REQUIRED GOAL SUSTAINABILITY COMPONENTS BENEFITS. Project Requirements. management. construction waste. plan for road. included in.

Transcription

1 Greenroads Manual v1.5 Project Requirements WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN GOAL Create an accounting and management plan for road construction waste materials. REQUIREMENTS Establish, implement, i and maintain a formal Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (CWMP) during roadway construction. The CWMP should be included in the project contract documents and identify, at minimum, these items: Type of construction waste Expected (or actual) tonnage Costs and fees for landfills, recovery facilities, and hauling Contact information of responsible party for hauling Destination of waste (e.g. recycling facility, landfill, contractor ss backyard) Contact information of responsible party for disposal site Management strategy for waste generated from mobile office activities and personal worker (household) waste Details The CWMP is typically completed by the prime contractor, submitted to the owner agency for approval, and implemented by all parties on the construction site. Construction and demolition waste (C&D waste) constitutes any material that must be hauled off site for disposal or reprocessing, or, if disposed (stockpiled) within the project Right of Way (ROW) is not intended for use as structural material (e.g. pavements, embankments, shoulders, base materials, and fill). Materialss that leave the ROW for reprocessing (recycling) activities are considered C&D waste because they are not used in their pre constructio on form at the site. See more details under Credits MR 2 Pavement Reuse and MR 4 Recycledd Materials. Types of C&D for roadway construction projects may include (but is not limited to): Paving process waste (e.g. asphalt, concrete) Milling waste, concrete slough and grindings, cobble Metals (e.g. waste steel rebar, metal guardrails, pipes, luminaires, signs, aluminum, and various household metals) Plastic (e.g. waste plastic pipes) Excavated soil cuttings and boulders Sediment removed from temporary construction settling ponds Land clearing debris or excess topsoil Hazardous materials, including liquids Wood and paper products (e.g. packaging materials, cardboard and pallets) Glass REQUIRED RELATED CREDITS PR 7 Pollution Prevention Plan PR 10 Site Maintenance Plan MR 2 Pavement Reuse MR 3 Earthwork Balance MR 4 Recycled Materials CA 3 Site Recycling Plan SUSTAINABILITY COMPONENTS Expectations Exposure BENEFITS Reduces Solid Waste Reduces Manmade Footprint Reduces First Costs Reduces Lifecycle Costs Improves Accountability Creates New Information DOCUMENTATION Copy of the project CWMP

2 Project Requirements Greenroads Manual v1.5 APPROACHES & STRATEGIES Integrate the CWMP with a Site Recycling Plan to earn credit CA 3 Site Recycling Plan. Modify, as appropriate for roads, versions of waste management plan specifications developed for building contractors by the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA). The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) provides Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) MasterFormat templates for Sections (New Construction) and (Demolition) for buildings construction debris. These tools were developed by the CMRA with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency and are available for free download and project specific use at: Keep accurate records and retain all waste handling invoices and receipts. The site listed above also includes spreadsheet templates that contractors may use for tracking waste during construction. Specify a project diversion rate goal that may help establish appropriate waste handling procedures. The Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) provides links to a variety of localities that offer construction and demolition waste recycling services. The list can be accessed at Include the in agency contract documents, bid packages, and/or specifications. Set waste reduction goals and explicitly state them in the Locate receptacles in easily accessible or highly frequented locations on the jobsite. Receptacles should not be placed in areas where they may cause harm to workers or the local environment. See Pollution Prevention Plan for more information. Hire a contractor with an Environmental Management System (EMS) in place. See Credit EW 1 Environmental Management System. These employers already have internal office procedures established to reduce officerelated pollution and may be familiar with local agency waste management efforts. Develop and deliver training to workers to educate them on waste recovery efforts being implemented onsite and compliance with the general CWMP. This step will be critical to all projects. See Credit CA 2 Environmental Awareness Training for more approaches and strategies for education programs. Hire an experienced waste transport company to manage site waste and monitor waste streams for unacceptable materials. Identify local facilities that accept recyclables or salvaged materials. This is important in designating type of waste to separate, and in making arrangements for drop off or delivery of materials. The 2007 Contractor s Guide by the King County Solid Waste Division and Seattle Public Utilities provides many helpful waste management and reduction strategies for the entire project. A sample waste management plan adapted from this guide is provided in the examples below. Example: Sample CWMP Template with Materials Recovery The following example content has been adapted from the 2007 Seattle/King County Contractor s Guide, which is available here: Project teams should consider customizing the CWMP information based on project goals and owner expectations.

3 Greenroads Manual v1.5 Project Requirements General Contractor: Project Name: Site Waste Coordinator: Phone: Debris Collection Agency: WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Waste Management Goals: Steps to inform contractors/subcontractors of policies C&D Materials Expected to be Generated The following charts identify materials expected to be generated by this project and the planned method for handling these materials for disposal and/or recycling. Material DECONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION PHASE Quantity (units) Haul Methodd & End Location Handling Procedure Material CONSTRUCTION PHASE Quantity (units) Haul Methodd & End Location Handling Procedure Figure PR 6.1 Sample CWMP Template. (Adaptedd from King County Solid Waste Division & Seattle Public Utilties, 2007) Example: Case Study - City of Vancouver, British Columbia Recycling Initiative In 2005, the City of Vancouver, British Columbia created a new engineering branch in their governmental agency strictly for management of infrastructure waste, such ass waste generated from roadway, water and sewer development (see Figures PR 6.2 and PR 6..3). The estimated amount of this infrastructure waste exceeded 400,000 tonnes (MT: about 441,000 tons) annually. This waste had been previously been disposed in Vancouver Landfill, taking up massive and precious volume in this limited local resource.

4 Project Requirements Greenroads Manual v1.5 The infrastructure waste included approximately 300,000 MT off excavated soil, 35,000 MT of hot mix asphalt pavement grindings, and 90,000 MT of concrete excavations. The latter amount is estimated to provide enough subbase material for 46 kilometers (almost 29 miles) of road. After this initiative, some remarkable results weree achieved through waste management activities that were implemented during the construction of roadways and infrastructure: 100% of annual hot mix asphalt milling waste is now recycled. 100% of annual concrete curb, sidewalk and roadway slab material is now recycled. Stockpiles of soil, asphalt, and concrete are now available for more projects after reprocessing and extraction of new aggregate is often avoided. Figure PR 6.2: Typical pile of roadway construction waste. (Bremner & City of Vancouver, 2006) Figure PR 6.3: Boulders excavated during roadway utilityy work. (Bremner & City of Vancouver, 2006) Transportation of waste materials was reduced by over 22,500 dump truck trips, resulting in substantial fuel cost savings, emissions reduction, and pavement wear. Total cost savingss for all measures has an estimated value off over CN$500,000 annually (approximately $413,000 in 2005 U.S. dollars). The information in this case study comes from the report produced by Bremner and the City of Vancouver (2006). The City of Vancouver recycling initiative was consideredd for nomination by the Transportation Association of Canadaa for their 2005 Environmental Achievement Award. More informationn about the project, including reprocessing and storage activities that are also part of this initiative, can be found at: atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2006/docs/s007/bremner.pdf POTENTIAL ISSUES 1. Specifying and creating documents for waste management practices may be unfamiliar to roadway designers and decision makers who do not normally manage waste. Theree may be a steep learning curve, as there is little data available to offer examples on how to monitor and measure road relatedd waste streams. This requirement may mean that additional people from outside agency engineering departments (such as environment, ecology or waste divisions) need to be included on the project team to implement a CWMP effectively. 2. Potential exists for tracked data to be measured inconsistently, either because of how the measurement is done or where in the waste stream it is measured. In order to address this, this requirement clearly notes that any material that leaves the boundaries of the roadway project site, even if intended for reuse later, is considered waste. Therefore, probably a good place to measure the waste generated is actually at the source, and before it leaves the site. This way, quantities are more likely to be captured and representative of the project. 3. If disturbed or cut/fill material is stockpiled on site and not intended for use on the roadway project, measurement may be more difficult if not monitored by truckloads (e.g. material is excavated in a large stockpile and left in place). Volume measurements, such as expected cut volumes, may be more appropriate

5 Greenroads Manual v1.5 Project Requirements units of measure than mass. Some ingenuity may be required to determine an appropriate solution to account for on site solid waste. 4. Careless behavior or lack of stewardship may be an issue that can result in recyclables being disposed in wasteonly receptacles, or vice versa, especially if objectives of a WMP are not meaningful or communicated well to workers. This behavior can contaminate the recyclables stream and make an entire receptacle unsuitable for reprocessing or salvage, or accidentally send recyclables to a landfill. 5. Proper handling of recyclable materials is a key safety issue for new and unfamiliar recycling activities. Communication and training is critical to minimize risk and preserve safety. 6. Safety and security considerations should be taken into account relative to storage on site of recoverable materials of high value. Opportunities for theft may be increased, especially for some types of metals that are commonly used in infrastructure or electrical utilities like copper wire. 7. At this time, points are not available for achieving waste reduction based on percentage of total waste. This is due to lack of data regarding waste management for roadway construction activities. RESEARCH Solid material waste generation is one of the many environmental burdens associated with the roadway life cycle. (Rajendran & Gambatese, 2007, p. 88). Waste management, especially as recycling, minimization or reuse, is one of the cornerstone principles of sustainable development and pollution prevention programs. Both municipal solid waste (MSW) and building industry construction and demolition (C&D) waste are wellcharacterized. These types of waste are monitored and measured by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many state agencies. Remarkably little is known about quantities and types of solid waste generated by the transportation industry during road and bridge construction and rehabilitation activities (EPA, 2009a; Rajendran & Gambetese, 2007; Rajendran & Gambetese, 2005; Aquino, 2003; Northeast Waste Management Officials Association, 2009). A key component is also very unclear: where the waste actually ends up. This may be partly due to the relative ease with which hot mix asphalt, concrete, soil and cobble waste is recovered and reprocessed. Facilities that manage C&D waste are relatively unregulated parts of the waste management industry, even though they may receive a very large volume of materials from road and bridge construction. Bloomquist et al. (1993; cited in Rajendran & Gambatese, 2007) state in their report to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that approximately 75% of highway pavement materials are recovered. Note that this data is nearly 20 years old (or more) and no significant progress on characterizing road construction waste has been made, except at very few local agencies (see Examples noted above) where the focus is on cost reduction and the savings associated with incorporating recycled materials into design standards. What is Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste? The definition of what is considered construction and demolition (C&D) waste varies by state and local jurisdiction. The EPA definition is just as broad: materials that consist of debris generated during the construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings, roads, and bridges (EPA, 2009e). Construction debris is considered to be a specific type of solid waste, which is clearly defined under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the United States 1972 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Title 40 CFR (EPA, 2009d; ICF, 1995b). It is also considered industrial waste to differentiate its origin in the commercial and institutional sectors from MSW, which is mostly residential in origin (EPA, 2009b). Most of the waste is perceived as inert, however, some can be considered hazardous, such as structural elements with lead based paint. C&D waste is generated from construction, renovation, repair, and demolition of structures such as residential and commercial buildings, roads, and bridges and in general is comprised of a variety of materials (ICF, 1995b). The most common material in building C&D landfilled waste streams is waste wood, hot mix asphalt (from parking lots), drywall and masonry (ICF, 1995b); clearly the waste stream from roads and bridges has a different composition. For example, in Vancouver, British Columbia, earthen materials composed over half of the infrastructure demolition of the waste stream, followed by concrete and hot mix asphalt pavement materials in lesser quantities (Bremner, 2006). Franklin Associates (1998) justifies omitting roadway construction and

6 Project Requirements Greenroads Manual v1.5 demolition debris from their report to the EPA on C&D waste because it was not easily characterized and no pointsource data was available for their study. Generally, data for percent composition of roadway waste stream materials is not available from any reliable source and it is clearly rarely tracked in a meaningful way. The waste stream for every roadway project will be unique in both volume and composition and end point, due to many factors such as: project size, location, material type, construction or demolition means, schedule, contractor site waste management practices (ICF, 1995b). How Much C&D Waste Is There? In March 2009, the EPA released 2003 data on construction and demolition waste from the building industry, which generated an estimated 170 million tons (EPA, 2009a), up from 136 million tons stated in 1996 (Franklin Associates, 1998; EPA, 2008b) The EPA notes that Significant additional quantities of C&D materials are generated from the construction of roads and bridges, from land clearing at construction sites, and at military installations (EPA, 2008b). The most recent waste stream characterization study funded by the EPA and conducted by the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association (NEWMOA, 2009) characterized the 2006 C&D waste stream for several New England states. Interestingly, this study specifically excluded aggregated data relevant to the hot mix asphalt, brick and concrete (ABC) waste generated from road, bridge and land clearing projects because the quantity of ABC material generated by road and bridge projects often dwarfs the quantity generated from other sources and can significantly bias the data on overall management of C&D wastes. (p. 2). This is, in part, due to the variations between C&D facilities relative to waste handling practices and types and quantities of materials that they receive, and the tendency to classify road ABC waste as aggregate in the waste stream reports. In addition, the report justifies its exclusion of transportation waste because roadway project material is often recycled into new aggregate for road base or pavement sections and processing often occurs on site or at specialized facility (NEWMOA, 2009). Gambetese and Rajendran (2005) note that little research is available on lifecycle impacts of roadway waste material, especially at end of life of the pavement sections, and have attempted to model this road waste. These same authors (2007) provide a good summary of road C&D waste estimates from various agencies and authors, and include what is known about waste quantities and percentages throughout the world for roadways. However, importantly, they note that no exact estimates of C&D waste from the transportation industry are available and that existing literature indicates road and bridge waste contributes significantly to the waste stream, more so than the building industry. William Turley, Executive Director of the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) estimated in 2003 that the annual C&D waste generated in the United States was roughly 320 million tons (Aquino, 2003). Following the publishing of the EPA 2009 report on 2003 building industry waste, Turley noted (Johnson, 2009) that the total waste stream is more realistically estimated at 325 to 350 million tons (for 2003) after infrastructure waste is accounted in the total. This would mean transportation related construction, demolition, and rehabilitation activities generate and dispose of C&D waste at approximately the same rate as the building industry. Based on available lifecycle process data and their collected end of life waste statistics for road waste, Rajendran and Gambetese (2007) conducted a quantitative lifecycle inventory (LCI) model of typical hot mix asphalt and concrete pavement sections from extraction of materials to end of life to estimate the waste contributions from each pavement type. Their model showed that over 50% of the lifecycle waste was generated from end of life waste disposal practices for both pavement models. However, their models did not include any recycling or reprocessing activities because these processes are not well characterized. Waste generation rates at end of life, and during construction (scraps and refuse) are shown in Table PR 6.1.

7 Greenroads Manual v1.5 Project Requirements Table PR 6.1: Roadway Material Waste Rates at End of Life and Construction (Adapted from Rajendran & Gambetese, 2007) Pavement Material Type Waste Rate at End of Life Waste Rate during Placement of New Road (% of Material) (% of Material) Concrete Pavement Concrete Pavement Cement 2.45 Concrete Pavement Aggregates 3.0 Steel Rebar Asphalt Pavement Asphalt Pavement Asphalt 0.86 Crushed Stone Base Crushed Gravel Base Granular Subbase Subgrade 12.8 The EPA (2009c) notes that Industrial processes contributed to a total of 7.6 billion tons of non hazardous solid waste generated in the U.S. in These processes include pavement material production such as asphalt and cement manufacturing. These wastes are outside the scope of Greenroads (at this time) because they occur earlier in the supply chain than materials produced (mixed) after ground breaking for the roadway project. However, agencies and contractors are encouraged to work with industries that demonstrate responsible waste management practices. Where Does It Go? Most roadway, bridge and land clearing debris is managed by the same C&D landfills and reprocessing facilities as the building industry and represent a very large portion of the total C&D waste received by these facilities (Franklin Associates, 1998). Approximately 1,500 C&D landfills were operational in the United States in 2004 (EPA, 2009a). However, while building C&D waste composition and volume is monitored, the EPA admits that commercially generated C&D waste, such as from transportation and industry, is not because it is typically collected and disposed by the private sector. This makes managing these processes more difficult for municipalities, who have been slow to target this waste stream (EPA, 2009b). Also, the EPA reports that Unknown amounts of C&D materials are also believed to go to combustion facilities or unpermitted landfills. (2008c). Many states also accept exported wastes from other states, which complicates tracking recovery activities (NEWMOA, 2009). States also differ in waste management practices: in some cases the majority of C&D waste is sent directly to landfill while other states will pre process the waste before it gets landfilled. There is no common standard as to how C&D wastes are processed at facilities in different states or even within a single state. (NEWMOA, 2009). The type of receiving facility varies and can be C&D only landfills, C&D recovery facilities (which still dispose unrecoverable materials into landfills eventually), municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, or combined C&D and MSW facilities (EPA, 2008a; EPA, 2008c). The type of landfill where C&D waste might be received for your project depends on local opportunity, and no federal regulation specifically dictates where it must go. Facilities in the U.S. that accept C&D waste, sorted by EPA Regions, are provided by the Construction Industry Compliance Assistance Center (CICA): Costs of Roadway Waste Generally, road waste materials, like aggregate, asphalt and concrete, are heavy and, therefore, costly to transport. Reprocessed inert waste products are often cost competitive with virgin aggregate because many waste recovery facilities will crush and resell these wastes to avoid transport to landfill (NEWMOA, 2009), but this may not be the case where there is open landfill space, low tipping fees, or other low cost or virtually free disposal options available (William Turley qtd. in Aquino, 2003). Essentially, this likely makes waste management commonplace in the transportation industry, because it is a cost effective best practice.

8 Project Requirements Greenroads Manual v1.5 In 1995, the EPA issued a report (ICF, 1995a) on environmental damages associated with C&D landfills, specifically to collect available data on groundwater or surface water pollution and ecosystem or habitat impacts, and to determine if these impacts can be attributed to specific types of C&D waste, landfill operations and environmental location. The study found that minimal data was available, many sites lacked basic environmental controls (like liners), and focused on only 11 C&D landfill sites. On site groundwater contamination was present at several of these sites that exceeded acceptable levels of inorganic contaminants for state secondary groundwater quality standards (i.e. taste). Additionally, several sites were found to have inorganic surface water contamination that exceeded either state levels or EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for freshwater aquatic life. Some of these impacts were attributed to characteristics of the landfill location such as shallow groundwater or permeable soils (ICF, 1995a). Notably, there are many other impacts associated with long term environmental degradation, using open space or habitat for landfills, and social and economic impacts that are not easily quantifiable. Current data on existing C&D landfill capacity in the United States is not available from any reliable source. Also, due to the high variability of size, location, capacities, and facility types lumped in industry census statistics for waste management does not adequately characterize the costs of landfilling large volumes of roadway waste. How is C&D Waste Regulated? While MSW regulations are a core part of the RCRA and governed at a federal level by the EPA, most of the regulations regarding C&D waste are generally non specific and managed by states and local jurisdictions. However, the 1995 draft report created for the EPA Office of Solid Waste, indicates that all 50 states have some regulations for the C&D landfill facilities not located on private property, though many are not as strict as those for MSW facilities, which are covered under RCRA Title 40 CFR 257 and 258. Additionally, Executive Order requires all federal construction, renovation, and demolition projects to achieve a 50% recycling rate where markets or on site recycling opportunities exist. (EPA, 2009a). The most detailed review for the EPA regarding the variability of landfill regulatory requirements is given in the 1995 draft report from ICF Incorporated. In Departments of Transportation across the U.S., the story is similar: regulations are varied and often vague or non existent. In fact, most Departments of Transportation (DOTs) do not have any management control over the waste and typically, road related waste is handled by a different state agency (environmental or ecology, for example). The lack of consistency in characterizing and regulating this massive waste stream fundamentally demonstrates a large opportunity for both source reduction and waste minimization management protocols for roadway C&D waste. ning Waste management planning may be an unfamiliar consideration for roadway design agencies, engineers or contractors because traditionally this is not one of their professional responsibilities. However, Kibert (2005) notes that proper planning and quality assurance plans are imperative to the successful construction and continued performance of building industry projects, and the same may be said for roadway projects. Poorly defined parameters for C&D waste, including what it is and what it is not, are necessary for an effective waste management plan. Another key part of waste management is measurement. Consistency in any measurement program should include clear identification of where the waste is to be measured (i.e. leaving the construction site) and by what unit of measure (volume or mass) (ICF, 1995b). Responsible treatment of waste materials, if the wasteful practices themselves cannot be eliminated, is a necessity for reducing the long term need for landfill space filled with inert, reusable materials. Kibert (2005) also notes that with thoughtful planning and engineering, final contract documents can often anticipate sources of construction waste and generally generate less of it (as well as having fewer errors and change orders throughout the process). Specifications will also require a clear definition of what C&D waste means for the project. He states that source reduction (reduced need for materials) is most effective in minimizing waste, especially for new projects. Such success was demonstrated by the Examples from TxDOT and the City of Vancouver (Bremner, 2006), which were achieved largely through contract language (including specific instructions for recyclability, salvagability and special handling) and assignment of waste management responsibilities to various parties. Since the pavement engineer is responsible for the main material components project, i.e. the

9 Greenroads Manual v1.5 Project Requirements largest portion of the mass, there is an indirect responsibility to handle the selection process for these materials by keeping the end of the design life in mind. Additional Resources The report from the EPA called RCRA in Focus: Construction, Demolition and Renovation is a freely available report that provides suggested strategies for inclusion in a waste management plan without violating regulatory requirements and discusses special materials handling issues in C&D waste. It is available here: c&d.pdf Two organizations that compile information for waste management activities relevant to roadway design and construction are the Construction Materials Recycling Association ( and the Green Highways Partnership ( GLOSSARY C&D Construction and demolition CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMRA Construction Materials Recycling Association Construction & demolition waste Material that must be hauled off site for disposal or reprocessing, or, if disposed within the project ROW, is not intended for engineered use on site EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 to RCRA MSW Municipal solid waste MT Metric ton (tonne) NEWMOA Northeast Waste Management Officials Association RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1972) ROW Right of Way TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation USDOT United States Department of Transportation REFERENCES Aquino, J.T. (2003). C&D Waste: A Sometimes Bumpy Road to More Attention. MSW Management. July August Accessed December 16, Available at august 2003/cdwaste recycle.aspx Bloomquist, D., Diamond, G., Oden, M., Ruth, B., & Tia, M. (1993). Engineering and Environmental Aspects of Recycled Materials for Highway Construction. FHWA RD , Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Bremner, P. & City of Vancouver Engineering Services. (2006) Road construction waste: to landfill or recycle? There is no question. In proceedings of Transportation Association of Canada 2006 Annual Conference and Exhibition. Session: 2005 TAC Environmental Achievement Award Nominations. Accessed October 22, Available at atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2006/docs/s007/bremner.pdf California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). (2009, October 27). Recycle: CIWMB. Accessed December 21, Available at: California Integrated Waste Management Board. (2009, June 22) C&D Recycling: CMRA Master Specifications. Accessed December 16, Available at

10 Project Requirements Greenroads Manual v1.5 Construction Industry Research and Information Association. (2004, April 28). CIRIA: Construction Waste and Resources. Design and Construction Good Practice Pointers. Accessed December 21, Available at: Construction Materials Recycling Association. (2009a). CMRA: Home. Accessed December 16, Available at Construction Materials Recycling Association. (2009b) C&D Recycling Excellence Honored By CMRA [Press Release]. April 6, Accessed December 16, Available at Davio, R. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2000) Lessons Learned: TxDOT s Efforts to Increase the Use of Recycled Materials. Public Roads. 64(1). Accessed December 16, Available at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008, October 2) Landfills C&D Materials Wastes US EPA. Accessed December 16, Available at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008a, September 11) Landfills Municipal Solid Waste Wastes US EPA. Accessed December 16, Available at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008b, October 2) Basic Information C&D Materials Wastes US EPA. Accessed December 16, Available at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009b, March 13) Industrial Wastes Wastes US EPA. Accessed December 16, Available at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009c, March 13) Non Hazardous Wastes Wastes US EPA. Accessed December 16, Available at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009d, July 1) Definition of Solid Waste Wastes US EPA. Accessed December 16, Available at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009e, November 16) C&D Materials Wastes US EPA. Accessed December 16, Available at Environmental Protection Agency. (2004, September) RCRA in Focus: Construction, Demolition, and Renovation. (EPA530 K ). Accessed December 16, Available at: c&d.pdf Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b, September 30). Climate Change and Municipal Solid Waste Fact Sheet Pay As You Throw US EPA. Accessed December 21, Available at Environmental Protection Agency. (2008c, November 13). Municipal Solid Waste Wastes US EPA. Accessed December 21, Available at Environmental Protection Agency. (2008e, December 3). P2 Resource Exchange Pollution Prevention US EPA. Accessed December 21, Available at Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a, March) Estimating 2003 Building Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. (EPA530 R ). Accessed December 16, Available at: meas.pdf

11 Greenroads Manual v1.5 Project Requirements Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a, September 14). Waste Home General Information on the Link Between Solid Waste and Climate Change Climate Change What You Can Do US EPA. Accessed December 21, Available at Environmental Protection Agency. (2009c, November) Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for (EPA 530 F ) Available at Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. (2009b, November). Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Detailed Tables and Figures for Available at Franklin Associates, Inc. (1998, June). Characterization of Building Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. Report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste. (EPA530 R ). Prairie Village, KS: TechLaw, Inc. Available at rpt.pdf Gambatese, J. A., & Rajendran, S. (2005). Sustainable Roadway Construction: Energy Consumption and Material Waste Generation of Roadways. In Proceedings of the ASCE Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening perspectives, April 5 7, 2005 (San Diego, Ca). Reston, Va: American Society of Civil Engineers. Green Highways Partnership, Global Environment & Technology Fund. (2008). Green Highways Partnership. Accessed December 16, Available at ICF Incorporated. (1995a, May 18). Environmental Damages Cases from Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills [DRAFT]. Report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Available at pdf/damage.pdf ICF Incorporated. (1995b, May 18). Report on Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills [DRAFT]. Report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Available at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007) Pachauri, R.K & Reisinger, A. eds. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC: Switzerland, pp. Johnson, J. (2009, March 30). EPA estimates C&D debris up 25%. Waste Recycling News. Accessed December 16, Available at Kibert, C. (2005). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery (1st ed.). Hoboken N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. King County Solid Waste Division & Seattle Public Utilties. (2007) Contractors Guide King County Solid Waste Division. Available at: King County Solid Waste Division. (2008, October 2). Design specifications and waste management plans for green building projects in King County, WA. Accessed December 20, Available at: recycling/specifications plans.asp King County Solid Waste Division. (2009, October 20) Green Building King County Solid Waste Division. Accessed December 20, Available at:

12 Project Requirements Greenroads Manual v1.5 Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Stylianou, M., Haralambous, K., & Loizidou, M. (2008). Preliminary study for the management of construction and demolition waste. Waste Management & Research. 26 (3), McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press. Northeast Waste Management Officials Association (NEWMOA). (2009, June 30). Construction & Demolition WasteManagement in the Northeast in Boston, Ma: NEWMOA. Available at Poon, C. S., Yu, A. T. W. & Ng, L. H. (2001). On site sorting of construction and demolition waste in Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling. 32 (2), 157. Rajendran, S. & Gambatese, J. A. (2007). Solid Waste Generation in Asphalt and Reinforced Concrete Roadway Life Cycles. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 13 (2), 88. Schultmann, F. & Sunke, N. (2007). Energy oriented deconstruction and recovery planning. Building Research &; Information. 35 (6), Seydel, A., Wilson, O. D. & Skitmore, R. M. (2002). Financial Evaluation of Waste Management Methods. Journal of Construction Research. 3 (1), Sustainable Sites Initiative. (2009) The Sustainable Sites Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks Available at United States Green Building Council (USGBC). (2009) LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Rating System. Available at WasteCap Resource Solutions. WasteCap Resource Solutions Construction & Demolition. Accessed December 21, Available at demolition/