Description
![Photo Description: Image of compost filter socks](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081111095542im_/http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/images/menuofbmps/compost_filtersock.png) |
Installation of
filter socks in a road ditch by Earth Corps for Indiana Department of
Transportation. The filter socks will be staked through the center.
Source: Filtrexx International, LLC.
|
|
A compost filter sock is a type of contained compost filter berm. It
is a mesh tube filled with composted material that is placed
perpendicular to sheet-flow runoff to control erosion and retain
sediment in disturbed areas. The compost filter sock, which is oval to
round in cross section, provides a three-dimensional filter that
retains sediment and other pollutants (e.g., suspended solids,
nutrients, and motor oil) while allowing the cleaned water to flow
through (Tyler and Faucette, 2005). The filter sock can be used in
place of a traditional sediment and erosion control tool such as a
silt fence or straw bale barrier. Composts used in filter socks are
made from a variety of feedstocks, including municipal yard trimmings,
food residuals, separated municipal solid waste, biosolids, and
manure.
Compost filter socks are generally placed along the perimeter of a
site, or at intervals along a slope, to capture and treat stormwater
that runs off as sheet flow. Filter socks are flexible and can be
filled in place or filled and moved into position, making them
especially useful on steep or rocky slopes where installation of other
erosion control tools is not feasible. There is greater surface area
contact with soil than typical sediment control devices, thereby
reducing the potential for runoff to create rills under the device
and/or create channels carrying unfiltered sediment.
Additionally, they can be laid adjacent to each other,
perpendicular to stormwater flow, to reduce flow velocity and soil
erosion. Filter socks can also be used on pavement as inlet protection
for storm drains and to slow water flow in small ditches. Filter socks
used for erosion control are usually 12 inches in diameter, although 8
inch, 18 inch, and 24 inch– diameter socks are used in some
applications. The smaller, 8 inch–diameter filter socks are
commonly used as stormwater inlet protection.
Compost filter socks can be vegetated or unvegetated. Vegetated
filter socks can be left in place to provide long-term filtration of
stormwater as a post-construction best management practice (BMP). The
vegetation grows into the slope, further anchoring the filter sock.
Unvegetated filter socks are often cut open when the project is
completed, and the compost is spread around the site as soil amendment
or mulch. The mesh sock is then disposed of unless it is
biodegradable. Three advantages the filter sock has over traditional
sediment control tools, such as a silt fence, are:
- Installation does not require disturbing the soil surface,
which reduces erosion
- It is easily removed
- The operator must dispose of only a relatively small volume of
material (the mesh)
- These advantages lead to cost savings, either through reduced
labor or disposal costs. The use of compost in this BMP provides
additional benefits, include the following:
- The compost retains a large volume of water, which helps prevent
or reduce rill erosion and aids in establishing vegetation on the
filter sock.
- The mix of particle sizes in the compost filter material retains
as much or more sediment than traditional perimeter controls, such as
silt fences or hay bale barriers, while allowing a larger volume of
clear water to pass through. Silt fences often become clogged with
sediment and form a dam that retains stormwater, rather than letting
the filtered stormwater pass through.
- In addition to retaining sediment, compost can retain pollutants
such as heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and grease, fuels,
herbicides, pesticides, and other potentially hazardous
substances—improving the downstream water quality (USEPA,
1998).
- Nutrients and hydrocarbons adsorbed and/or trapped by the compost
filter can be naturally cycled and decomposed through bioremediation
by microorganisms commonly found in the compost matrix (USEPA,
1998).
Applicability
Compost filter socks are applicable to construction sites or other
disturbed areas where stormwater runoff occurs as sheet flow. Common
industry practice for compost filter devices is that drainage areas do
not exceed 0.25 acre per 100 feet of device length and flow does not
exceed one cubic foot per second (see Siting and Design
Considerations). Compost filter socks can be used on steeper slopes
with faster flows if they are spaced more closely, stacked beside
and/or on top of each other, made in larger diameters, or used in
combination with other stormwater BMPs such as compost blankets.
Siting and Design Considerations
Compost Quality: Compost quality is an important
consideration when designing a compost filter sock. Use of sanitized,
mature compost will ensure that the compost filter sock performs as
designed and has no identifiable feedstock constituents or offensive
odors. The compost used in filter socks should meet all local, state,
and Federal quality requirements. Biosolids compost must meet the
Standards for Class A biosolids outlined in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 503. The U.S. Composting Council (USCC)
certifies compost products under its Seal of Testing Assurance (STA)
Program. Compost producers whose products have been certified through
the STA Program provide customers with a standard product label that
allows comparison between compost products. The current STA Program
requirements and testing methods are posted on the USCC website.
The nutrient and metal content of some composts are higher than
some topsoils. This, however, does not necessarily translate into
higher metals and nutrient concentrations or loads in stormwater
runoff. A recent study by Glanville, et al. (2003) compared the
stormwater runoff water quality from compost- and topsoil-treated
plots. They found that although the composts used in the study
contained statistically higher metal and nutrient concentrations than
the topsoils used, the total masses of nutrients and metals in the
runoff from the compost-treated plots were significantly less than
plots treated with topsoil. Likewise, Faucette et al. (2005) found
that nitrogen and phosphorus loads from hydroseed and silt fence
treated plots were significantly greater than plots treated with
compost blankets and filter berms. In areas where the receiving waters
contain high nutrient levels, the site operator should choose a
mature, stable compost that is compatible with the nutrient and pH
requirements of the selected vegetation. This will ensure that the
nutrients in the composted material are in organic form and are
therefore less soluble and less likely to migrate into receiving
waters.
The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officers
(AASHTO) and many individual State Departments of Transportation
(DOTs) have issued quality and particle size specifications for the
compost to be used in filter berms (USCC, 2001; AASHTO, 2003). The
compost specifications for vegetated filter berms developed for AASHTO
Specification MP 9-03 (Alexander, 2003) are also applicable to
vegetated compost filter socks (personal communication, B. Faucette,
R. Tyler, and N. Goldstein, 2005). These specifications are provided
as an example in Table 1. Installations of unvegetated compost filter
socks, however, have shown that they require a coarser compost than
unvegetated filter berms. The Minnesota DOT erosion control compost
specifications for “compost logs” recommend 30 to 40
percent weed-free compost and 60 to 70 percent partially decomposed
wood chips. They recommend that 100 percent of the compost passes the
2-inch (51 mm) sieve and 30 percent passes the 3/8-inch (10 mm) sieve.
Research on these parameters continues to evolve; therefore, the
unvegetated filter sock parameters shown in Table 1 are a compilation
of those that are currently in use by industry practitioners (personal
communication, B. Faucette, R. Tyler, R. Alexander, and N. Goldstein,
2005). The DOT or Department of Environmental Quality (or similar
designation) for the state where the filter sock will be installed
should be contacted to obtain any applicable specifications or compost
testing recommendations.
Design: Filter socks are round to oval in cross
section; they are assembled by tying a knot in one end of the mesh
sock, filling the sock with the composted material (usually using a
pneumatic blower), then knotting the other end once the desired length
is reached. A filter sock the length of the slope is normally used to
ensure that stormwater does not break through at the intersection of
socks placed end-to-end. In cases where this is not possible, the
socks are placed end-to-end along a slope and the ends are
interlocked. The diameter of the filter sock used will vary depending
upon the steepness and length of the slope; example slopes and slope
lengths used with different diameter filter socks are presented in
Table 2.
Siting: Although compost filter socks are usually
placed along a contour perpendicular to sheet flow, in areas of
concentrated flow they are sometimes placed in an inverted V going up
the slope, to reduce the velocity of water running down the slope. The
project engineer may also consider placing compost filter socks at the
top and base of the slope or placing a series of filter socks every 15
to 25 feet along the vertical profile of the slope. These slope
interruption devices slow down sheet flow on a slope or in a
watershed. Larger diameter filter socks are recommended for areas
prone to high rainfall or sites with severe grades or long slopes.
Coarser compost products are generally used in regions subject to high
rainfall and runoff conditions.
Table 1. Example Compost Filter Parameters
Parameters
a,1,4
|
Units of
Measurea
|
Vegetated Filter
Berm/Socka |
Unvegetated Filter
Sockb |
pH2 |
pH units |
5.0 – 8.5 |
6 – 8 |
Soluble salt concentration2
(electrical
conductivity) |
dS/m (mmhos/cm) |
Maximum 5 |
Not applicable |
Moisture content |
%, wet weight basis |
30 – 60 |
30 – 60 |
Organic matter content |
%, dry weight basis |
25 – 65 |
25 – 65 |
Particle size |
% passing a selected mesh size, dry weight
basis |
- 3 in. (75 mm), 100% passing
- 1 in. (25 mm), 90 – 100% passing
- 0.75 in. (19 mm), 70 – 100% passing
- 0.25 in. (6.4 mm), 30 – 75% passing
Maximum particle size length of 6 in. (152 mm)
Avoid compost with less than 30% fine particle (1 mm) to
achieve optimum reduction of total suspended solids
No more than 60% passing 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) in high
rainfall/flow rate situations |
- 2 in. (51 mm), 100% passing
- 0.375 in. (10 mm), 10% – 30% passing
|
Stability3
Carbon dioxide evolution rate |
mg CO2-C per gram of organic matter
per day
|
<8 |
(same as vegetated) |
Physical contaminants (manmade inerts)
|
%, dry weight basis |
<1 |
<1 |
Sources: aAlexander, 2003;
bPersonal communication, B. Faucette, R. Tyler, N.
Goldstein, R. Alexander, 2005
Notes:
1 Recommended test methodologies are
provided in
[Test Methods for the Evaluation of Composting and Compost ].
2 Each plant species requires a specific
pH range and has a salinity tolerance rating.
3 Stability/maturity rating is an area of
compost science that is still evolving, and other test methods should
be considered. Compost quality decisions should be based on more than
one stability/maturity test.
4 Landscape architects and project
engineers may modify the above compost specification ranges based on
specific field conditions and plant requirements.
Table 2. Example Compost Filter Sock Slopes, Slope
Lengths, and Sock Diameters
Slope
|
Slope
Length (feet) |
Sock
Diameter (inches) |
<50:1 |
250 |
12 |
50:1–10:1
|
125 |
12 |
10:1–5:1
|
100 |
12 |
3:1–2:1
|
50 |
18 |
>2:1 |
25 |
18 |
Source: Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), 2004
Installation: No trenching is required;
therefore, soil is not disturbed upon installation. Once the filter
sock is filled and put in place, it should be anchored to the slope.
The preferred anchoring method is to drive stakes through the center
of the sock at regular intervals; alternatively, stakes can be placed
on the downstream side of the sock. The ends of the filter sock should
be directed upslope, to prevent stormwater from running around the end
of the sock. The filter sock may be vegetated by incorporating seed
into the compost prior to placement in the filter sock. Since compost
filter socks do not have to be trenched into the ground, they can be
installed on frozen ground or even cement.
Limitations
Compost filter socks offer a large degree of flexibility for
various applications. To ensure optimum performance, h eavy vegetation
should be cut down or removed, and extremely uneven surfaces should be
leveled to ensure that the compost filter sock uniformly contacts the
ground surface. Filter socks can be installed perpendicular to flow in
areas where a large volume of stormwater runoff is likely, but should
not be installed perpendicular to flow in perennial waterways and
large streams.
Maintenance Considerations
Compost filter socks should be inspected regularly, as well as
after each rainfall event, to ensure that they are intact and the area
behind the sock is not filled with sediment. If there is excessive
ponding behind the filter sock or accumulated sediments reach the top
of the sock, an additional sock should be added on top or in front of
the existing filter sock in these areas, without disturbing the soil
or accumulated sediment. If the filter sock was overtopped during a
storm event, the operator should consider installing an additional
filter sock on top of the original, placing an additional filter sock
further up the slope, or using an additional BMP, such as a compost
blanket in conjunction with the sock(s).
Effectiveness
A large number of qualitative studies have reported the
effectiveness of compost filter socks in removing settleable solids
and total suspended solids from stormwater (McCoy, 2005; Tyler and
Faucette, 2005). These studies have consistently shown that compost
filter socks are at least as effective as traditional erosion and
sediment control BMPs and often are more effective. Compost filter
socks are often used in conjunction with compost blankets to form a
stormwater management system. Together, these two BMPs retain a very
high volume of stormwater, sediment, and other pollutants.
The compost in the filter sock can also improve water quality by
absorbing various organic and inorganic contaminants from stormwater,
including motor oil. Tyler and Faucette (2005) conducted a laboratory
test using 13 types of compost in filter socks. They found that half
of the compost filter socks removed 100 percent of the motor oil
introduced into the simulated stormwater (at concentrations of 1,000
– 10,000 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) and the remaining compost
filter socks removed over 85 percent of the motor oil from the
stormwater.
Cost Considerations
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality reports that the
cost of a 12-inch diameter compost filter sock ranges from $1.40 to
$1.75 per linear foot when used as a perimeter control (McCoy, 2005).
The costs for an 18-inch diameter sock used as a check dam range from
$2.75 to $4.75 per linear foot (McCoy, 2005). These costs do not
include the cost of removing the compost filter sock and disposing of
the mesh once construction activities are completed; however, filter
socks are often left on site to provide slope stability and
post-construction stormwater control. The cost to install a compost
filter sock will vary, depending upon the availability of the required
quality and quantity of compost and the availability of an experienced
installer.
References
Alexander, R. 2003. Standard Specifications for Compost for
Erosion/Sediment Control, developed for the Recycled Materials
Resource Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.
Available at [www.alexassoc.net
].
Alexander, R. 2001. Compost Use on State Highway Applications,
Composting Council Research and Education Fund and U.S.
Composting Council, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
AASHTO. 2003 Standard Specifications for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Designation MP-9,
Compost for Erosion/Sediment Control (Filter Berms), Provisional,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington,
D.C.
Faucette, et al. 2005. Evaluation of Stormwater from Compost
and Conventional Erosion Control Practices in Construction Activities,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 60:6, 288-297.
Glanville et al. 2003. Impacts of Compost Blankets on Erosion
Control, Revegetation, and Water Quality at Highway Construction Sites
in Iowa, T. Glanville, T. Richard, and R. Persyn,
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department, Iowa State
University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Juries, D. 2004. Environmental Protection and Enhancement with
Compost, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Northwest
Region.
McCoy, S. 2005. Filter Sock Presentation provided at Erosion,
Sediment Control and Stormwater Management with Compost BMPs
Workshop, U.S. Composting Council 13th Annual Conference
and Trade Show, January 2005, San Antonio, Texas.
MnDOT. 2005. Storm Drain Inlet Protection Provisions, S-5.5
Materials, B. Compost Log, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Engineering Services Division, Technical Memorandum
No. 05-05-ENV-03, January 18, 2005.
ODEQ. 2004. Best Management Practices for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Guidance for
Eliminating or Reducing Pollutants in Stormwater Discharges,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Northwest Region.
Personal communications, 2005. Industry representatives were
interviewed regarding the particle size and composition of composts
currently used in vegetated and unvegetated filter socks. These
representatives included Britt Faucette and Rod Tyler of Filtrexx,
International, LLC; Nora Goldstein of BioCycle, Journal of Composting
& Organics Recycling; and Ron Alexander of R. Alexander
Associates, Inc.
Tyler, R. and B. Faucette. 2005. Organic BMPs used for
Stormwater Management—Filter Media Test Results from Private
Certification Program Yield Predictable Performance, U.S.
Composting Council 13 th Annual Conference and Trade Show, January
2005, San Antonio, Texas.
USCC. 2001. Compost Use on State Highway
Applications, U.S. Composting Council, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1998. An Analysis of Composting as an Environmental
Remediation Technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W), EPA530-R-98-008, April
1998.
W&H Pacific. 1993. Demonstration Project Using Yard Debris
Compost for Erosion Control, Final Report, presented to
Metropolitan Service District, Portland, Oregon. |