Dear Editor:
For the most part I agreed with Dick Williams after reading his first letter concerning road deicing. Why did the Dept. of Transportation start using road deicer chemicals and why wasn’t the public involved in that decision? I had called DOT years back and asked similar questions. What I found troubling with Mr. Williams letter was its assertion that environmentalists opposed the use of sand but not the use of potentially dangerous chemical deicers.
In Mr. Williams second letter he alleged that “lawsuits brought by various “environmental” groups” were to blame for DOT’s actions. Whereas, years ago the Forest Service stated in its Tom-Roes Timber Sale assessment said that road sanding caused high sediment levels (which harms fish) in North Fork Boulder Creek, I wasn’t aware of any environmental group challenging such uses.
So, I did some checking.
First, I asked environmental attorney’s who work on water law if they knew of such a suit – they did not, but said chemical deicer impacts to fish were a bigger concern than sand. Next, I went to DOT’s website for more information. Turns out they have a pilot program called “WSDOT 2003-04 SALT PILOT PROJECT” to test road salt for deicing roadways.
Go to (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance/salt.htm#testingsalt) to read DOT’s question and answer section about their pilot project. Posted there is this answer concerning wintertime use of sand:
Q: Why don’t you just use sand on the roads?
Sand is still used by WSDOT for improved traction under certain conditions, however it too has drawbacks:
- Sand gets picked up in tires and ends up on the side of the road, rather in the driving area of the roadway. In heavy traffic conditions, it’s only effective for a very short time.
- Sand can clog roadway drains and ditches. Sand in streams may have an adverse impact on marine life.
- Maintenance costs for sand are higher at the end of the season than for salt or anti-icer chemicals due to the need for cleanup.
Apparently it is not environmentalist’s lawsuits that have caused DOT to use chemical deicers more than sand (it’s still in use), but rather, it is deicer cost and effectiveness. The US Geological Survey (Mineral Commodity Survey 2003, pg. 141) states that Swiss and German studies concluded that sand cost six times more than salt to de-ice roadways.
I wonder if that includes the cost of replacing a rusted-out car?
Purportedly, there are non-corrosive and non-toxic deicing alternatives that are made from vegetable compounds. Dr. Alex Mathews (K-State) invented calcium magnesium propionate using agriculture residues. In Indiana, road deicers made from derivatives of sugar beet production are being used.
From a safety standpoint, I’m concerned that it is difficult to recognize when chemical deicers are or are not being used unless they are mixed with sand, but that increases cost. Drivers can mistake black ice covered roadways for those that are de-iced when just chemical sprays are used. Be careful!
Tim Coleman
Republic