A RCADIS G&M, Inc. 4915 Prospectus Drive Suite F Durham North Carolina 27713 Tel 919 544 4535 Fax 919 544 5690 MEMO
To: 

### Ms. Elizabeth Scheehle, EPA Copies: 

### Ms. Diana Pape, ICF Ms. Shannon Prendergast, Tetratech

From: 

### Michiel Doorn

Date: ARCADIS Project No.: 

### 21 June 2010 RN009201.0001

Subject: 

### New Meat & Poultry Estimates

ARCADIS obtained from Tetratech and EPA/OW a spr eadsheet with data for 41 meat or poultry plants. Typically, three distinct processes could be distinguished: slaughtering, further processing and rendering. Wastewater from these three pro cesses is treated in an anaerobic lagoon. Two plants used different treatment technologies; an anaerobic digester and an anaerobic rotating biological contactor. These plants were not ex cluded, because both processes are likely to produce methane. One plant that appeared to be only for rendering was excluded. There are three meat plants that receive some poultry products for processing. However, the poultry share is negligible (<1.6%) compared to the meat share, so it was ignored. Pertinent data include:

 Separate flows from slaughtering, furthe r processing and rendering going into the anaerobic lagoon. (gal/year). These were added together.

 Average BOD concentration of the influent into the anaerobic lagoon (mg/liter)

 Quantity of meat or poultry slaughtered (live weight killed, lbs/year).
Production data (lbs/year) for further processing and rendering were also available, however these were not used, because adding them to the slaughter production, would constitute double counting. Several plants did receive external product for further processing and rendering in addition to their own contributions, however, it c ould not be determined to what degree and now adjustments were made. The reasoning is as follows . It was assumed that the 40 plants are a representative sample of US packing plants. If the plant exports further processing and or rendering products, the wastewater associated with these activities would be processed at a receiving plant. The original plant would have l ess wastewater loading, while the receiving plant

n:\ghg reporting rule\straight-to-final track 2 pkg due 3-30-10\docket\6-14-2010\new m&p data memo.doc Page: 

### 1/4

### would have more wastewater loading. However, the average wastewater loading for the two plants would not be affected.
The plants in the EPA/OW sheet are separated in poultry and meat plants. Activity data available from the Census also allow for this segregation, so this constitutes an improvement in the quality of the activity data.
The existing GPG methodology to estimate CH4 emissions from meat and poultry wastewater requires the following input:

 emission factor ( 0.25 g CH 4 

### /g COD);

 production (tons/year, carcass weight) from Census;

 outflow (13 m 3 

### /ton with a range of 8 – 18);

 average organics loading (4.1 COD/m 3 

### with a range of 2 – 7); and

 a factor (TA) to express which part of BOD is treated anaerobically (0.77).
The spreadsheet from EPA/OW includes somewhat different data that may lead to more accurate factors. The organics loading is presented in BOD instead of COD. Thus the emission factor will have to be expressed accordingly (i.e., 0.6 g CH 4 

### /g BOD versus 0.25 g CH 4 

### /g COD). Another difference is that both BOD concentration and (out)flow are determined for the actual lagoon influent and not the wastewater outflow. This el iminates having to account for the influences of upstream wastewater treatment technologies. The TA factor used in the GPG methodology was 0.77. Because the measuring point is now at the actual lagoon inlet, this factor becomes 1.00.
Production data submitted by Tetratech and EPA/OW are expressed in live weight killed (LWK), while the Inventory uses USDA/Census data in “car cass weight.” Carcass weight does not include head, hide and internal organs and thus would be lower than LWK. Conversion factors to convert LWK to “dressed weight” were provided by Tetratech. (Savell and Smith, 2000; Mead, 1989. 1 

### ) It was judged by Tetratech 2 

### that “dressed weight” is similar to “carcass weight”. Conversion factors to convert LWK to carcass weight are:

Beef: 62.5 % Pork: 73 % Turkeys: 75 % (assumed the same for chickens)
In 2001 production of beef and pork was 26,212 and 19,160 (poultry, 36,839) million pounds (carcass weight) respectively. Thus, the weighted conversion factor for beef and pork is 67 %.

1 G. C. Mead. 1989. Processing of Poultry by, AFRC Institute of Food Resear ch, Bristol Laboratory, Langford, Bristol, UK. 

### Jeffrey W. Savell and Gary C. Smith. 2000. M eat Science, Laboratory Manual. Seventh Edition.

2 Teleconference.

n:\ghg reporting rule\straight-to-final track 2 pkg due 3-30-10\docket\6-14-2010\new m&p data memo.doc Page: 

### 2/4

### The flow into the lagoon in gal/year was divided by the slaughter quantity (tons/year) yielding inflow into the anaerobic lagoon per production unit (m 3 

### /ton).

Statistical data on BOD concentrations and lagoon inflows are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. New Factors based on EPA/OW data

BOD concentration
lagoon influ ent Flow into lagoon

Units (g/m 3 ) (m 3 /ton) Number of data points 4 21 Average 1,508 16.6 Lowest 680 2.6 Highest 2,347 27.8 Poultry

Standard Deviation 721 6.7 Number of data 14 8 Average 2,822 7.9 Lowest 957 3.8 Highest 7,236 30.9 Meat

Standard Deviation 1,624 5.9



### New methane emissions estimates were computed using the data from Table 1 and are included in Table 2. Once the data have been reviewed, A RCADIS will redo the complete time-series. The new estimates for total meat & poultry wastewater are 0.540 Tg, compared to 0.396 Tg for the old estimates. This is a factor 1.36 higher.

n:\ghg reporting rule\straight-to-final track 2 pkg due 3-30-10\docket\6-14-2010\new m&p data memo.doc Page: 

### 3/4n:\ghg reporting rule\straight-to-final track 2 pkg due 3-30-10\docket\6-14-2010\new m&p data memo.doc Page: 

### 4/4 TABLE 2. NEW METHANE EMISSION ESTIMATES
OLD DATA Methane GWP: 21

RED MEAT AND POULTRY 1990 2001 2002 Output (million lbs, carcass) 62,255 82,643 Output (metric tons x 1000) 28,239 37,487 38,550 WW Outflow (m3/ton) 13 13 13 COD (g/l) 4.1 4.1 4.1 COD produced (Gg/yr) 1,505 1,998 2,055

TA (%) 77 77 77 Emission factor (Mg CH4/Mg COD) 0.25 0.25 0.25 Total Emissions (Tg or MMT) 0.290 0.385 0.396 Total Emissions (MMT CO2) 6.084 8.077 8.306 Total Emissions (Gg CO2) 6,084 8,077 8,306

NEW DATA Methane GWP: 21

RED MEAT 1990 2001 2002 Output (million lbs, carcass) 62,255 45,804 Output (metric tons x 1000) 28,239 20,777 21,358 WW Outflow (m3/ton) 5.3 7.9 7.9 BOD (g/l) 4.1 2.8 2.8 BOD produced (Gg/yr) 614 460 472

TA (%) 77 100 100

Emission factor (Mg CH4/Mg COD) 0.25 0.6 0.6 Total Emissions (Tg or MMT) 0.118 0.276 0.283 Total Emissions (MMT CO2) 2.481 5.791 5.953 Total Emissions (Gg CO2) 2,481 5,791 5,953

Methane GWP: 21 POULTRY 1990 2001 2002 Output (million lbs, carcass) 62,255 36,839 Output (metric tons x 1000) 28,239 16,710 17,178 WW Outflow (m3/ton) 13 16.6 16.6 BOD (g/l) 4.1 1.5 1.5 BOD produced (Gg/yr) 1,505 416 428

TA (%) 77 100 100

Emission factor (Mg CH4/Mg COD) 0.25 0.6 0.6 Total Emissions (Tg or MMT) 0.290 0.250 0.257 Total Emissions (MMT CO2) 6.084 5.243 5.389 Total Emissions (Gg CO2) 6,084 5,243 5,389

TOTAL Total Emissions (Tg or MMT) 0.525 0.540 Total Emissions (MMT CO2) 11.0 11.3 Total Emissions (Gg CO2) 11,033 11,342

Note: 2002 data were not yet available and were extrapolated from 2001.