sector or is deposited from the atmosphere onto impervious surfaces and subsequently washed off.

3. Urban stormwater runoff is the predominant pathway for transporting it thru the watershed.

4. The toxin has "sediment-like characteristics" and can be removed by settling or filtering practices.

5. The toxin is generated or produced in an upland landscape position in the watershed where it can be effectively treated by an urban BMP that captures surface runoff.

6. Physical evidence exists that the toxin is captured and/or retained within an urban stormwater BMP.

3. The Dirty Dozen UTCs

PCBs

PAH

TPH

Mercury

UTM (Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn)

OTM (As, Cr, Fe, Ni)

Pyrethroid Pesticides

Legacy OC Pesticides

Legacy OP Pesticides

Plasticizers (Phthalates)

Flame Retardants (PBDE)

Dioxins

Urban Toxic Contaminants

Toxin Category

1. urban land use?

2. urban sources ?

3. stormwaterpathway ?

4. Sediment characteristics

5. Upland Position ?

6. Urban BMPRetention?

PCBs Y Y Y Y Y y

PAH Y Y Y Y Y Y

TPH Y Y Y Y y Y

Mercury Y Y Y Y Y y

UTM Y Y Y Y Y Y

OTM Y Y Y Y y y

UTM: Urban Trace Metals (Cd, Cu. Pb and Zn)OTM: Other Trace Metals (As, Cr, Fe and Ni)

Y = Yes, based on strong evidencey = Yes, supported by limited monitoring dataND = no data available to assess

Urban Toxic Contaminants (continued)

Toxin Category

1. urban land use?

2. urban sources ?

3. stormwater pathway ?

4. Sediment characteristics

5. Upland Position ?

6. Urban BMPRetention?

PP Y Y Y Y y y

OCP Y Y Y Y y y

OPP Y Y Y Y y ND

Plasticizer Y Y y Y y y

PBDE y Y y Y y y

Dioxins Y Y y Y ND ND

PP: Pyrethroid Pesticides, OCP: Organochlorinepesticides, OPP organophosphate pesticides.PBDE: Polybrominated diphenyl ethers

Y = Yes, based on strong evidencey = Yes, supported by limited monitoring dataND = no data available to assess

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

•Still detected in fish and wildlife tissues four decades after they were banned (although levels are gradually declining)

•PCBs moving through urban watershed as contaminated sediments are mobilized, deposited and re-suspended

•Older commercial and industrial watersheds are primary focus

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Useful data on sources, generating sectors, and pathways

More limited data to establish levels in runoff and/or sediment and BMP removal rates

Most data collected outside of Chesapeake Bay

Meets UTC criteria and behaves like sediment

Should be removed along with sediment in urban BMPs

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

Highest contributor to overall toxicity in urban creeks

Unique urban sources: coal tar sealants and vehicle emissions

First flush pollutant, behaves like sediment

BMP studies show high removal rates (80 to 90%)

Strong concern about PAH accumulation in pond sediments and possible toxicity

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

Term for the oil, grease, gasoline and other hydrocarbons found in urban runoff (i.e., the oil sheen)

No numerical standards for TPH

TPH meets all 6 UTC criteria

Limited monitoring shows very high removal rates in most stormwater BMPs.

Microbes in bioretention media are especially effective in rapidly breaking down TPH

Mercury (Hg)

Hg is a global pollutant and is deposited from the atmosphere across all Bay land uses (including open water)

Hg accumulates in fish, birds of prey, and fish-eating mammals and humans

Hg is leading cause of water quality impairment in the Bay watershed and across the nation

Urban areas are a key source when Hg is deposited and washed off impervious surfaces or contaminated soils are eroded

Acts like a UTC. Limited monitoring data show high Hg removal by

stormwater BMPs

Hg Biomagnification

Mercury Methylation

Methylation is the process whereby Hg rapidly accumulates in fish tissue and becomes magnified up the food chain

The process is enhanced in anoxic and organic rich sediments of natural wetlands, estuarine sediments

Hg is the least treatable UTC due to methylation and air deposition over open waters

Limited data show that constructed wetlands also enhance methylation

Hg bioacccumulation in eagles and osprey is trending down in the Chesapeake Bay

Urban Trace Metals (UTMs)

Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn are detected in nearly 100% of urban stormwater samples, and soluble levels of these metals exceed aquatic life standards

Abundant research on EMC and BMP removal for all four metals

Unique urban sources: roofing materials, brake pads, tire wear, vehicle emissions and air deposition

Despite solubility, monitoring data generally show high to very high UTM removal by BMPs (especially bioretention).

Comparison of Urban Trace Metals

Factor Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc

Runoff EMC (ug/l) 1 16 17 115

Solubility (%) 45% 60% 10% 50%

Acute Toxicity (%) 50% 50% 18% 45%

Sediment Level (ug/g)

0.2 to 0.5 40-150 20-200 200-500

Removal Rates (%)

40 to 70% 40 to 60 50 to 90 55 to 75

Sediment Risk Low Mod. Low Mod.

Other Trace Metals (OTM)

Include Arsenic, Chromium, Iron and Nickel

For these metals, the potential risks are for drinking water contamination

Violations of water quality standards are quite rare, but operators must closely monitor them during storms

The source of OTMs are corrosion of urban landscape surfaces often by acid rain

Most urban BMPs appears to have a moderate to very high removal rate

Comparison of Other Trace Metals

Factor Arsenic Chromium Iron Nickel

Runoff EMC (ug/l)

3 7 700 3 - 8

Solubility (%) 48 35 15 45

Sediment Level (ug/g)

4 42 ND 37

Removal Rates (%)

15 to 30 35 to 65 50 to 80 40 to 60

Sediment Risk ? Moderate Moderate Moderate

Sources of Other Trace Metals in the Urban Landscape

Metal Urban SourcesArsenic Wood preservatives, pesticide formulations,

paints, dyes, semi-conductors and incinerator fly ash

Chromium Stainless steel, chrome-plating, paint and some wood preservatives

Iron Rust and corrosion of pipes, metal roofs and other iron surfaces

Nickel Automotive batteries, household and industrial appliances, fabricated metals, fuel and lubricating oil

Source: Gilbreath et al (2012) and other sources

Comparative Ability of Stormwater BMPs to Remove Selected Trace Metals

StormwaterBMP

Other Trace MetalsArsenic Chromium Iron Nickel

Bioretention -- H L LWet Pond M H H HWetland -- -- HSand Filter L M H MPermeable Pavers -- L -- HInfiltration -- H -- --Grass Channel M M L HGrass Filter L M L MDry Pond L M -- L

VH: Very High Removal (76% to 100%)H: High Removal (50% to 75%)

M: Moderate Removal (26% to 50%)L: Low Removal (0% to 25%)

Sources: Leisenring (2014) and Winer (2000)

Trends in Insecticides

The insecticides applied to crops and urban areas have changed over time, and are now less persistent in the environment and do not bioaccumulate in tissues.

However, they are still mobile in the environment and are deadly to aquatic invertebrates at the part per trillion level

Evolution in Insecticides Over Time

Era Insecticide Types Notes1940to1970

Organochlorines (OC)

DDT Banned in the 1970sDDD/DDE DDT degradation productsDieldrin Banned in 1985

1960to2000

Organophosphate (OP)

Chlordane Banned in 1978Chlorpyrifos Restricted in 2002Diazinon RestrictedDichlorvos Increased use after 2002

2000 topresent

Pyrethroids Bifenthrin Replacements for OCP and OPP

Permethrin Less toxic than bifenthrin2005topresent

Fipronil Fipronil Most aquatic life toxicity in recent surveys

Neonictinoids Imdiacloprid Emerging concerns about aquatic toxicity

Pyrethroid Pesticides

Pyrethroid pesticides include bifenthrin, permethrinand others

New class of insecticides introduced in the last decade

Non-persistent in the environment and unlikely to bio-accumulate in vertebrates

Extremely lethal to aquatic invertebrates in urban streams, even at part per trillion level

Routinely detected in urban creek sediments

Pyrethroid Pesticides

Meet criteria to qualify as an UTC, although some data gaps remain

Strong affinity for sediment and organic matter

BMP removal rates should be comparable to suspended sediment

More research needed on persistence and toxicity in BMP sediments.

Legacy Organochlorine Pesticides

Organochlorine (OC) pesticides include DDT, DDE and dieldrin that were banned decades ago but still persist in the environment. Classified as a UTC, but were also used on crops and for mosquito control.

Soils contaminated by OC pesticides more mobile in urban watersheds. Likely present in older pond sediments

Sharply declining trends in OC pesticide levels in urban runoff and creek sediments -- reduced bioaccumulation in fish, eagles and marine mammals.

Continued tracking of OC pesticides may be warranted for another decade or two.

Legacy Organophosphate Pesticides

Organophosphate (OP) pesticides include chlorpyrifos, diazinon and dichlorovos and were introduced 15 to 20 years ago to replace OC pesticides.

Relatively non-persistent but still very highly toxic to aquatic life in urban streams, most were banned by the turn of the century

Found in urban watersheds, are highly mobile, are carried by urban stormwater runoff and generally behave like a sediment particle.

No data on BMP removal or persistence in BMP sediment

Sharp declines in stormwater runoff and urban creek sediments since they were banned

Less persistent pesticides can be eliminated from the environment due to short watershed lag times.

Emerging Toxins of Concern

Flame retardants (PBDE)

Plasticizers (pthalates)

Dioxins

Very limited monitoring data available -- most of which was collected in Europe or west coast

Municipal wastewater and biosolids may also be very significant sources of these emerging toxins of concerns

Plasticizers (pthalates)

Plasticizers are emitted from flexible PVC products, coatings and sealants

Pthalates suspected of being endocrine disruptors but no human health standards yet issued

Widely detected in urban rain, surface water, stormwater runoff and urban sediments at low levels

Also detected in wastewater

Only one study looked at pthalate removal in BMPs and indicated high removal rates

Flame Retardants (PBDE)

PBDE used in many house hold and electronic items

Compounds are very persistent, lipophilic and hydrophobic

Bio-accumulate in tissues of fish and marine mammals….emerging concern for osprey in urban watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay

Detected in urban stormwater in San Francisco Bay at 50 ng/l level

Limited European monitoring (3 Studies) suggests BMPs are effective in removing PBDE

Dioxins

Legacy industrial discharges, but also detected in urban watersheds at ng/l levels

Environmental risks of dioxins are poorly understood

Unintended consequence of fuel combustion and incineration (even fireworks)

Primary sources are air deposition onto impervious surfaces and erosion of older contaminated soils

No monitoring data to establish BMP removal rates or persistence in BP sediments.

UTCs and Watershed Lag Times

Environmental benefits of reducing toxins may not be fully realized for several decades

Long lag time between when they are first deposited on watershed surfaces or soils and cycle through the stream network to ultimately reach the Chesapeake Bay.

Researchers suggest long lag times for the following UTCs:

PCBs

PAH

Mercury

UTMs

DDT and Chlordane

Questions and Answers

4. Capability of Stormwater BMPs to Remove UTCs

Urban BMPs are Very Effective at Removing UTCs

Most UTCs have sediment-like properties, so they are effectively trapped by most urban BMPs before they get to local waterways and the Bay.

UTC Treatability

Review of Sediment Removal Rates

Summary of Trace Metal Removal Rates

Suspended sediment and UTCs

Share many characteristics

UTCs bind, adsorb or otherwise attach to sediment particles

UTCs are hydrophobic, have very limited solubility and often have a strong affinity for organic matter.

Both are also relatively inert, persistent, and not very bio-degradable.

Both are often associated with fine and medium-grained particles that are easily entrained in stormwater runoff.

Both are subject to high removal rates simply through gravitational settling in the water column and/or filtering through sand, soils, media or vegetation.

BMP Treatability for Urban Toxic Contaminants

ToxinCategory

BMP RemovalRate?

Measured or Estimated?

Behaves likeSediment?

BMPRetention?

SedimentToxicity Concern?

PCBs TSS E Y Y Mod

PAH > TSS E Y Y High

TPH > TSS M Y Y Low

Mercury > TSS E Y Y Mod

UTM < TSS M Y Y Mod

OTM < TSS M Y Y Mod

BMP Treatability for Urban Toxic Contaminantscontinued

ToxinCategory

BMP Removal

Rate?

Measured or Estimated?

Behaves likeSediment?

BMPRetention?

Sediment

Toxicity Concern?

PP TSS E Y y High

OCP > TSS E Y y Low

OPP < TSS E Y ? Low

Plasticizers < TSS E Y Y ?

PBDE < TSS E Y Y ?

Dioxins < TSS E Y ? ?

Comparative Ability of Stormwater BMPs to Remove Urban Trace Metals

Stormwater BMP Urban Trace MetalsCadmium Copper Lead Zinc

Bioretention H VH VH VHWet Pond M H H HWetland M H M MSand Filter H M VH HPermeable Pavement L M VH VHDry Swale L H -- VHGrass Channel M L L MGrass Filter L M L MDry Pond L L M MVH: Very High Removal (76% to 100%) H: High Removal (50% to 75%)M: Moderate Removal (26% to 50%) L: Low Removal (0% to 25%)

Summary of Trace Metal Removal by Bioretention

Trace Metal

Research Studies (N)

Removal Rate (%)

Cadmium 2 66-90

Copper 10 43-98

Lead 12 75-98

Zinc 11 62-99

Source: LeFevre et al (2014)

Comparative Removal by ST and RR Practices

LID practices are effective in filtering UTCs where they are trapped in the media and tightly bound to particles. Microbes in the aerobic media are effective at biodegrading many UTCs . While there is some tisk of of media breakout , frequent media removal should minimize this risk

Ponds are effective environments to settle out UTCs. They tend to accumulate in bottom sediments. Anoxic conditions make it hard to degrade the compounds, so they can persist and even accumulate over time

Classification of BMPsRunoff Reduction

Practices (RR)

Stormwater Treatment

Practices (ST)

Bioretention Constructed Wetlands

Dry Swale Sand Filters

Infiltration Wet Swale

Permeable PavementWet Ponds

Green Roof

5. Risk of UTC Accumulation in BMP Sediments

UTC Accumulation In BMP Sediments

Persistent UTCs accumulate in BMP sediments over many decades at levels that trigger sediment toxicity guidelines.

As many as 8 UTCs pose a risk for sediment toxicity: PCB, PAH, Hg, Ni, Cr, Cu, Cd, and Zn

Most research on older stormwater pond sediments

PAH and Pond Sediments

Percent of MD Stormwater Ponds withPotential PAH Sediment Toxicity

Individual PAH TEC PECNapthalene 3% 0%Flourene 12% 1%Phenanthrene 46% 12%Anthracene 15% 1%Flouranthene 34% 13%Pyrene 34% 15%Benzo[a]anthracene 24% 7%Chrysene 34% 10%Benzo[a]pyrene 38% 7%Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 44% NASource: Gallagher et al, 2010

Managing the BMP Sediment Toxicity Risk

Are BMP sediments an acceptable place to trap toxics in the urban landscape ?

Where is the next place that sediments should go when they are cleaned out from BMPs ?

Is UTC sediment accumulation only a concern for older stormwater ponds in highly urban/industrial watersheds ?

What is the real risk to aquatic life and human health in the stormwater pond environment versus the LID environment ?

Not a Bad Place, After All ?

Toxicity risk to aquatic life in the stormwater pond environment may be limited:

Simplified food webs and low species diversity reduce bio-accumulation in urban fish and wildlife tissues.

Not much of a benthic community in pond sediments

Ponds appear to be effective at retaining UTCs over time

UTC levels are also high in other non-BMP sediments (e.g., urban creeks, rivers and estuaries).

Extremely limited fish consumption from ponds and recreational contact with sediments is non-existent

New LID practices (e.g., bioretention) do not create aquatic habitat and removal of surface sediments is frequent

Implications for BMP Maintenance

6. Watershed Strategies for Toxic Reductions

1. Stormwater Treatment and Retrofits

2. Targeted Street and Storm Drain Cleaning

3. Industrial and Municipal Pollution Prevention

4. Bans and Product Substitution

Industrial and Municipal Pollution Prevention

Potential Reduction By Pollution Prevention Practices

No data on impact of pollution prevention practices in reducing toxins required under industrial and municipal stormwater permits.

The potential effect of these practices could be considerable, given that:

2,700 industrial sites have stormwater permits in Bay watershed (25,000+ acres of impervious cover)

1,000 MS4 facilities and public works yards are subject to the same regulations.

Bans and Product Substitutions

Past bans and/or product substitution have worked

Lead

PCB

DDT and Diazinon

New bans and product substitution

coal tar sealant for PAH

brake pads and rotors for UTMs

more sustainable roofing materials for UTMs

Improved recycling and disposal (batteries, thermostats, fluorescent light bulbs, etc).

Targeted Street Cleaning in Older Watersheds with a lot of Legacy industrial land use

63

Pollutant Reductions Associated with Different Street Cleaning Practices

Practice #

Description 1 ApproxPasses/Yr 2

TSS Removal(%)

TN Removal(%)

TP Removal(%)

SCP-1 AST- 2 PW ~100 21 4 10

SCP-2 AST- 1 PW ~50 16 3 8

SCP-3 AST- 1 P2W ~25 11 2 5

SCP-4 AST- 1 P4W ~10 6 1 3

SCP-5 AST- 1 P8W ~6 4 0.7 2

SCP-6 AST- 1 P12W ~4 2 0 1

SCP-7 AST- S1 or S2 ~15 7 1 4

SCP-8 AST- S3 or S4 ~20 10 2 5

SCP-9 MBT- 2PW ~100 0.7 0 0

SCP-10 MBT- 1 PW ~50 0.5 0 0

SCP-11 MBT- 1 P4W ~10 0.1 0 0

AST: Advanced Sweeping Technology MBT: Mechanical Broom Technol0gy1 See Table 15 for the codes used to define street cleaning frequency2

Street Dirt is Highly Contaminated

Trace Metal Content of Street Sweeper Waste (mg/kg)

Study STATE Copper Lead Zinc

Sorenson, 2012 MA 72 62 146

Sorenson, 2012 MA 47 111 169

SPU, 2009 WA 49 103 189

CSD, 2011 (1) CA 92 23 136

CSD, 2011 (2) CA 157 204 210

Walch, 2006 DE 64 81 208

MEAN 80 97 176

Urban Soils (Pouyat et al, 2007)

35 89 91

65

Source: Expert Panel Report

Other Street Dirt Toxins

ToxicContaminant

Sediment Concentration

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Diesel range: 200 to 400 mg/kgMotor Oil: 2,200 to 5,500 mg/kg

PCB's 0.2 to 0.4 mg/kgPAH Total: 2,798 ug/kg

Carcinogenic 314 ug/kgPthalates 1,000 to 5,000 ug/kgPesticides Pyrethroids presentChloride 980 mg/kgMercury 0.13 mg/kgBased on 3 West Coast Studies of street dirt and/or sweeper waste contamination. Source: Expert Panel Report

66

7. Recommended Approach for TMDLs

Step-wise Approach

1. Decide Whether to Split Urban Land Uses

2. Estimate Loading Rates w/ Simple Method

3. Use TSS Removal Rates as a Benchmark

4. Estimate TSS Removal Rates for Current and Future BMPs

Adjustor Curves

CBP Removal Rates

Estimating Existing BMP Coverage in the Watershed

5. Assess Impact of Other Toxin Reduction Strategies (e.g., Pollution Prevention and Street Cleaning).

1. Split Urban Land Uses ?

Highest UTC levels are generated in older urban watersheds, especially those with extensive industrial, commercial or high ADT transport land uses.

Some UTCs can estimated using impervious cover (IC)

Consider non-urban toxic sources (ag and wastewater)

2. Compute Urban Toxic Loads

Limited monitoring data for most UTCs

Some unit area loading rates have been done

Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) can also be developed or estimated, to use in the Simple Method

More sophisticated models not recommended unless supported by monitoring data

Check the Appendices of CSN UTC report for data summaries

3. Use TSS Removal as a Benchmark

Linking UTCs to a benchmark TSS removal rate

Allows users to project UTC removal rates based on known TSS removal rates

Can calculate reductions based on much larger CBP database on sediment removal by urban BMPs

More precise removal estimates using expert panel adjustor curves

TSS Removal Rates for Urban BMPs

Urban Stormwater Practices Removal Stormwater Retrofits 2 45 to 85%New Runoff Reduction (RR) Practices 3 45 to 80%New Stormwater Treatment (ST) Practices 4 40 to 75%Wet Ponds 60Constructed Wetlands 60Dry Extended Detention Ponds 60Infiltration 95Filtering Practices (Sand Filters) 80Bioretention C & D w/UD 55

A & B w/ UD 80A & B w/o UD 90

Permeable Pavement C & D w/UD 55A & B w/ UD 70A & B w/o UD 85

Grass Channels C & D w/o UD 50A & B w/o UD 70

Bioswale aka dry swale 80Street Cleaning 6 0 to 30

Urban BMP Coverage in Bay Watershed

Urban BMPs now cover 30% of urban land in the watershed – most of any region in the nation

BMP coverage could increase to 40 or 50% by 2025 due to TMDL compliance in the urban sector

UTC removal by nearly all urban BMPs is moderate to very high

Questions and Answers

Resources

CSN Report on Urban Toxic Contaminants

Archived Webcasts on Industrial Stormwater

Industrial Stormwater Benchmarking Tool

Upcoming Webcast on Street Cleaning Expert Panel Report – coming soon

Please take a few moments to answer our 6 question survey to help us better serve your needs in future

webcasts.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/UTC-webcast

We use this information to report it to assess our work, your needs and to report it to our funders for future

webcasts !

Evaluation