A probabilistic source assessment framework for leaching from secondary materials in highway applications

  • Defne S. Apul
  • Kevin H. Gardner
  • T. Taylor Eighmy
Original Paper

Abstract

Recovered materials from the transportation sector or secondary or by-product materials from the industrial, municipal, or mining sector can be used as substitutes for natural materials in the construction of highway infrastructure. The environmental impact of traditional and newer secondary materials needs to be determined for the conditions of their expected use. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a probabilistic framework for evaluating the environmental acceptability of candidate secondary materials based on the risk of soil and groundwater contamination from leached metals and organics from the pavement. The proposed framework provides a structured guidance for selecting the appropriate model, incorporating uncertainty, variability, and expert opinion, and interpreting results for decision making. This new approach is illustrated by a probabilistic analysis of arsenic leaching from Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete materials that were constructed using virgin and secondary products.

References

  1. ASTSWMO (2000) ASTSWMO beneficial use survey. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin L, McCreary H (1998) Study of state soil arsenic regulations. Conducted by the Association for the Environmental Health of SoilsGoogle Scholar
  3. Batchelor B, Valdes J, Araganth V (1998) Stochastic risk assessment of sites contaminated by hazardous wastes. J Environ Eng 124(4):380–388Google Scholar
  4. BMD (1995) Building materials decree. Bulletin of acts, orders and decrees, no 567, available in English from Ministry VROM, Direction of Soil Protection (ipc 625), PO Box 20945, 2500 GX The Hague, The Netherlands, fax: +31-70-3391290Google Scholar
  5. Boateng, S. (2001) Evaluation of probabilistic flow in two unsaturated soils. Hydrogeol J 9(6):543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogen KT (1995) Methods to approximate joint uncertainty and variability in risk. Risk Anal 15(3):411–419Google Scholar
  7. Chang C-H, Yang JC, Tung Y-K (1993) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of a sediment transport model: a global approach. Stochastic Hydrol Hydraul 7:299–314Google Scholar
  8. Chesner WH, Collins RJ, MacKay MH (1998) User guidelines for waste and by-product materials in pavement construction. Chesner Engineering, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen JT, Lampson MA, Bowers TS (1996) The use of two-stage Monte Carlo simulation techniques to characterize variability and uncertainty in risk analysis. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2(4):939–971Google Scholar
  10. Collins RJ, Ciesielski SK (1994) Recycling and use of waste materials and by-products in highway construction. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Cronin WJ, Oswald EJ, Shelley ML, Fisher JF, Flemming CD (1995) A trichloroethylene risk assessment using a Monte Carlo analysis of parameter uncertainty in conjuntion with physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling. Risk Anal 15(5):555–565PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. de Groot GJ, van der Sloot HA, Bonouvrie P, Wijkstra J (1990) Karakterisering van het uitlooggedrag van intacte produkten, ECN-C—90-007, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN, Petten, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Deschamps RJ (1997) Geotechnical and environmental characteristics of atmospheric fluidized bed combustion ash and stoker ash. Transp Res Rec 1577:90–95Google Scholar
  14. Eighmy TT, Chesner WH (2001) Framework for evaluating use of recycled materials in the highway environment. Report No. FHWA-RD-00-140, U.S. DOT, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. Eighmy TT, Magee BJ (2001) The road to reuse. Civil Eng 66–81Google Scholar
  16. EPA (1996) Soil screening guidance: user's guide. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/soil/ssg496.pdfGoogle Scholar
  17. EPA (1999) A framework for finite-source multimedia multipathway, and multireceptor risk assessment, 3MRA, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/pdf/risk/reports/s0538.pdfGoogle Scholar
  18. FHWA (1999) http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs99/tables/hm10.pdfGoogle Scholar
  19. Frey HC, Rhodes DS (1996) Characterizing, simulation, and analyzing variability and uncertainty: an illustration of methods using an air toxics emissions example. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2(4):762–797Google Scholar
  20. Hartlen J, Fallman A-M, Back P-E, Jones C (1999) Principles for risk assessment of secondary materials in civil engineering work., Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  21. Hatis D, Burmaster DE (1994) Assessment of variability and uncertainty distributions for practical risk analyses. Risk Anal 14(5):713–730Google Scholar
  22. Hoffman OF, Hammonds JS (1994) Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Anal 14(5):707–712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Humphrey DN, Katz LE (2000) Water-quality effects of tire shreds placed above the water table. Transp Res Rec 1714:18–24Google Scholar
  24. Hyman WA, Johnson BL (2000) Assessing public benefits of reusing waste materials in highway projects. Transp Res Rec 1702:97–107Google Scholar
  25. Kosson DS, Sloor HAvd, Eighmy TT (1996) An approach for estimation of contaminant release during utilization and disposal of municipal waste combustion residues. J Hazardous Mater 47:43–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kosson DS, van der Sloot HA et al (2002) An integrated framework for evaluating leaching in waste management and utilization of secondary materials. Environ Eng Sci 19(3):159–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mahboub KC, Massie PR (1996) Use of scrap tire chips in asphaltic membrane. Transp Res Rec 1530:59–63Google Scholar
  28. Moschandreas DJ, Karuchit S (2002) Scenario–model–parameter: a new method of cumulative risk uncertainty analysis. Environ Int 28:247–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulder E (1996) A mixture of fly ashes as road base construction material. Waste Manage 16(1–3):15–20Google Scholar
  30. Nelson PO, Huber WC, Eldin NN, Williamson KJ, Lundy JR, Azizian MF, Thayumanavan P, Quigley MM, Hesse ET, Frey KM, Leahy RB (2001) Environmental impact of construction and repair materials on surface and ground waters: summary of methodology, laboratory results, and model development. NCHRP Report 448, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  31. Pandey KK, Canty GA, Atalay A, Robertson JM, Laguros JG (1995) Fluidized bed ash as a soil stabilizer in highway construction. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 46—Characterization, containment, remediation, and performance in environmental geotechnics, New Orleans, La., pp 1422–1436Google Scholar
  32. Park J-Y, Batchelor B (2002) A multi-component numerical leach model coupled with a general chemical speciation code. Water Res 36:156–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Partridge BK, Fox PJ, Alleman JE, Mast DG (1999) Field demonstration of highway embankment construction using waste foundry sand. Transp Res Rec 1670:98–105Google Scholar
  34. Rai SN, Krewski D, Bartlett S (1996) A general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2(4):972–989Google Scholar
  35. Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott M (2000) Sensitivity analysis. Probability and statistics series. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanchez F, Mattus CH, Morris MI, Kosson DS (2002) Use of a new leaching test framework for evaluating alternative treatment processes for mercury contaminated soils. Environ Eng Sci 19(4):251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schimmoller V, Holtz K, Eighmy T, Wiles C, Smith M, Malasheskie G, and Rohrbach GJ (2000) Recycled materials in European highway environments: uses, technologies, and policies. American Trade InitiativesGoogle Scholar
  38. Schroeder RL (1994) The use of recycled materials in highway construction. Road Transp Res 3(4):12–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Defne S. Apul
    • 1
  • Kevin H. Gardner
    • 2
  • T. Taylor Eighmy
    • 2
  1. 1.Environmental Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering, 330 Environmental Technology BuildingUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Recycled Materials Resource Center, Department of Civil Engineering, 336 Environmental Technology BuildingUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations