PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ It has been my experience that horizontal curve transitions are not a safety issue.Other■ Topic area might be addressed using data from the SHRP 2 NDS in the future, but there is no duplication in the project.Item #79:B-05Solutions to Minimize the Impacts of Roadway De-IcingMaterials on Freshwater Systems(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 2 4 3 2RAC 1 6 6 6 13 12 5Standing Committee on Research■ The FHWA and NCHRP staff evaluation indicates this proposal mirrors research already undertaken and reported (2007NCHRP report 577). Unless the proposal is rewritten to build on this existing work or possibly field test and enhance thedecision making tool this research and expenditure will be mostly redundant.■ Existing work has already examined this area■ Work has already been done (NCHRP 577)■ There remain significant questions on sensitive organisms. Aquatic toxicity work should be done on a case by case basisconsidering specific aquatic conditions (e.g. sensitive frog populations in small drainages near highways).■ Appers to be largely duplication of existing work.■ Much of this work was evaluated under NCHRP Report 577 in chapter 3. I agree with Patricia Cazenas comment that theproposal should be rewritten to expand on the previous study focusing on application rates related to weather. A studyaiding the practitioner's ability to apply different chemicals or blends of chemicals in the most efficient manner dependenton the weather and functional class of highway would be more beneficial.■ As pointed out by FHWA in their comments, the author does not mention 2007 NCHRP report #577, "Guidelines for theSelection of Snow and Ice Control Materials to Mitigate Environmental Impacts". This seems like it may be a goodjumping off point. If the author did not cite this document then he may not have been aware of the findings and shouldreview this research and possible revise the problem statement and goals. I think that this research could be beneficialnationwide, even here in AZ. Currently, ATRC has funded a small project to look at the application rates of winterchemical aditives and whatever resarch that comes out of B-05 could influence how and what we apply. If they revise theproblem statement and goals, I give them a 4, if not then it would be lower (3).■ This is an important issue in in many water supply areas.■ [Rating: 3] The problem statement needs to incorporate and complement the existing research that has been recentlycompleted in this area.Research Advisory Committee■ After review of the research problem statement, support of this project as written would not be in the best interest of thedept. There is no need for this research because as the problem statement indicates the ecological impacts to freshwatersystems are well documented in scientific literature. The $450,000 funding would be better spent on implementing bestpractices in winter maintenance as outlined in AASHTO North American Winter Scan. Furthermore, three years for aresearch period is too long particularly when winter snow and ice technology changes so rapidly. There are also severalflaws in the problem statement. They admit there are many chemical deicers such as Sodium Chloride, MagnesiumChloride, Calcium Chloride and others. To make anything meaningful they would have to study all of these. They alsosay, "will test the effects of the identifed treatments to narrow down possible materials... in minimizing impacts to targetsfreshwater sytesm and aquatic speicies." What about safety to the public during winter driving? What about theeconomic impacts? The problem statement then goes on to state that laboratory studies will be used. I do not believe labstudies can replicate the multiple variables of speed, traffic, ground conditions , slope, various applicaton rates, etc. Theoutcome of the project could easily be used against the department in court cases. If the project recommends a practicethe department can not abide by, ODOT runs the risk of going astray of the findings in a project supported by theIV-56