Am_0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICAITON NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicble)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a)By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPIRATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc. ) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION ( Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

1 42

0002 Aug 28, 2014 ED 14-024

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer District, New Orleans

ATTN: CEMVN-CT-E

7400 Leake Avenue, Room 184 New Orleans, LA 70118

WBV492A-14-S-0010

Aug 13, 2014

The above numbered solicitation for FY'14 Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business MATOC Task Order for West Bank & Vicinity, WBV-49.2a, Hurricane Protection Project, Algiers Canal Levee Lift, Sta. 310+00 To Sta. 770+00, Orleans & Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana is hereby modified to provide a response to an Offeror-submitted question.

The proposal due date of 2:00pm, 2 September 2014 remains unchanged.

Amendment 0002 Continuation Page

Contractor Question: Can the Government supply the name and contact information for the vendor that can meet the compost specifications presented in amendment 1? We have discussed with the majority of the compost facilities that we are familiar with in Louisiana and Mississippi and cannot seem to find a vendor that states that they can meet the specification or potential quantity requirements.

Government Response: For compost, the spec requires compliance with Louisiana Department of Agriculture Best Management Practices or equivalent state guidelines for out-of-state sources. Multiple sources are available in the New Orleans region:

1. Compost Suppliers in MS - Visit MS DEQ web site and see attached list and map of state-regulated compost sources: http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/page/SW_Composting?OpenDocument

2. Participants in the US Composting Council's Seal of Testing Assurance Program (STA). This directory lists 3 suppliers in Georgia, 4 in Kentucky, and many in Texas.

http://compostingcouncil.org/participants/

On a related note, see the list of STA labs approved by the US Composting Council's Seal of Testing Assurance Program (STA) and note that the nearest labs are located in Austin, TX and Edinburg, TX:

http://compostingcouncil.org/labs/

3. Directory of Compost Facilities throughout North America: http://www.findacomposter.com/ This free industry directory created and managed by Biocycle magazine provides contact information (including websites) for 23 facilities in Texas, 1 in Louisiana, 2 in Mississippi, and 1 in Alabama. This is obviously an incomplete database but a good starting point.

4. ERDC report on Composting at Fort Polk - This report provides a good summary of composting in Louisiana and a list of compost sources in the state on page 18 (see attached).

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/page/SW_Composting?OpenDocument http://compostingcouncil.org/participants/ http://compostingcouncil.org/labs/ http://www.findacomposter.com/

Contact

Phone #

Blackjack Composting Robert Raymond (662) 549-1133 boobois@yahoo.com 5377 Blackjack Road, Starkville, MS 39759

Brandon, City of Darion Warren, Public Works Director (601) 825-5021 dwarren@ci.brandon.ms.us 4001 North Street, Brandon, MS 39043

Centreville, Town of Mayor Larry Lee (601) 645-5218 Gaulden Clinton Rd., Centreville, MS

Clinton, City of Mike L. Parker (601) 924-2239 mparker@clintonms.org 550 S. Frontage Rd., Clinton, MS 39056

Currie's Organic Poultry Compost William Larry Currie (601) 536-3368 scurrie2003@bayspringstel.net 1143 SCR 32A, Forest, MS, 39074

Decatur, Town of Tony Ferguson (601) 635-4600 rockus2597@yahoo.com Bill Bailey Drive, Decatur MS

The Dirt Store at Williamson Nursery Doug Myhr (601) 276-2794 2040 Johnston Chapel Rd., Summit, MS 39666

Greenwood, City of Susan Bailey, Public Works Director (662) 455-7660 sbailey@cityofgreenwood.org 600 Ione St., Greenwood, MS, 38930

Hankin's Lumber Co., Inc. Steve Howell (662) 266-2961 496 Nat G Troutt Rd., Duck Hill, MS 38901

Heavn's Best Compost Del Banowetz (228) 365-3744 heavnsb@aol.com 19234 Saucier-Lizana Road, Saucier, MS 39574

Horn Lake, City of, Leaves of Life

Compost Facility Spencer Shields (662) 342-3508 sshields@hornlake.org off of Hurt Rd., Horn Lake, MS

Leaf River River, LLC Composting Wade Raulston (601) 964-7178 wade.raulston@gapac.com 157 Buck Creek Road, New Augusta, MS 39462

NASA John C. Stennis Space Center Eddie Renz (228) 688-1526 eddie.a.renz@nasa.gov NASA John C. Stennis Space Center campus

Trinity Development Foundation: Clutter to Compost Lance Burnett (662) 645-4419 burnett.lance@yahoo.com Coldwater River Road, Jonestown, MS 38639

Terra Verm LLC Lawrence "Larry" Pelletier (601) 813-9452 2165 Belknap Rd., Edwards, MS 39066

West Jackson County Ronda Powell (228) 872-8340 Ronda_Powell@co.jackson.ms.us 10401 Seaman Rd., Vancleave, MS 39564

Type A: Facilities composting only vegetative debris and/or untreated wood waste.

Type B: Facilities composting food wastes, animal manures, and/or other organic materials in addition to vegetative debris and/or untreated wood waste.

Mississippi Composting Facilities

Facility Name Operator/Contact Contact E-mail Physical Address mailto:boobois@yahoo.com mailto:dwarren@ci.brandon.ms.us mailto:mparker@clintonms.org mailto:scurrie2003@bayspringstel.net mailto:rockus2597@yahoo.com mailto:sbailey@cityofgreenwood.org mailto:heavnsb@aol.com mailto:sshields@hornlake.org mailto:wade.raulston@gapac.com mailto:eddie.a.renz@nasa.gov mailto:burnett.lance@yahoo.com

Facility

Type

B

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

B

A

B

B

B

B

A

Mississippi Composting Facilities

!8

!8

!8

!8

!8

!8

!8

!8

Jackson

Tupelo

BiloxiGulfport

Meridian

Corinth

Hattiesburg

Pearl Vicksburg

Grenada

Southaven

Clinton

Olive Branch

Starkville Greenville

Canton

Brandon

Laurel

Moss Point

Columbus

West Point

Ridgeland

Gautier

Natchez

Oxford

Madison

Pascagoula

Clarksdale

McComb

Picayune

Yazoo City

Indianola Greenwood

Ocean SpringsLong Beach

Cleveland

Hinds

Yazoo

Bolivar

Attala

Jackson

Amite

Lee

Rankin

Wayne

Scott

Perry

Jones

Harrison

Copiah

Smith

Monroe

Panola

Clarke

Holmes

Kemper

Jasper

Carroll

Leake

Greene

Tate

Leflore

Marshall

Madison

Clay

Pike

Warren

Pearl River

Noxubee

Lincoln

Lafayette

Marion

Winston

Newton

Lamar

Sunflower

Tunica

Calhoun

Desoto

Union

Stone

Wilkinson

Tippah

Franklin

Washington

Simpson

Adams

Lauderdale

Alcorn

Neshoba

Coahoma

Forrest

George

Hancock

Benton

Lowndes

Pontotoc Itawamba

Tallahatchie

Jefferson

Prentiss

Sharkey

Grenada

Claiborne

Webster

Quitman

Yalobusha

Choctaw

Chickasaw

Walthall

Oktibbeha

Lawrence

Issaquena

Tishomingo

Covington

Humphreys

Montgomery

Jefferson Davis

State of Mississippi Composting Facilities

Compost Facilities Compost Facility Type !8 A (Yard and wood waste only) 43 B (Food and other wastes)

State Boundary County City with Populations > 10,000

MDEQ Solid Waste Policy, Planning and Grants Branch (July 2012) µ

ER

D

C

TR

-1 4-

Army Net Zero Program

Composting Assessment for Organic Solid Waste at Fort Polk, Louisiana

En gi ne er

R es ea rc h an d D ev el op m en t

Ce nt er

Victor F. Medina, Michelle Wynter, Stephen Cosper, Giselle Rodriguez, Dick Gebhart, Sam Hunter, and Patricia Kemme

April 2014

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

The US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) solves the nation’s toughest engineering and environmental challenges. ERDC develops innovative solutions in civil and military engineering, geospatial sciences, water resources, and environmental sciences for the Army, the Department of Defense, civilian agencies, and our nation’s public good. Find out more at www.erdc.usace.army.mil.

To search for other technical reports published by ERDC, visit the ERDC online library at http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default.

http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/ http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default

Army Net Zero Program ERDC TR-14-2 April 2014

Composting Assessment for Organic Solid Waste at Fort Polk, Louisiana

Victor F. Medina and Michelle Wynter Environmental Laboratory US Army Engineer Research and Development Center 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

Stephen Cosper, Giselle Rodriguez, Dick Gebhart, Sam Hunter, and Patricia Kemme Construction Engineering Research Laboratory US Army Engineer Research and Development Center 2909 Newmark Drive Champaign, IL 61826-9005

Final report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000

ERDC TR-14-2 ii

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate composting as a means of increasing waste diversion at Ft. Polk, LA. Wastes were evaluated from a range of activities, and the authors found that a number of materials currently landfilled are suitable for composting, including: vegetation, food wastes, pulverized paper (which is not suitable for recycling), consumer-contami-nated paper (not suitable for recycling), damaged wood pallets, and sludge from the wastewater treatment plants. Waste records from Ft. Polk suggest a composting operation producing at least 2200 tons per year (from a food waste/vegetation strategy) is feasible. This would represent considerable solid waste diversion, consistent with meeting Net Zero Waste Goals.

Between the Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM), the Directorate for Family, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (DFMWR) (golf course, athletic and drill fields), and smaller groups, there are enough users to consume all the compost that could be generated from an on-site operation. A suitable area for on-site composting is available. There are also other alternatives to on-site composting, including current management, which is outlined in this report; other means of waste diversion (including direct soil application of certain waste materials and anaerobic digestion of food wastes); and the possibility of developing partnerships with composting facilities offsite.

Although this project is focused on Ft. Polk, the assessment could be — in a broad sense — applicable to other Army installations. In addition, the issues found at the Joint Training and Readiness Center (JTRC) might have applicability to contingency environments and deployed operations.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.

Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.

ERDC TR-14-2 iii

Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii

Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi

Preface .................................................................................................................................................. viii

Unit Conversion Factors ........................................................................................................................ix

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. x

1 Introduction

1.1 Fort Polk

1.2 Army Sustainability Efforts

1.3 Net Zero Waste (NZW)

2 Composting – State of the Art

2.1 Composting

2.2 Operating Parameters

2.2.1 Aerobic Conditions

2.2.2 Water Content

2.2.3 Thermophilic Conditions

2.2.4 pH

2.3 Optimal Compost Recipes

2.3.1 Carbon: Nitrogen Ratios

2.3.2 Water Content

2.3.3 Food

2.3.4 Paper

2.3.5 Biodegradable/Compostable Replacement Materials for Plastics, Rubber, and Styrofoam

2.3.6 Other Considerations

2.4 Composting Approaches

2.4.1 Windrow Composting

2.4.2 Static Pile Composting

2.4.3 In-Vessel Systems

2.5 Odor Control

2.6 Runoff & Leachate Control

2.7 Composting in Louisiana

3 Regulatory Review

3.1 Type III Waste Management Facilities

3.1.1 Permitting

3.1.2 Waste that can be composted (LAC 33:VII, 723)

3.1.3 Required Documents, Reports, and Records

3.1.4 Operators

ERDC TR-14-2 iv

3.1.5 Required Plans for Type III facilities

3.1.6 Leachate & Runoff Management for Type III Facilities

3.1.7 Security Requirements for Type III Facilities

3.1.8 Required Type III Composting Facility Components

3.2 Compost Operational Parameters and Quality

3.2.1 Metal Concentration of Finished Compost

3.2.2 Pathogen Reduction

3.2.3 Vector Reduction Requirements (for food chain applications only)

3.3 Best Management Practices for Composting Yard Waste, Race Track Stable Bedding, or Woody Waste, or Agricultural Production/Processing Wastes

4 Waste Assessment at Ft. Polk

4.1 General Waste Generation at Military Installations

4.2 Review of Waste Generation Areas at Ft. Polk

4.2.1 Joint Readiness Training Area (JTRC)

4.2.2 Dining Hall Facilities (DFACs)

4.2.3 Army & Air Force Exchanges Services (AAFES) activities

4.2.4 Mulligan’s

4.2.5 DFMWR Large Events

4.2.6 Department of Public Works (DPW) Roads and Grounds Maintenance

4.2.7 Spring and Fall Cleanup

4.2.8 Wastewater Treatment Plants

4.3 Specific Wastestreams

4.3.1 Pulverized Paper

4.3.2 Damaged Wood Pallets

4.3.3 Vegetative Debris from Hurricane Rita

4.3.4 Off-Site Generated Wastes

4.4 Analysis of Waste Generation Records

4.5 Summary of Waste Assessment

5 Potential Compost Use at Ft. Polk

5.1 Background

5.2 Application Rates and Techniques

5.3 Department of Public Works (DPW) Roads and Grounds

5.4 Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM)

5.5 Directorate of Family, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

6 Potential for On-Site Composting at Ft. Polk

6.1 Location

6.2 General Layout and buildings needed for composting

6.3 Equipment Required for Composting

6.4 Recommendations for a Ft. Polk Composting Operation

6.4.1 Staged start-up

6.4.2 Vegetation/Bulking Agents

6.4.3 Food/Sludge

6.4.4 Paper

6.4.5 Contingency Situations

ERDC TR-14-2 v

6.4.6 Contaminated Soils

7 Other Options

7.1 Outside the Fence Partnership Possibilities

7.1.1 R&W Farm

7.1.2 Partnerships with Local Communities

7.1.3 Boise-Cascade Paper

7.2 Some Alternative Diversions to Implementing Composting

7.2.1 Continued Management Practices

7.2.2 Direct application of Vegetative Material, Paper and Sludges as Soil Amendments

7.2.3 Alternatives for Food Wastes and Sludges

7.2.4 Conclusion

8 Laboratory Study

8.1 Purpose

8.2 Approach

8.2.1 Materials & Recipe

8.2.2 Reactor Setup & Incubation

8.2.3 Results

8.3 Summary

9 Discussion

9.1 Implications to Other Army and DoD Installations and Army Net Zero Waste

9.2 Implications to Forward Operating Bases

9.3 Costs and Breakeven Calculation

10 Conclusions

References

Appendix A: Carbon to Nitrogen Ratios for Various Waste Items (from USCC 2009)

Appendix B: Moisture Contents of Various Feedstocks (from USCC 2009)

Appendix C: Summary Article on Biodegradable Plastic Replacements (prepared by Dominique Gilbert)

Appendix D: Phone meeting notes from discussion with Joey Breaux, Louisiana Office of Soil and Water Conservation

Appendix E: Cost Estimate for Preparing an On-Site Composting Operation (with references to R.S. Means construction estimating factors)

Appendix F: Notes from Artemis Advantage, LLC. Regarding Off-Site Options

Appendix G: Breakeven calculations for five scenarios

Report Documentation Page

ERDC TR-14-2 vi

Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1. Food Waste Hierarchy Figure 2. PLA cups partially degraded after 30 days composting [From USCC (2009)] Figure 3. Windrow Composting. Windrow turner and a windrow compost pile Figure 4. Schematic of a static pile composting operation Figure 5. Pictures of JBLM’s forced air static pile composting operation Figure 6. In-vessel compost systems. The system on the left was the enclosed system tested at JBM-HH (described in NDCEE 2013a) and to the right is a simple enclosed system using a bag approach Figure 7. Typical composition of municipal solid waste (USEPA 2010) Figure 8. Compostable service Items used by Mulligan’s Figure 9. Sewage sludge in drying bed at American Water Operated Wastewater Treatment Plant Figure 10. Aerial view of the proposed Chaffee Rd composting area Figure 11. View of the proposed composting site looking Southeast toward Chaffee Rd Figure 12. Idealized layout of a composting operation (courtesy of Sam Hunter, CERL) Figure 13. Composting operations at R&W Farm Figure 14. Materials used in study (from top left to right: Leaves, pine straw, sewage sludge, & food scraps) Figure 15. Denver Instruments moisture analyzer Figure 16. Plastic bin containers used as a compost reactor Figure 17. Incubators used in study Figure 18. Comparison of Initial (left) and finished compost (right) consisting of leaves, pine straw, leaves, sludge, and food. Food is clearly visible in the initial compost (left), but almost completely degraded so as to be unrecognizable in the finished compost (right) Figure 19. Finished (50 days) compost with pulverized paper (left) and with compostable products (right)

Tables

Table 1. Army Net Zero Pilot Installations Table 2. C:N Ratios for key wastes identified at Ft. Polk (from USCC 2009, except sewage sludge, Rynk and Sailus 1992) Table 3. Summary of compostable/biodegradable materials for service items Table 4. Cost comparison of typical plastic service items with biodegradable replacements Table 5. Cost differential of compostable products per serving (double waste assumes that the average user will use twice as many service items)

ERDC TR-14-2 vii

Table 6. Composting operations in Louisiana identified via Internet searches (the authors acknowledge the contributions of Ms. Kathy Brewer and Ms. Christina Baker of Artemis Advantage, LLC., towards the creation of this list) Table 7. Metal concentration levels of finished compost (mg/Kg dry weight) Table 7. JTRC Wastes and applicability for composting Table 8. DFAC wastes and applicability for composting Table 9. AAFES wastes and applicability for composting Table 10. Mulligan’s wastes and applicability for composting Table 11. DPW ground and maintenance wastes and applicability for composting Table 12. WWTP wastes and applicability for composting Table 13. Metal analysis (in mg/Kg) of sludge collected from one of the WWTP, operated by American Water at Ft. Polk. ND = Non-detect. (Selenium was measured later, and non-detect) Table 14. Metal analyses (mg/Kg) of wood pallet samples from Ft. Polk. ND = Non-detect Table 15. Solid waste generation at Ft. Polk via the SWARWeb database Table 16. Detailed solid waste generation data for Ft. Polk from July 2011 to August 2012 Table 17. Diversion estimated from a 50:50 food waste, vegetation composting strategy Table 18. Equipment typically required for a forced air composting operation Table 19. Initial measurements and recipe used for the compost preparation Table 20. Volatile organic matter content and pH of compost reactors consisting of leaves, pine straw, sludge, and food

ERDC TR-14-2 viii

Preface

The work reported herein was conducted at the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Environmental Laboratory (EL) in Vicksburg, MS and at the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) in Champaign, IL. Funding for the work described in this report was provided by the Department of Public Works at Fort Polk, Louisiana.

Dr. Victor Medina and Michelle Wynter, EL; and Steven Cosper, Giselle Rodriguez, and Dr. Dick Gebhart, CERL, prepared this report. In-house review was provided by Dr. Catherine Thomas and Roy Wade. Curtis Fey of Army Environmental Command also provided a detailed review.

Tammy Veillon, Nathan “Jerry” Broussard, Ted Hammerschmid, Abi Franklin, and Philip St. Romain of Ft. Polk’s Environmental Division were especially helpful in providing information. Dr. Charles Stagg, Chief of the Environmental Division, was also very supportive. The authors are appreciative of Kathy Brewer and Christina Baker, both of Artemis Advantage, LLC., who shared information about their efforts to develop a regional composting facility in the vicinity of Ft. Polk.

This study was conducted under the direct supervision of W. Andy Martin, Branch Chief, Environmental Engineering Branch (EP-E); Warren Lorentz, Division Chief, Environmental Processes and Engineering Division (EP); and Dr. Pat Deliman, Technical Director, Environmental Modeling and Assessment, EL.

At the time of publication, Dr. Beth Fleming was Director of EL, Dr. Ilker Adiguzel was Director of CERL, COL Jeffrey R. Eckstein was Commander of ERDC, and Dr. Jeffery P. Holland was Director of ERDC.

ERDC TR-14-2 ix

Unit Conversion Factors

Multiply By To Obtain

Acres 4,046.873 square meters acre-feet 1,233.5 cubic meters cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic meters cubic inches 1.6387064 E-05 cubic meters cubic yards 0.7645549 cubic meters degrees Fahrenheit (F-32)/1.8 degrees Celsius feet 0.3048 meters gallons (US liquid) 3.785412 E-03 cubic meters hectares 1.0 E+04 square meters inches 0.0254 meters microns 1.0 E-06 meters miles (US statute) 1,609.347 meters pounds (mass) 0.45359237 kilograms pounds (mass) per cubic foot 16.01846 kilograms per cubic meter pounds (mass) per cubic inch 2.757990 E+04 kilograms per cubic meter pounds (mass) per square foot 4.882428 kilograms per square meter pounds (mass) per square yard 0.542492 kilograms per square meter square feet 0.09290304 square meters square inches 6.4516 E-04 square meters square miles 2.589998 E+06 square meters square yards 0.8361274 square meters tons (long) per cubic yard 1,328.939 kilograms per cubic meter tons (2,000 pounds, mass) 907.1847 kilograms tons (2,000 pounds, mass) per square foot 9,764.856 kilograms per square meter yards 0.9144 meters

ERDC TR-14-2 x

Acronyms AAFES Army and Air Force Exchange Services

C:N Carbon to Nitrogen (ratio)

CERL Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

DFAC Dining Facility or Facilities

DFMWR Directorate of Family, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

DoD Department of Defense

DPW Department of Public Works

EL Environmental Laboratory

ERDC Army Engineer Research and Development Center

FOB Forward Operating Base

FTE Full Time Employee

Ft. Fort

FY Fiscal Year g, mg, Kg gram, milligram, kilogram ha hectare(s)

ITAM Integrated Training Area Management

JBLM Joint Base Lewis McChord

JBMHH Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall

JTRC Joint Readiness Training Area

LA Louisiana

LAC Louisiana Administrative Code

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

LPDES Louisiana Point Discharge Elimination System

%MC Percent Moisture Content

MRE(s) Meal(s) – Ready to Eat

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Permit

MSW Municipal Solid Waste(s)

ND Non-detect

NZW Net Zero Waste

ERDC TR-14-2 xi

PLA Polylactic Acid

PX Post Exchange

SOUR Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate

TOC Total Organic Carbon

USCC United States Composting Council

ERDC TR-14-2 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Fort Polk

Fort Polk is a US Army installation that was established in 1941 and is located in west central Louisiana (LA), approximately 10 miles east of Leesville, LA and 30 miles north of DeRidder, LA. The entire complex encompasses over 200,000 acres of land. Approximately 113,000 acres belong to the Army and serve as the main post in the northern area of the installation. To the south, the installation has 98,000 acres of National Forest land dedicated to intensive training. The population on post is approximately 9,792 military personnel and 13,232 civilians. Ft. Polk strives annually to be an Army Quality Installation, which means that it provides a secure, thriving community for soldiers, Army civilians, retirees, and their families.

Ft. Polk’s primary mission is to support the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). The JRTC hosts rotational units from all US military services for advanced contingency infantry and special operations training, adding an approximate 5,000 military personnel to the installation. The mission statement of the JTRC is to train soldiers and grow leaders to deploy, fight, and win. As a Power Projection Platform: the JTRC has critical missions to mobilize, validate, deploy, and redeploy Active, National Guard, and Army Reserve Forces.

The constant rotation of training units creates several unique waste challenges. The cost of processing and disposing of waste from the training areas is five times more than the average cost of processing and disposing of waste generated in other parts of the installation. Additionally, field training also generates large quantities of Meals - Ready to Eat (MREs).

Currently, there are no diversion alternatives for these.

Despite the unique waste challenges at Ft. Polk, the staff and leadership are committed to finding appropriate solutions to these issues. Ft. Polk is engaged in the Army’s sustainability efforts as part of the Army Net Zero Installation Strategy. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, the installation became one of the Army Net Zero Waste Pilot installations.

ERDC TR-14-2 2

1.2 Army Sustainability Efforts

The Army Net Zero Installation Strategy was announced in 2011. The main goal of the strategy is to integrate sustainability practices at the installation level to preserve the flexibility to operate in constrained circumstances, either economical or environmental. The first step in the strategy was to select the Net Zero Installation Pilots and divide the effort into three categories: Net Zero Energy, Net Zero Water, and Net Zero Waste (NZW). A Net Zero Energy installation is defined as an installation that produces as much energy on-site as it uses. A Net Zero Water installation is an installa-tion that limits the consumption of fresh water resources and returns the water back to the same watershed. A Net Zero Waste installation is an installation that reduces, reuses, and recovers waste streams, converting them to resource value without using landfill. Pilot installations should achieve these goals by FY 2020. The Pilot installations (Table 1) were selected after an evaluation process for which several installations submitted application packages.

Table 1. Army Net Zero Pilot Installations.

Net Zero Energy Net Zero Water Net Zero Waste

• Fort Detrick, MD

• Fort Hunter Liggett, CA

• Kwajalein Atoll, Rep. of the

Marshall Islands

• Parks Reserve Forces

Training Area, CA

• Sierra Army Depot, CA

• West Point, N.Y.

• Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

• Camp Riley, OR

• Fort Buchanan, PR

• Fort Riley, KS

• Joint Base Lewis-

McChord, WA

• Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA

• Fort Detrick, MD

• Fort Hood, TX

• Fort Hunter Liggett, CA

• Fort Polk, LA

• Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA

• US Army Garrison

Grafenwoehr, Germany.

Integrated Installations (Net Zero Energy, Water and Waste)

• Fort Bliss, TX

• Fort Carson, CO

1.3 Net Zero Waste (NZW)

The concept of NZW simply states that no waste should go to landfill over the course of one year. A combination of different waste management practices along the life cycle of the installation should be applied to accomplish this goal. These practices are divided in two main components:

waste minimization and waste diversion. The waste minimization component of the Net Zero Strategy encourages the installations to reduce waste at the source by engaging in sustainable purchasing of materials that

ERDC TR-14-2 3

generate less waste, have less packaging, are reusable and recyclable, etc.

The second component, waste diversion, refers to the processes and technologies the installation can use to prevent its waste from going to the landfill. Some examples of alternatives to landfill disposal are recycling, composting, and waste to energy technologies, etc.

ERDC TR-14-2 4

2 Composting – State of the Art

2.1 Composting

Composting is a biological treatment process for organic constituents. This process involves the placing of organic material in a pile with sufficient water and air to stimulate microbial activity. The pile creates insulation, which causes both a rise in temperatures and an increase in biological activity. The temperature gradient within the pile stimulates air flow as the pile becomes a self-sustaining reactor.

Composting is an aerobic and thermophilic process, meaning that it requires first oxygen then elevated temperatures. The process results in a partial transformation of complex organic constituents, as opposed to complete mineralization. As a result of these transformations, offensive characteristics (such as odor) are removed, pathogenic microorganisms are destroyed, and nutrient availability is increased.

The goal of composting is to produce a residual that is amenable to land application as a nutrient source or soil amendment. Although technically a very wide range of organic materials can be successfully composted, aesthetic considerations must be considered. For example, a biodegradable plastic can undergo sufficient reactions in a compost pile, but still appear to be in its original form, such as in the form of a plastic fork. One way to address this is to grind the materials or the resultant compost so that partially degraded substances no longer look recognizable (and thus objectionable) after the composting reaction. Of course, this grinding does increase the cost of the operation.

2.2 Operating Parameters

Successful composting requires a balance between several key parameters.

The greatest cause for failure in composting operations is odor, due to improper operation. Foul odors can cause issues with neighbors; they are also an indicator of improper treatment. Other composting failures can include failure to deactivate pathogenic microorganisms. By maintaining proper operating parameters, odors are contained and composting success is assured.

ERDC TR-14-2 5

2.2.1 Aerobic Conditions

With few exceptions, composting is an aerobic process (Epstein 1997).

This means that enough oxygen must be present to promote aerobic respiration. If aerobic conditions are not maintained, anaerobic digestion takes over, slowing down the biological activity. Additionally, anaerobic reactions tend to be more odorous.

Aerobic conditions are maintained by promoting good air flow through piles. One way to maintain such air flow is to incorporate structurally rigid, slowly degrading pieces — like wood chips — into piles. This will create a porous structure within composting materials and encourage air movement. If the compost has a good, porous structure, the temperature gradients may be sufficient to promote aerobic degradation. However, if high organic materials are added, such as food waste or sludge, passive aeration will likely not be adequate, and the piles will require periodic turning or forced air to increase aeration.

2.2.2 Water Content

Water content is another key parameter (Epstein 1997). Biological activity requires water. However, too much water can clog pore spaces and impede air flow, creating anaerobic conditions. Fifty to sixty percent moisture content by wet weight is generally considered optimal. Water can generally be applied to compost if needed.

2.2.3 Thermophilic Conditions

Thermophilic temperatures (50 to 70 oC (131 to 160 oF)) promote composting as well as faster biological reactions. These conditions are also critical for the deactivation of pathogens, and the promotion of air move-ment and aerobic conditions in the pile. In fact, 50oC (131oF) is considered a threshold temperature at which most pathogens are destroyed. Tempera-ture gradients resulting from themophilic conditions promote air movement in the pile, assisting in the maintenance of aerobic conditions.

Several features of the compost pile work to create high temperatures. First, high biological activity generates heat. Incorporating easily biodegradable materials into the compost recipe will promote thermophilic conditions.

Similarly, aerobic reactions generate more heat than anaerobic reactions.

Thus, creating and maintaining aerobic conditions is critical. Finally, ERDC TR-14-2 6 creating insulation can allow temperatures to rise. Generally, compost piles on the order of 1 to 2 meters in depth allow for the right combination of insulation to airflow. Thicker piles may have issues maintaining even air flow and aerobic conditions. Enclosed, or in-vessel, reactors can also be useful for insulating compost and maintaining elevated temperatures.

2.2.4 pH

Very low pH (<3) or high pH (>11) tend to stop aerobic biological activity.

Optimal conditions are near neutral (between 6 and 9). However, most solid wastes have pH near neutral and biological reactions in most composting settings are relatively buffered, making pH control generally very easy for most composting operations.

2.3 Optimal Compost Recipes

A compost recipe is a mixture of mostly organic feedstocks routinely used by a composting operation. A bad recipe can result in failure of the compost operation. A good recipe can contribute greatly to success. Trial and error may be needed early in a new composting operation, but a good recipe can usually be developed in a short period of time.

2.3.1 Carbon: Nitrogen Ratios

Composting aims for transformation of most of the organic materials rather than complete mineralization. Thus, the carbon:nitrogen (C:N) ratio for composting tends to be relatively high as compared to other biodegradation processes that require higher nitrogen levels for complete degradation (Epstein 1997). Composting works best on feedstocks with an aggregate C:N ratio of 30 to 45:1.

Composting can accommodate a range of organic materials. By balancing organic materials with low C:N ratios (such as food and sludge) with those with high ratios (like wood and paper), effective treatment can be accomplished. Nutrient and/or carbon additions can help balance ratios (Liang et al. 2006), although it can reduce some of the low cost benefits of composting due to the costs of these additives.

A detailed description of compostable waste streams at Ft. Polk is discussed in the following sections. Table 2 summarizes key wastes and C:N ratios associated with each. Appendix 1 is an expanded list of C:N ratios for a wider variety of potential waste products.

ERDC TR-14-2 7

Table 2. C:N Ratios for key wastes identified at Ft. Polk (from USCC 2009, except sewage sludge, Rynk and Sailus 1992).

Material C:N Ratio % Water Content Comment(s)

Cardboard 560 8 From damaged cardboard or pizza boxes.

Mixed Food Wastes 14-16 69

Green vegetation 17-80 15 to 72 Grass, shrub trimmings, leaves.

Dry or woody vegetation

100-1300 <15

Paper 125-180 19

Digested wastewater treatment sludge

16 10 to 80

2.3.2 Water Content

As mentioned above, between 50 to 60% water content by weight is optimal. Food and sludges tend to have high water content, while paper and wood have low. By balancing feedstocks, the target water content can be obtained. Table 2 has typical water content for key wastes identified at Ft. Polk and Appendix 2 provides typical water content for a wider range of waste materials. Water can be easily added, if needed.

2.3.3 Food

Because hunger remains a problem throughout the world, including at certain socio-economic levels in the United States, management of food waste is a critical issue. USEPA (2012) has developed a ranking system for surplus food (Figure 1). Composting is the 5th level on the hierarchy, but is perhaps second only to source reduction in importance, since two of the levels (feed people, feed animals) require preservation and may have health issues associated with them, and since industrial uses are limited to oils, fats, and grease.

Ft. Polk has made a conscious decision to reduce food waste; however, it is a challenging task because soldiers must be fed adequately, which involves providing food in excess. Furthermore, hospital operations (there is a hospital on the installation) typically waste significant amounts of food as patients are often unable to eat the meals provided. Ft. Polk endeavors to give away surplus food whenever possible to worthy organizations like the fire and police departments; however, some regulations limit the amount of food items that can be donated.

ERDC TR-14-2 8

Figure 1. Food Waste Hierarchy.

Food waste is a valuable but challenging material for composting operations (Chang and Hsu 2008, USCC 2009). This material is valuable because it provides moisture to the system and is high in nitrogen, an important nutrient in fertilizers. Handling food waste is challenging because it is putrescent, causing foul odors. It also can attract vermin. However, mixing composting with food can eliminate odor, pest, and pathogenic issues; it also allows for the beneficial reuse of these valuable materials, including the production of new food via agricultural processes. Mixing composting with food saves landfill space and decreases the formation of undesirable landfill gases, including methane, a strong greenhouse gas.

Careful planning is needed for composting operations that include food waste. Generally, once food is incorporated into a compost pile (as part of an effective recipe), the odor issue comes under control. Coordination of food waste deliveries is necessary so that the food waste can be incorporated quickly. Storage of food invites severe odor problems and vermin issues.

Food availability also might affect the choice of composting technology. As discussed in section 2.4, windrow composting, which involves periodic turning of compost piles, can result in increased release of odor. In-vessel systems, on the other hand, offer greater odor control (Donahue et al. 1998, Kim et al. 2008).

2.3.4 Paper

It is generally agreed that recycling is the best fate for paper. Ft. Polk has instituted an aggressive paper recycling program. However, many paper

ERDC TR-14-2 9

products cannot be recycled. This includes consumer-contaminated paper products, like napkins, food service material, and sanitary materials. It also includes coated paper products, like waxed paper, and most paper board materials, like cereal boxes. In the Army, sensitive documents typically undergo pulverization, which makes the fibers unsuitable for recycling. Nevertheless, papers of all kinds have been used in compost. All evidence suggests that paper can be successfully composted, and that it could actually improve the quality of compost (USCC 1995). Paper can also provide wicking and binding effects that help hold water and nutrients in the food zone.

2.3.5 Biodegradable/Compostable Replacement Materials for Plastics, Rubber, and Styrofoam

Plastic and Styrofoam materials are challenging to compost because they do not degrade. Grinding can be one way to incorporate these materials.

Another option is the use of biodegradable or compostable replacements. In some cases, paper products can be used in exchange for these more-difficult-to-compost products. However, compostable paper-based products do not always meet the service needs of the food vendor. To that end, there has been some development in biodegradable and compostable replace-ments. Three types dominate: bioplastics, starch-based plastics, and bagasse. Bioplastics use a polymer based on polylactate acid (PLA) (Hoppenheidt and Trankler 1995, Copinet et al. 2004, Sarasa et al. 2009, USCC 2009). These materials look and perform a lot like traditional, petroleum-based plastics; however, they are usually not as durable and robust as petroleum-based plastics (Copinet et al. 2004, Rippey 2012).

Studies indicate that bioplastics are much more likely to degrade with exposure to UV light and high temperatures. Bioplastics are, therefore, not used for long-term storage, like drinking water bottles. Starched-based plastics, particularly those from corn and potato starch, tend to make a weak plastic, usually suitable for light duty items. Lastly, bagasse is a highly fibrous plant material associated with sugar cane. It can be made into heavy duty plates and bowls that are heat resistant, though these products often lack the suppleness of more traditional plastics (Table 3). Appendix 3 gives a more detailed summary of biodegradable options.

ERDC TR-14-2 10

Table 3. Summary of compostable/biodegradable materials for service items.

From USCC (2009)

Biodegradable plastics should be used only after careful consideration. First, these materials are generally more expensive than non-biodegradable, petroleum-based plastics. Table 4 compares the cost of “green” (biode-gradable) products versus conventional items (Rippey 2012). In only one case did the green product cost less than the non-recyclable alternative.

From a percentage point of view, the cost differential between a green product and a traditional plastic product can be up to 28 times higher (see comparison of fork costs). However, if we consider the differential from a cost-per-meal basis, we come up with about $0.60 per meal, which seems relatively modest (Table 5). Furthermore, as these materials are adopted, it is reasonable to expect that their costs will get lower due to economy of scale, particularly since standards are being implemented that will require Federal purchasers to buy “green” products, despite these cost differences (Rippey 2012).

Finally, most petroleum-based plastics can be recycled (although Styrofoam is generally not recycled). Polyester-based plastic containers and bags can be broken down into fibers, which can be recycled to make clothes, bottles, thread, and other plastic products (Bartle 2011). Therefore, a reasonable strategy would be to use petroleum-based plastics for materials not affected by consumer contamination, such as shopping bags and water bottles, and promote recycling of these materials. Bioplastics and biodegradable alterna-tives could be used whenever possible to replace plastics and styrofoams for direct food service that results in consumer contamination, which would greatly complicate recycling.

If biodegradable items are to be used, a strategy should be developed for these items to be separated from non-biodegradable items in the waste

ERDC TR-14-2 11

stream. Non-biodegradable, petroleum-based plastics usually can be recycled and/or potentially converted to energy. Biodegradable plastics, however, are not recycled and are poor waste to energy sources (Rippey 2012).

Table 4. Cost comparison of typical plastic service items with biodegradable replacements.

Item Unit Price ($) Price difference (Green

- Conventional)

9x9 three compartment ivory 3 in hinged lid Bagasse (biodegradable paper)

0.256 0.137

9x9 three compartment white 3.25 in hinged lid Foam 0.119 6x6 1 compartment clear 3 in hinged lit. Biodegradable PLA plastic 0.149 0.028

6x6 1 compartment clear 3 in hinged lit. Plastic 0.121 16 oz Cold clear green stripe. Biodegradable PLA plastic. 0.084 0.019 16 oz Cold clear. Plastic. 0.065 Medium weight beige fork. Biodegradable corn starch plastic. 0.028 0.018 Medium weight white fork. Polypropolyene plastic. 0.010 10 in 3-compartment plate. Bagasse (biodegadable paper) 0.085 -0.071

10.25 in 1-compartment black round plate. Foam. 0.156

7.75 in Jumbo clear, wrapped straw. Biodegradable PLA plastic. 0.015 0.011

7.75 in Jumbo clear, wrapped straw. Polypropolyene plastic. 0.004

Table 5. Cost differential of compostable products per serving (double waste assumes that the average user will use twice as many service items).

Even if biodegradable plastics are adopted, it is important to be aware that they typically degrade slowly. Figure 2 is a picture of biodegradable plastic (PLA) cups after 30 days in a composting system. They still look like cups, and will not be acceptable for most soil applications. In many instances, this issue can be addressed simply by grinding the materials, and over a long period of time, biodegradation percentages in excess of 60% can be obtained (Sarasa et al. 2009).

Cost Diff no. Total Cost Plate 0.07$ 1 0.07$ 3 utensils 0.02$ 3 0.05$ Cup 0.02$ 1 0.02$ Straw 0.01$ 1 0.01$ Container 0.14$ 1 0.14$

Total 0.29$ Assume double wastage 0.58$

ERDC TR-14-2 12

Figure 2. PLA cups partially degraded after 30 days composting [From USCC (2009)].

2.3.6 Other Considerations

Like the structurally rigid material mentioned above, large, rigid materials can also help maintain good air flow. Most recommendations are for limiting oils and fats in the waste stream to less than 5% (USCC 2009).

Meats and bones in the waste stream require high temperatures to compost appropriately, (>131 F (50 0C)). Although virtually any organic material can be composted, some materials undergo very slow reactions and remain largely unchanged during most composting operations. These include plastics, leathers, and rubber. However, grinding can be used to transform materials into smaller pieces so that they are more aesthetically pleasing.

Care should be taken to limit hazardous or toxic chemicals or materials in compost, as these can affect its use as a soil amendment. In addition, metals remain unchanged throughout the composting process, and should be avoided as much as reasonably possible. Organic compounds that are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or other similar organics that might be considered as soil contaminants should also be limited, although composting tends to be effective at degrading many contaminants, including several persistent ones. (Epstein 1997).

2.4 Composting Approaches

2.4.1 Windrow Composting

Windrow composting is an open air composting approach in which the compost material is laid out in the open, and periodically turned or

ERDC TR-14-2 13

physically mixed to aerate the material (Haug 1993, Rynk and Sailus 1992).

The compost is typically set up in elongated, triangular-shaped piles, which allows for easy access and turning (Figure 3). While there are specialized machines made specifically for turning windrows, less expensive options exist with soil or earth-moving equipment, including agricultural tractors, bulldozers, and skip loaders.

Figure 3. Windrow Composting. Windrow turner and a windrow compost pile.

Windrow composting is generally considered the simplest approach to composting. It is easy to implement, requires very little equipment beyond what is needed for turning the windrows, and is generally very effective.

Because the material is turned, it is easy to mix in amendments and modify the process after operation begins.

Windrow composting generally has the greatest space requirements, as windrows can be long and there must be enough area to accommodate them. In addition, the turning process can result in periodic release of high odors.

Windrow composting is very commonly performed on farms because space is typically not an issue, odors are not a major problem, and farms already have the necessary equipment for the operation. In fact, the composting operation at the R&W Farm in Allen Parish (which currently receives food wastes from Ft. Polk, see section 7.1.1) is a windrow operation.

2.4.2 Static Pile Composting

In a static pile, the compost material is not physically turned. Rather, air is circulated within the pile (Rynk and Sailus 1992). This can be accomplished passively in some cases, relying on the heat differential within the pile to create the air currents. However, in most cases, air movement is forced via a vacuum or blower through a piping system to ensure good air-flow through the pile.

ERDC TR-14-2 14

Figure 4 is a schematic of a typical forced air pile system. Piping is used to distribute air through the pile. The air can be either drawn in by a vacuum system, or forced in using a blower (most blowers can be attached to work either in a vacuum or in forced air mode). The pile is covered by a layer of finished compost, which absorbs and degrades odors (see section 2.5).