PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsdepartment.■ Rewrite of the proposal seems appropriate.■ The authors fail to cite NCHRP report 577 with is a comprehensive work in this area and lays the groundwork for newresearch. Field studies to determine long term impacts to aquatic organism from the use of deicers is needed.■ Transportation Agencies have done a lot to reduce the amount of De-Icing material being applied with the advancementin equipment, implementing reduction strategies, use of anti-icing programs. Much research has already been performedlooking at the environmental impacts of these materials. Research should focus on ways to buffer sensitive areas fromthese various de-icing materials.■ Solid interest from Wisconsin, but not certain whether this is truly a national study … suggest that the Clear Roadspooled fund examine this study.Other■ [Rating: 3]■ [Rating: 4] Maintaining optimal water quality in water bodies while maintaining safe highways is a top priority for alltransportation agencies. Chemical deicers and sanding compounds can compromise water quality if not appliedcorrectly. The Committee acknowledges that the 2007 NCHRP report 577 investigates this topic. The members feel thatthe study was not comprehensive enough to assist the DOTs in make decisions regarding deicing materials. NOAA wasconsulted regarding this topic and they support the effort. The Committee suggests that the study should also includecost effectiveness as a component of the effort. A matrix should be developed highlighting the environmental effectsversus the cost component. This statement is on the committee's second tier of top priorities.Item #80:D-08Development of an Accurate Mathematical Model forPredicting Alaki Silica Reaction Damage in Concrete.(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 6 4 3 2RAC 2 7 5 12 9 8 6Standing Committee on Research■ The premise on which the proposal is based is misdirected. The formula for expressing the alkali content of cement isnot the reason for the problems the agency has experienced. It has a sound chemical basis and works fairly well withinbounds.The agency's problems suggest that the amount of alkali in concrete they accepted as tolerable was simply toohigh. Nonetheless, there are issues related to the alkalies in hydraulic cements that would be worth investigating. Thatsaid, that the problem geerating this proposal has occurred amidst the FHWA research program raises a cuationary noteand the need to proceed circumspectly.■ Some available tools are not mentioned problem statement■ of possible interest to concrete tie manufactuirng work■ We are not sure if a formula can be developed to cope with blended cements.■ Many states are dealing with the ASR issue in their concrete. The revelation by TxDOT justifies further research in thisarea. This is truly a national concern.■ [Rating: 5] The research as outlined in the problem statement will further enhance our fundamental understanding ofASR issues. The observed ASR in airfields due to potassium acetate as deicers is better understood now due to somepreliminary research data in objective 1 of FHWA ongoing research effort. It appears that as concentration of potassiumacetate is increased, hydroxyl activity increases drastically while the concentration of the hydroxyl ions remainsessentially constant.Research Advisory Committee■ This will help in developing better testing and evaluation tool for ASR potential aggregates. Also help determine if ourIV-57
Page 1 and 2:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 3 and 4:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 5 and 6: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 55: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?