## DOE/EA-1626

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) Phase III Large-Scale Field Test

Decatur, Illinois

October 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL ENERGY TEC HNOLOGY LABORATORYU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents i October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ......... v LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................... vi

USE OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION............................................................................................... x

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................. 6

1.3 Legal Framework ........................................................................................................... 10

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION A ND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 17

2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 17

2.1.1 Project Location...................................................................................................... 18

2.1.2 Construction............................................................................................................ 21

2.1.2.1 CO 2 Supply...................................................................................................... 21

2.1.2.2 Compression-dehydration Facility .................................................................. 21

2.1.2.3 Pressurized Pipeline......................................................................................... 22

2.1.2.4 Injection Well .................................................................................................. 22

2.1.2.5 Verification Wells............................................................................................ 23

2.1.2.6 Groundwater Monitoring Wells....................................................................... 24

2.1.2.7 Vadose Zone Soil Vapor Monitoring Stations ................................................ 25

2.1.2.8 Atmospheric Modeling Data Collection Stations............................................ 25

2.1.2.9 Injection Well Surface Facilities ..................................................................... 26

2.1.3 Operations and Maintenance................................................................................... 26

2.1.3.1 General............................................................................................................. 26

2.1.3.2 Target Zone and Operational Integrity ............................................................ 27

2.1.3.3 Monitoring, Mitigation, and Validation (MMV) Programs ............................ 30

2.1.4 Decommissioning ................................................................................................... 31

2.2 No-Action...................................................................................................................... . 31

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Elim inated from Detailed Analysis .................................. 31

2.4 Issues Considered and Dismissed .................................................................................. 32

3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH.................................................... 34

3.1 Approach to the Analysis ............................................................................................... 34

3.2 Analysis of Significance................................................................................................. 40

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS...................................................................................................................................... 42

4.1 Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 42

4.1.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 42

4.1.1.1 Climate and Weather ....................................................................................... 42

4.1.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.................... 42

4.1.1.3 Local Ambient Air Quality.............................................................................. 43

4.1.1.4 Existing Facility Emissions ............................................................................. 44

4.1.1.5 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming ....................................................... 44

4.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 45

4.1.2.1 Estimated Emissions and General Conformity................................................ 45

4.1.2.2 Regulatory Review .......................................................................................... 46U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents ii October 2008 4.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming ....................................................... 47

4.1.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 48

4.1.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 48

4.2 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................... 48

4.2.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 48

4.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 54

4.2.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 55

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 55

4.3 Water Resources............................................................................................................. 55

4.3.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 55

4.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 56

4.3.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 59

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 59

4.4 Wetlands and Floodplains .............................................................................................. 59

4.4.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 59

4.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 62

4.4.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 62

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 62

4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation..................................................................................................... 62

4.5.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 62

4.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 63

4.5.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 64

4.5.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 64

4.6 Wildlife........................................................................................................................... 65

4.6.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 65

4.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 65

4.6.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 66

4.6.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 66

4.7 Land Use ....................................................................................................................... . 66

4.7.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 66

4.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 67

4.7.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 68

4.7.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 68

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources.............................................................................................. 68

4.8.1 Population ............................................................................................................... 69

4.8.1.1 Description....................................................................................................... 69

4.8.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action.............................................................................. 70

4.8.1.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 70

4.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................... 70

4.8.2 Employment a nd Income ........................................................................................ 70

4.8.2.1 Description....................................................................................................... 70

4.8.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action.............................................................................. 71

4.8.2.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 72

4.8.2.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................... 72

4.8.3 Infrastructure........................................................................................................... 73

4.8.3.1 Description....................................................................................................... 73U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents iii October 2008 4.8.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action.............................................................................. 73

4.8.3.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 74

4.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................... 74

4.8.4 Parks and Recreation............................................................................................... 75

4.8.4.1 Description....................................................................................................... 75

4.8.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action.............................................................................. 75

4.8.4.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 75

4.8.4.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................... 75

4.8.5 Visual Resources..................................................................................................... 76

4.8.5.1 Description....................................................................................................... 76

4.8.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action.............................................................................. 76

4.8.5.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 76

4.8.5.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................... 76

4.8.6 Noise ....................................................................................................................... 76

4.8.6.1 Description....................................................................................................... 78

4.8.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action.............................................................................. 79

4.8.6.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 80

4.8.6.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................... 81

4.8.7 Environmental Justice............................................................................................. 81

4.8.7.1 Description....................................................................................................... 81

4.8.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action.............................................................................. 82

4.8.7.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 82

4.8.7.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................... 82

4.9 Human Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 82

4.9.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 82

4.9.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 84

4.9.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 87

4.9.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 88

4.10 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 88

4.10.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 88

4.10.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 91

4.10.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 92

4.10.4 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 92

4.11 Waste Management .................................................................................................... 92

4.11.1 Description.............................................................................................................. 92

4.11.2 Effects of Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 94

4.11.3 Effects of No-Action............................................................................................... 94

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 94

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................. 96

5.1 Agency Coordination ..................................................................................................... 96

5.1.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) .............................................................. 96

5.1.2 State Historic Preser vation Office (SHPO)............................................................. 96

5.1.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs ......................................................................................... 96

5.2 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 97

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS..................................................................................................... 98

6.1 Mangi Environmental Group ......................................................................................... 98U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents iv October 2008 6.2 Wiebe Environmen tal Services ...................................................................................... 98

7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 99

8.0 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................... 107

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 112 Appendix A Air Emission Calculations............................................................................. 112 Appendix B USFWS Consultation .................................................................................... 117 Appendix C Noise Calculations......................................................................................... 126 Appendix D SHPO Consultation ....................................................................................... 129 Appendix E Contact with the Bureau of Indi an Affairs and Tribal Councils.................... 135U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents v October 2008 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts.............................................................................................. ... 4 Table 2.1. MGSC Project Timeline ............................................................................................. 1 7 Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds.................................................................................. 40 Table 4.1.1.3. NAAQS and Monitored Air Quality Concentrations ........................................... 43 Table 4.1.1.4. Existing (2007) Air Emi ssions for Decatur ADM Complex ................................ 44 Table 4.1.2.1. Proposed Action Emissions Comp ared to Applicability Thresholds.................... 46

Table 4.1.2.3. Net CO 2 Emissions for the Proposed Action........................................................ 47 Table 4.2.1. Map Legend to NRCS-derived So ils Map for ADM Phase III Test Site ................ 54

Table 4.8.2.1. Household Income for 2006 ................................................................................. 71

Table 4.8.3.2. Well Constructi on Transport Estimate ................................................................. 74

Table 4.8.6-1. Common Sounds and Their Levels ...................................................................... 77

Table 4.8.6-2. State of Illinois Environmental Noise Standards.................................................. 78 Table 4.8.6.1. Estimated Existing Noise Leve ls at Nearby Noise Sensitive Areas ..................... 78

Table 4.8.6.2-1. Noise Levels Associat ed with Outdoor Construction ....................................... 79 Table 4.8.6.2-2. Compressor Noise Levels at N earest NSA Compared to Noise Standards....... 80 Table 4.9.1. Comparison of Na tural Gas Pipelines to CO 2 Pipelines from 1995 to 2005 ........... 83

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2. Map of Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships.................................................. 8 Figure 2.1.1-1. Regional Vicinity Map........................................................................................ 19 Figure 2.1.1-2. Project Area Map .............................................................................................. .. 20 Figure 3.1-1. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 1.............................................................................. 35 Figure 3.1-2. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 2.............................................................................. 36 Figure 3.1-3. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 3.............................................................................. 37 Figure 3.1-4. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 4.............................................................................. 38 Figure 3.1-5. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 5.............................................................................. 39 Figure 4.2.1-1. Illinois Basin’s Stratigra phic Column of Key Formations for CO 2 Injection..... 50 Figure 4.2.1-2. Map of Soil Types over the ADM Phase III Test Site ........................................ 53 Figure 4.4.1-1. Water Bodies and Wetlands near the Test Site ................................................... 60 Figure 4.4.1-2. Floodplains near the ADM Phase III Test Site ................................................... 61 Figure 4.10.1. Cemeteries and NRHP- listed Sites near Project Area.......................................... 90U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Acronyms and Abbreviations vi October 2008 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C Degrees Celsius °F Degrees Fahrenheit μg/m 3 Micrograms per Meter Cubed μS/cm Microsiemens per Centimeter

2D Two Dimensional

3D Three Dimensional

ADM Archer Dani els Midland Company

ANSI American National Standard Institute

AOR Area of Review AQCR 075 West Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR AQCR Air Quality Control Region ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BMPs Best Management Practices

CAA Clean Air Act

CARB California Air Resources Board CCAR California Climate Action Registry CCS Carbon Capture and Storage CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) CF Center Frequency CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH 4 Methane

cm Centimeter

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO 2 Carbon Dioxide

CWA Clean Water Act

dB Decibel dBA A-weighted Decibel DNL Day-night Average Sound Level DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DST Drill Stem Test

e.g. Exempli gratia, for example

EA Environmental Assessment

EDR Environmental Data Resources EIA Energy Information Administration EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ESA Endangered Species Act

et al. et alia , and othersU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Acronyms and Abbreviations vii October 2008 et seq. et sequens, and the following one or ones

etc. et cetera , and so on

FAA Federal Aviation Administration FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

ft 3 Cubic Feet

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HAARGIS Historic Architect ural/Archeological Resources

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons hp Horsepower HYSPLIT Hybrid Single -Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model

Hz Hertz

i.e. id est , that is

IAC Illinois Administrative Code IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency IHPA Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

IL Illinois ILCS Illinois Compiled Statutes

IPCB Illinois Poll ution Control Board IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRGA Infrared Gas Analyzer ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey kg Kilogram

km Kilometer kPa Kilopascals

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt Hour

lbs. Pounds Ldn Equivalent Day Night Level Leq Equivalent Sound Level

Lw Sound Power Levels

m Meter

m 2 Square Meter

m 3 Cubic Meter MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology mD Millidarcy MDT Modular Formation Dynamics Tester MGSC Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium

mm Millimeter MMV Monitoring, Mitigation, and Validation

Mt. Mount MW Megawatt

N 2 O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy ActU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Acronyms and Abbreviations viii October 2008 NESHAP National Emission Standa rds for Hazardous Air Pollutants NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NO 2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NO

x Nitrogen Oxides

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service NRHP National Regist er of Historic Places

NSA Noise Sensitive Area

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NSR New Source Review

O 3 Ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Pb Lead PEMAf Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded, Farmed

PFCs Perfluorocarbons

PM 2.5 Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Mi crometers in Aerodynamic Diameter

PM 10 Particulate Matter of 10 Micromet ers or Less in Aerodynamic Diameter ppm Parts per Million ppmv Parts per Million by Volume PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration psi Pounds per Square Inch psia Pounds per Square Inch Absolute psig Pounds per Square Inch Gauge PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

PWL Power Level R&D Research and Development RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Rd. Road

RRA Resource Rich Area SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

sec Second

SF 6 Sulfur Hexafluoride

SHPO State Historic Pr eservation Office or Officer SIP State Implementation Plan

SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide

SO

x Sulfur Oxides sqft Square Feet TEG Triethylene Glycol

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TL Transmission Loss TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load tpy Tons per Year

U.S. United StatesU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Acronyms and Abbreviations ix October 2008 UIC Underground Injection Control

UNFCCC United Nations Framewor k Convention on Climate Change

USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

VSP Vertical Seismic ProfileU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Use of Scientific No tation x October 2008 USE OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION

Very small and very large numbers are sometimes wr itten using scientific not ation rather than as

decimals or fractions. This notation uses exponents to indicate the power of 10 as a multiplier (i.e., 10 n , or the number 10 multiplied by itself n times; 10 -n , or the reciprocal of the number 10 multiplied by itself n times).

For example: 10 3 =10 x 10 x 10 =1,000
______1

___ 10 -3 = 10 x 10 x 10 =0.001

In scientific notation, large num bers are written as a decimal between 1 and 10 multiplied by the appropriate power of 10:

4,900 is written 4.9 × 10 3 = 4.9 × 10 × 10 × 10 = 4.9 × 1,000 = 4,900.

0.049 is written 4.9 × 10 -2

. 1,490,000 or 1.49 million is written 1.49 × 10 6

.

A positive exponent indicates a numbe r larger than or equal to one ; a negative exponent indicates

a number less than one.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 1 October 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Summary

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is a natural and important compone nt of the atmosphere: animals and plants produce CO 2 during respiration, and plants need it for photosynthesis; however, high

concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere can exert a “gree nhouse” effect that traps heat within the Earth’s atmosphere. Global emissions of CO 2 from human activity ha ve increased from an insignificant level two centuries ago to over tw enty-one billion metric tons per year by 2003 (DOE, 2007a). The most notable human activ ity associated with the generation of CO 2 emissions is the combustion of carbon-based fuels (including oil, natural gas, and coal). Many scientists, including the Intergove rnmental Panel on Climate Cha nge (IPCC), recognize a danger

that even a modest increase in the Earth’s temperature (called “g lobal warming”) could alter the global climate and cause significant adverse cons equences for human health and welfare (DOE, 2007a).

In one of many governmental efforts to address the concerns outlined above, the Department of Energy (DOE) established the Carbon Sequestration Program in 1997 with the focus of conducting research and development (R&D) ac tivities to evaluate and develop carbon sequestration technologies. Carbon sequestration involve s capturing and storing CO 2 emissions prior to release into the atmosphere, as well as enhanci ng natural carbon uptake and storage processes. Geologic sequestration i nvolves the permanent storage of CO 2 in deep unmineable coal seams, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or sa line (saltwater-filled) formations. Impermeable caprocks and/or geologic structural or stratigraphic traps retain the CO 2 in the formation similar to natural gas storage trapping mechanisms. As a part of this program, DOE formed a nationwide network of regional part nerships to help determine the best approaches for capturing and permanently storing gases that can contri bute to global climate change. The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships are a governmen t/industry effort tasked with determining the most suitable technologies, regulat ions, and infrastructure needs for carbon capture, storage, and sequestration in different areas of the country. The regional partnershi ps’ initiativ e is being implemented in three phases:

• Phase I, Characterization (2003-2005): Characterized opportunities for carbon sequestration, including potenti al geologic storage formations and trapping mechanisms;

• Phase II, Validation (2005-2009): Small scale fiel d tests are currently under way to verify the injection rates, storage media, and trapping mechanisms; and

• Phase III, Deployment (2008-2017): Conduct large volume carbon storage validation

tests.

Geographical differences in fossil fuel use and available sequestration sinks across the United States dictate regional appro aches to sequestration of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases. The seven partnerships that currently form this network include over 350 state agencies, universities, and private companies, spanning 41 states, two Indi an nations, and four Canadian provinces. In addition, agencies from six member countries of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum are participating in the Validation Phase field tests. The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) is one of these regional pa rtnerships and this Environmental Assessment (EA) focuses on one of its proposed projects.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 2 October 2008 The current annual CO 2 emissions in the MGSC region are 336 million short tons (304 million metric tons). Previous resear ch indicates that the target M ount (Mt.) Simon Sandstone has an

estimated 29.8 to 119.4 billion short tons (27.1 to 108.6 billion metric tons) of CO 2 storage capacity. The low end of this capacity is e nough to hold half of the region’s estimated CO 2 emissions for the next 100 years, which would be 16.6 billion short tons (15.1 billion metric tons) sequestered (NETL, 2008a).

DOE proposes to co-fund an $84,274,927 project lo cated on property of the MGSC partner

Archer Daniels Midland Co mpany (ADM). DOE’s 79.2% share is $66,730,912 and the nonDOE 20.8% share is $17,544,015. The Decatur ADM Comp lex is on the east side of the city of Decatur, Illinois, in Macon County. The overa ll objective of this project would be to demonstrate the ability of the Mt. Simon Sandst one, a major regional saline reservoir in the Illinois Basin, to accept and retain approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of

CO 2 injected over a period of three years.

The major efforts of this prop osed project would include:

• Regional geologic characterization,

• Public outreach and education,

• Permitting and NEPA compliance,

• Site geologic characterization and modeling,

• Well drilling and completion,

• Infrastructure development,

• CO 2 procurement,

• Transportation and injection operations,

• Operational and environmental monitoring,

• Site closure,

• Post injection monitoring and modeling,

• Project assessment, and

• Post-test site pla nning (MGSC, 2008).

New construction would include a surface facili ty, an approximately 3,000-foot (914 meter (m)) long pressurized pipeline, and 2,000 feet ( 609 m) of ductwork carrying uncompressed CO 2 . The facility would include the CO 2 compression and dehydration equipm ent necessary to capture and

condition the CO 2 from the ADM ethanol production plant. The facility w ould be capable of delivering approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of CO 2 over a three-year period. The pressurized pipe line would deliver the CO 2 from the compression-dehydration facility to the injection well. Prior to construc tion of the facility, all re quired permits would be

obtained from the Illinois Environmental Prot ection Agency (IEPA) and other appropriate regulatory authorities.

The outlet CO 2 stream from the fermentor section of the ethanol producti on plant typically contains greater than 99% pure CO 2 , saturated with water vapor at 80 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) (approximately 27 degrees Celsius (°C)) and atmo spheric pressure. Common impurities in the fermentor gas stream are hydrocarbons, nitrogen, and acetaldehyde in concentrations typicallyU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 3 October 2008 less than 200 parts per million by volume (ppm v). Other impurities in lesser amounts can include ethyl acetate, ethanol, oxygen, methanol , and hydrogen sulfide (Fisher, 2008).

The compression-dehydration facility includes an in let water knockout prior to the first phase of compression. The first phase of compression would use one or more electrically driven screw compressors to compress the low pressure CO 2 from atmospheric pressure to 290 - 315 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) (2000 - 2170 kilopascals (kPa)). Cooling of the CO 2 after the initial compression phase would be achieved using an air- cooled exchanger or water-cooled

shell-and-tube heat exch anger (Fisher, 2008).

A water knockout would be necessary befo re the 290 - 315 psia (2000 - 2170 kPa) CO 2 stream is routed to the next stage of compression. Af ter being compressed to approximately 800 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) (5,516 kPa), the CO 2 will pass through the final stage of intercooling and water knockout, and then into a tr iethylene glycol (TEG) dehydrator system.

Water-saturated CO 2 would be fed to the bottom of an absorber tower containing structured packing where it would contact TEG counter-currently. The water laden “rich” TEG would

leave the bottom of the absorber and would cross exchange with “l ean” TEG in a heat exchange that cools the lean TEG on its way to the top of the absorber.

A propane-fired heater would heat the TEG to re move water vapor and regenerate the TEG in the stripper (Fisher, 2008). The dehydrated CO 2 would exit the top of the absorber and go to the final stage of compression, bringing the pres sure to approximatel y 1200 - 1400 psig (8,274 – 9,653 kPa). If higher pressures ar e needed, the supercritical CO 2 will be pumped to the final required pressure using a multi-stag e centrifugal pump (Fisher, 2008).

The pipeline that w ould transfer the CO 2 from the compression-dehydration facility to the CO 2 injection well would be a 4-inch to 6-inch (10.16 centimeter (cm) to 15.24 cm) diameter schedule 40 or 80 steel pipe designe d to meet standards for the temperature and pressure of the

CO 2 stream. The pipeline would be installed aboveground, following as much as possible the current pipeline alleys at the Decatur ADM Co mplex. The pipeline would be located only on ADM property.

The decision for DOE is to either fund or not fund the Proposed Action including the associated drilling and injection activities. ADM would not pursue the drilli ng and injection activities if DOE’s decision is to not fund the Proposed Action. Table 1.1 below is based on that premise.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 4 October 2008 Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action

Air Quality No impacts, except the loss of
beneficial impacts from reducing
greenhouse gas, are expected. Short-term, minor impacts would be
limited to temporary diesel emissions

and limited air emissions from a
dehydration reboiler. The project
would not produce emissions that
would impede the area’s conformity
with the State Implementation Plan

under the Clean Air Act. In contrast,

there would be some beneficial
impacts due to the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Geology and Soils No impacts Some long-term increase in
subsurface pressures due to CO 2 injection would be expected;
however, the Proposed Action would
not be expected to cause any
measurable leakage of CO 2 from the
storage formation to the surface or

into another area in the subsurface.

There is no more than an
imperceptible risk of inducing

seismic events due to increased
reservoir pressure.
Water Resources No impacts The Proposed Action may cause
some modest increase in water usage
due to the drilling of injection and
monitoring wells; however, any
changes to water quality and quantity
would likely be at the lowest
detectable levels and full recovery of
the resource would likely occur in a

reasonable time*.

Wetlands No impacts No substantial impacts to local
wetlands would be expected. Any
unexpected impacts to wetlands

would be confined to the immediate
project area and would not cause any
regional impacts.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 5 October 2008 Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action

Terrestrial Vegetation No impacts The injection site is fallow. No
critical habitats are present. Changes

would be limited to a small area and
would not be expected to affect the
viability of the resources.

Wildlife No impacts Some local disturbance and
displacement of wildlife may occur;
however, any changes to wildlife
would be limited to a small portion
of the population and would not be
expected to affect the viability of the
resource. Full recovery would occur
in a reasonable time, considering the
size of the project and the affected
species’ natural state.

Land Use No impacts Impacts to land use, if any, would be

localized and limited to the
immediate project area.
Population No impacts The effect on size and demographic

characteristics of the local
population, if any, would be minimal.
Employment and

Income No impacts The effect on the local economy,
labor conditions, and availability of
production or consumer resources, if
any, would be primarily beneficial,
temporary, and of short duration.
Infrastructure No impacts Some minor impacts to the existing
traffic patterns and level of
congestion could be expected during
drilling and construction activities;
however, no long-term impacts in the
immediate or surrounding area are
expected.
Parks and Recreation No impacts Minimal impact to recreational
activities in the immediately
surrounding area but any disturbance
would be minor, temporary in

duration, and in character with
existing uses of the project area
including a nearby park.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 6 October 2008 Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action

Visual Resources No impacts The Proposed Action site is a
previously disturbed industrial site.
The project is unlikely to change
visual landscape in a way that would
be objectionable to local residents or
frequent visitors.

Noise No impacts Temporary minor noise impacts are
expected during construction and
drilling. During operation, there may
be minor increases in operational

noise; however, noise levels in the
project area are not expected to

exceed ambient noise level standards
as determined by the Federal, state,
and/or local government.
Environmental Justice No impacts No disproportionately high or
adverse impacts to minority or lowincome communities are expected.

Human Health and
Safety No impacts, except the loss of an
opportunity to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, are expected. The project, operated in accordance
with state and Federal regulations,
would pose no more than a minimal
risk to the health and safety of on-site
workers and the local population.
Cultural Resources No impacts The project area is previously

disturbed, and no cultural resources

have been found. No substantial
impacts are expected.
Waste Management No impacts The action is not expected to cause

air, water, or soil to be contaminated
with any hazardous material that
poses a threat to human or ecological
health and safety.

* Recovery in a reasonable time: Constant, sustainable improvement is apparent and measurable when the site is routinely observed, and full recovery is achieved over a period of no more than several years.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The DOE’s National Energy Technology Laborat ory (NETL) has a mission to implement a research, development, and demonstration program to resolve the environmental, supply, and reliability constraints of produc ing and using fossil energy sources. One aspect of that mission,

the resolution of environmental constraints to producing and using fo ssil fuels, now requires NETL to review and, where possible, mitigate project ed impacts to global climate change causedU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 7 October 2008 by the use of fossil fuels. One possible mitigation technique under review is the capture and long-term removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere through a pr ocess called carbon sequestration. NETL is implementing the DOE Carbon Sequestra tion Program, which was established in 1997 to evaluate and develop carbon sequestrati on technologies. The focus of this Carbon Sequestration Program involve s capturing and storing CO 2 emissions prior to release into the atmosphere, as well as enhancing natural carbon uptake and storage processes. The principal goal of the Carbon Sequestration Program is to gain a scientific understanding of carbon sequestration options and to pr ovide cost-effective, environmen tally sound technology options that ultimately may lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas intensity and stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 (DOE, 2007a). One of those options, geologic sequestration, involves the placement of CO 2 or other greenhouse gases into subsurface porous and permeable rocks in such a way that they remain permanently stored.

In 2003, DOE selected seven regional partnershi ps, consisting of stakeholders in geographic regions across the United States and Canada , to evaluate and pursue opportunities for carbon sequestration infrastructure development. The MGSC is one such partnership, which focuses on sequestration opportunities in the Illinois Basin and includes the states of Illinois, Kentucky, and Indiana. During the first phase, or Characteriza tion Phase, the MGSC ch aracterized the Illinois Basin’s opportunities to store CO 2 in deep saline formations, unmineable coal seams, and depleted oilfields.

At the end of Characterization Phase in 2005, th e MGSC identified promising opportunities for sequestration projects. During Phase II of the project, or Validation Phase (now underway), the MGSC is working on several small- scale carbon sequestration field projects. For example, they have completed the injection of CO 2 at the Louden Oilfield in s outhern Illinois to evaluate carbon sequestration with enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The partners hip hopes to complete three additional EOR field proj ects and one coal seam sequest ration project by September 2009. The lessons learned from the first two phases of the regional partnership initiative by the MGSC have enabled the partnership to select a promisin g location for the large-scale field test based on the regional characterization work.

The ADM Phase III Test Site is on the property of ADM on the east side of the city of Decatur, Illinois, and would use ADM’s ex isting ethanol fermentation opera tion there as the source of

CO 2 . A detailed pre-injection site assessment a nd drilling of one well would enable the MGSC

to characterize the site and ensure its suitabil ity. The knowledge gained during the Phase II field projects have supported the design of a state-of-the-art large-scal e storage project with a number of regional and national organizations providing field services, simulation efforts, and monitoring support that would not have been possible without the previous investment. A map of the regional carbon se questration partnerships is on the next page.U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Introduction 8 October 2008Figure 1.2. Map of Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipsU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 9 October 2008 During the Deployment Phase, or Phase III, the purpose of the proposed MGSC project would be to demonstrate the ability of the Mt. Simon Sandstone to accept and retain approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of injected CO 2 over a three year period, thus testing large-scale sequestration sooner than might ot herwise be possible. Phase III focuses on:

• Testing the acceptance of the CO 2 by the deep saline re servoir (injectivity);

• The ability of the reservoir to store CO 2 (storage capacity);

• The seal integrity of the enti re site (to ensure that CO 2 does not leak to the surface or other sub-surface formations); and

• The entire process of pre-injection charac terization, injection process monitoring, and post-injection monitori ng to understand the CO 2 fate (monitoring, mitigation, and validation (MMV)) (MGSC, No date).

Although the processes of geologic sequestrati on are relatively we ll known, there is a need for additional research to fill gaps in our scientific unde rstanding of carbon seque stration; ensure the protection of human health and the environmen t; reduce costs; and facilitate the full-scale deployment of this technology. Extensive labor atory investigations, modeling studies, and

limited small-scale field studies assessed how CO 2 geologic sequestration would work in the subsurface. Comparing predictions from bench scale tests and numerical models with field results is necessary to validat e the models and demonstrate th at scientific understanding is correct (DOE, 2003).

While the oil and gas industry has ye ars of extensive experience with CO 2 injection for EOR, this information is inadequate for validating CO 2 sequestration because the fate of the injected

CO 2 has not been routinely quantified. CO 2 injected for EOR can be absorbed in the oil, held by capillary forces in pore space, trapped by buoya ncy forces in stratigraphic or structural compartments, dissolved in pore wa ter, produced and reused, or l eaked from the injection zone through the soils and/or penetrations. The absence of data to account for CO 2 fate in the complex EOR system leaves a gap in sc ientific understand ing (DOE, 2003).

Two-thirds of the United States has deep saline formations beneath landmasses and the ocean’s

continental shelf. These formations have an estimated CO 2 storage capacity of up to 3.5 trillion short tons. Many of these formations are located in close proximity to major point sources of

CO 2 emissions, such as fossil-fuel power plants, which offer the benefit of reducing costs for transportation of CO 2 to the injection site. This proposed large-scale field proj ect would help to

answer uncertainties associated with the reactions that may occur between CO 2 , brine, and minerals in the surrounding strata (DOE, 2007a).

Two key issues distinguish CO 2 sequestration in saline formations from sequestration in oil and gas fields. First, oil and gas fields result fr om the presence of a geologic structural or stratigraphic trap that acts as a seal, keeping oil and natural gas from leaking from the reservoir. These same types of traps are li kely to retain sequestered CO 2 when injected into the depleted oil or gas reservoir. Id entification of such effective trap s may be more difficult in aqueous

formations due to the lack of a detailed knowle dge base on many of these formations and their caprocks, which may require new approaches fo r establishing the integr ity and extent of a caprock. Second, injection of CO 2 into a saline formation is not usually accompanied byU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 10 October 2008 removal of water from the formation. In the case of EOR, oil and brine are simultaneously

withdrawn while CO 2 is injected. Injection of CO 2 into a saline formation, on the other hand, would lead to an increase in formation pressure.

The project, under carefully controlled and mon itored conditions, will determine whether, and to what extent, large-scale pressurization woul d affect caprock integrity, cause land surface deformation, and induce seismic hazards. Succes sful large-scale application of this technology demands that these potential effects, regardless of the probability of their occurrence, must be better understood to design safe and effective se questration in saline formations. Another possible issue pertains to the acc eptable leakage rate from the formation into overlying strata (DOE, 2007a).

Injection into a deep saline fo rmation and potential leakage in to overlying formations is a relevant, even if possibly unlikely concern, particularly where drinking wa ter sources are in the vicinity. Most studies to date have been concerned with br eaching the caprock; formation capacity and injectivity; and CO 2 , water, and host/seal rock interaction. Less work has been done to understand the possible eff ects of displacing the saline wate r from the deeper basin into shallower outcrops, subcrops, or into freshwater regions of the same formation. This proposed large-scale field project would provide data that would contri bute to the better understanding of the magnitude and probability of risks a ssociated with brine movement caused by CO 2 injection (DOE, 2007a).

To address and better understand these experience and knowledge gaps, DOE is co-sponsoring a field experiment in a high-poros ity, high-permeability formation similar to those that could eventually be used to se quester large volumes of CO 2 . The Proposed Action would be closely

monitored to determine whether the CO 2 remains within the injection zone and to maximize

scientific unde rstanding.

If funded, the Proposed Action would:

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a local scale and contribute significantly to broader knowledge that will reduce global warming on a larger scale,

• Ensure that health and safety and environmental risks are minimized,

• Obtain results quickly so that experience can be used in moving to large pilots in other parts of the world, and

• Optimize costs preceding full scale deployment.

The test location would provide an opportunity for matching numerical m odel results with field observations under conditions of high volume injection at a scale similar to what would be done

if CO 2 from power plants were captured and sequestered.

1.3 Legal Framework

The legal framework for this EA involves both substantive legal requirements (what must be done or not done) and procedural legal requirements (how th e agency must carry out its responsibilities). DOE has prepared this EA in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NationalU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 11 October 2008 Environmental Policy Act,” co dified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations in Parts 1500 through 1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508). These implemen t the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA), found in Title 40 of the United States Code in Section 4321 and following sections (42 USC § 4321 et seq .).

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the poten tial environmental consequences of a Proposed Action in their decisi on-making processes. NEPA encourages Federal agencies to protect, restore, or enhance the environment through well-informed Federal decisions. The CEQ NEPA regulations specify that an EA be prepared to:

• Provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether or not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

• Aid in an agency's compliance with NE PA when no EIS is deemed necessary.

• Facilitate EIS preparation when one is necessary.

Further, the CEQ NEPA regulations encourage ag encies to integrate NEPA requirements with

other environmental review and consultati on requirements. Relevant environmental requirements are contained in other Federal stat utes, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and their state counterparts. The fo llowing Federal and state st atutes and regulations

are relevant to this EA. Fe deral and state permits that ma y be required are also listed.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 USC § 7401 et seq. , establishes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) developed by the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for the pervasive pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (both PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). The NAAQS are expressed as concentrations of the criteria po llutants in the ambient air, the outdoor air to which the general public is exposed. The CAA also contains em ission control permit programs to protect the nation’s air quality and estab lishes New Source Performance St andards that establish design standards, equipment standards, work practices, and operational standards for new or modified sources of air emissions. Where the NAAQS em phasize air quality in general, the New Source Performance Standards focus on particular industrial categories or sub-cate gories (e.g., fossil fuel fired generators, grain elevator s, and steam generating units). Regulations implementing the

CAA are found in 40 CFR Parts 50- 95. Illinois has been delegate d CAA authority under Chapter

415 of Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) Section 5/3 and follo wing sections (415 ILCS § 5/3 et

seq .) (Note : Provisions dealing with Regulations (415 ILCS §5/26 et seq .), Enforcement (415 ILCS § 5/30 et seq .), Variances (451 ILCS § 5/35 et seq .), and Permits (415 ILCS § 5/39 et seq .) apply to all of the aut hority within Chapter 415 of ILCS that follow).

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1251 et seq. , establishes a compre hensive framework of standards, technical tools, and financial assist ance to address “point source” pollution from municipal and industrial wastewat er discharges and “nonpoint s ource” pollution from urban and rural areas. Applicants for federal licenses or pe rmits to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to navigable waters must provide the Federal agency with a state CWA Section 401U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 12 October 2008 certification that the discharge would comply w ith applicable provision s of the CWA. CWA Section 404 establishes a permit program to regulat e the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetl ands. CWA Section 402 es tablishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires point s ources of pollutants to obtain permits to discharge effluents and stor m water to surface waters. Regulations for implementing relevant CWA programs are foun d in 33 CFR Parts 320-331 and 40 CFR Parts 400-503. Illinois has been delegated CWA au thority under 415 ILCS §§ 5/11 and 5/19.1 et seq

., and 20 ILCS § 830.

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 USC 300 et seq. , gives USEPA the responsibility and authority to regulate public dr inking water supplies by establis hing drinking water standards, delegating authority for enforcement of drinking water standards to the states, and protecting aquifers from hazards such as injection of wast es and other materials into wells. Important for this EA are the SDWA provisions relating to injection wells. Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974. In part, the SDWA re quires USEPA to develop minimum federal requirements for Underground Injection Control (U IC) programs and other safeguards to protect public health by preventing injection wells from contaminating underground sources of drinking water. Illinois has been delegated SDWA authority under 415 ILCS §§ 5/19.1 et seq . and 55/1 et

seq . On July 31 2008, USEPA proposed draft re gulations for a UIC program modification specifically developed for CO 2 geologic sequestration (73 FR 43491).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC § 6901 et seq. , regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. RCRA sets “cradle to grave”

standards for both solid waste and hazardous waste management. Certain wastes are specifically excluded because they are regula ted under other statutes. Some examples are domestic sewage and septic tank waste; agricultu ral wastes; industrial discharg es; some nuclear wastes; and mining overburden. RCRA regulations are found in 40 CFR Parts 239-282. Illinois has been delegated RCRA authority under 415 ILCS § 5/20 et seq

.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Co mpensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC § 9601 et seq ., also known as “Superfund,” established a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad fede ral authority to res pond directly to releas es or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA also establishes requirements fo r closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provides for the liability of persons responsible for the release of hazardous substances, and established a trust fund to pay for orphan facility cleanup and clos ure. Regulations for implementing CERCLA are

found in 40 CFR Parts 300-312.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 13 October 2008 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 USC § 1001 et seq.

, requires Federal agencies to provide informa tion on hazardous and toxic chemicals to state emergency response commissions, local emerge ncy planning committees, and USEPA. EPCRA’s goal is to provide this information to ensure that local emergency plans are sufficient to respond to unplanned releases of hazardous substances. Regulations implementing EPCRA

are found in 40 CFR Parts 350-374. Illinois EP CRA authority is found in 415 ILCS § 5/20 et

seq . and § 5/25b-1 et seq

.

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preserva tion Act (NHPA), 16 USC § 470 et seq.

, requires DOE to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHP O) prior to any construction to ensure that no historical properties would be adversely affected by a proposed project. DOE must also afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservati on a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Regulations for implemen ting NHPA are found in 36 CFR 800-812. Illinois historic preservation authority is found in 20 ILCS § 3420/1 et seq

.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

The Archaeological Resources Pr otection Act, 16 USC § 470aa et seq. , requires a permit for excavation or removal of archaeological resources from publicly held or Native American lands. The Act requires that excavations further arch aeological knowledge in the public interest and that the resources removed remain the prope rty of the United States. Regulations for implementing the Act are found in 43 CFR 7 and 36 CFR 296. Illinois arch aeological protection authority is found in 20 ILCS § 3420/1 et seq

.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 USC § 1996, establishes policy to protect and preserve the inherent and Constitutional right of Native Americans to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religi ons. The law ensures the protection of sacred locations; access of

Native Americans to those sacred locations and tr aditional resources that are integral to the practice of their religions; and establishes re quirements that would apply to Native American sacred locations, traditional resources, or tradi tional religious practices potentially affected by construction and operation of propos ed facilities. Regulations fo r implementing the Act are also found in 43 CFR 7. Illinois Native American pr otection authority is found in 20 ILCS § 3420/1

et seq

.

Native American Graves Prot ection and Repatriation Act

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 USC § 3001, directs the Secretary of the Interior to guide the repatr iation of federal archaeological collections and collections that are culturally affiliated with Na tive American tribes and held by museums that receive federal funding. DOE w ould follow the provisions of th is Act if any excavations associated with the proposed construction led to unexpected discoveries of Native AmericanU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 14 October 2008 graves or grave artifacts. Regulations for impl ementing the Act are found in 43 CFR 10. Illinois Native American protection authority is found in 20 ILCS § 3420/1 et seq

.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 USC 1531 et seq. , establishes a nati onal program for the conservation of threatened and endangered specie s of fish, wildlife, and plants, as well as the preservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. ESA Section 7 requires any federal agency authorizing, funding, or carrying out any acti on to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or th reatened species, or result in

the destruction or adverse modification of cr itical habitat of such species. Regulations implementing the ESA interagency consultation process are found in 50 CFR Part 402. Illinois endangered species protection auth ority is found in 520 ILCS § 10/1 et seq

.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act/Fi sh and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 16 USC § 2901 et seq. , encourages Federal agencies to conserve and promote conservation of non-game fish and wildlife sp ecies and their habitats. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 USC § 661 et seq. , requires Federal agencies undertaking projects aff ecting water resources to consult with the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service and the state agency responsible for fish and wildlife resources. Compliance with these statutes is internalized in the DOE NEPA process. Illinois fish and wildlife authority is f ound in 515 ILCS § 5/5-5 et seq . and 520 ILCS §§ 20 and 25.

Noise Control Act

The Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 USC § 4901 et seq. , directs federal agencies to carry out programs in their jurisdictions to the fullest exte nt within their authority and in a manner that furthers a national policy of promoting an enviro nment free from noise that jeopardizes health and welfare. This would involve complying with applicable municipal noise ordinances to the maximum extent practicable. Illinois regulates no ise at the state level with authority found in

415 ILCS 5/23 et seq

.

Farmland Protection Policy Act

The Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 USC § 4201 et seq. , directs federal agencies to identify and quantify adverse impacts of Federal prog rams on farmlands in order to minimize the unnecessary and irreversible c onversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Regulations implementing the Act are found in 7 CFR 658. Illinois farmland protection authority is contained in 505 ILCS §§ 5 and 75.

Occupational Safety and Health Act

The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 USC § 651 et seq. , requires employers to furnish employees employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause de ath or serious physical harm to the employees, and to complyU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 15 October 2008 with occupational safety and health standard s promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA standard s are implemented under regulations found in 29 CFR Parts 1900-2400. Illinois regulates OSHA requirements through authority found in 820 ILCS § 225 et seq

.

Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act, 42 USC § 13101 et seq. , establishes a natio nal policy for waste management and pollution control that fo cuses first on source reduction, and then on environmentally safe waste recycling, treatment, and disposal. Three executive orders provide guidance to agencies to implement the Pollution Prevention Act: Executive Order 12873, “Federal Acquisition, Recycli ng, and Waste Prevention,” Exec utive Order 13101, “Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recyc ling, and Federal Acquisition,” and Executive Order 13148, “Greening the Govern ment through Leadership in Environmental Management.”

Federal Aviation Administration Act

49 USC §§ 106(f) and (g) give th e Administrator of the Federa l Aviation Administration (FAA) a number of powers, including the authority to re gulate objects affecting navigable airspace. Regulations requiring FAA notification if any st ructure of more than 200 feet (60.96 m) high

would be constructed are found in 14 CFR Part 77. The FAA then determines if the structures

would or would not be an obstruction to air na vigation. Illinois regu lates navigable airspace under authority found in 620 ILCS §25 et seq

.

Executive Orders

A number of presidential executive orders in addition to those noted above provide additional guidance to Federal agencies in developing EAs, including this EA . The most relevant of them

include:

• Executive Order 11514, “Protection and Enha ncement of Environmental Quality”

• Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management”

• Executive Order 12856, “Right to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements” Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Ad dress Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”

• Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species”

• Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Fe deral Agencies to Protect Migratory

Birds”

• Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management”

Federal executive orders can be accessed at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/

codification /.

Federal and State Permitting

The following are potentially applicable federal and state permitting requirements to construct and operate the proposed facilities.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 16 October 2008 • Acid Rain Permit, 40 CFR Part 72

• Airspace Obstruction Control Permit, 14 CFR Part 77

• Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Dete rioration Permit, Acid Deposition Control Permit, and Operating Permit, 40 CFR Parts 50-96

• Clean Water Act, Section 401 Certifica tion, Section 402 NPDES Permit, Section 404 Wetlands Permit, and Pretreatment Authoriz ation for Discharge of Wastewater to Municipal Collection System, 40 CFR Parts 104-140, 403

• Safe Drinking Water Act Underground In jection Control Permit, 40 CFR Part 144

• Rivers and Harbor Act Permit, 33 CFR Part 322

• Notice to the Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 77

• RCRA, 40 CFR Parts 239 through 299

• Sales Tap Approval, 18 CFR 157.21 1, approval would be required to tap into or modify existing interstate gas pipelines.

Illinois State Permits

• Accommodation of Utilities on Right-of-Wa y, 92 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC)

Part 530

• Air Construction Permit, 35 IAC Parts 201 and 203

• Air Operating Permit, 35 IAC Part 201, 203 and 205

• Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity , Section 3-105 and 8-406 of the Illinois

Public Utilities Act

• Interconnection Agreement from the Illi nois Commerce Commission may be required.

• NPDES Permit, 35 IAC Part 309, 35 IAC, Subtitle C, Chapter 1

• Permit for Groundwater Monitoring Wells, 77 IAC 920

• Permit for Nonhazardous Onsite Waste Dispos al Facility, 35 IAC Parts 812 and 813

• Potable Water Supply Connection Permits, ILCS, Chapter 415

• Prevention of Significant Deteri oration (PSD) Permit, 40 CFR 52.21

• RCRA Permit Program, 35 IAC 702 and 703

• UIC Permit, 35 IAC Parts 704 and 730

• Wastewater Facility Constructi on Approval, ILCS, Chapter 415U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 17 October 2008 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Proposed Action

DOE is proposing to provide cost-shared funding for an $84,274,927 project, including $66,730,912 in a federal fund cost-share, to demonstrate the ability of the Mt. Simon Sandstone, a major regional saline reservoir in th e Illinois Basin, to accept and retain approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of CO 2 injected over a period of three years (MGSC, 2008).

Table 2.1. MGSC Project Timeline

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Site Characterization and Development Injection and Monitoring Operations

Site Closure and Assessment

The project would incl ude the construction of a surf ace facility, an approximately 3,000-foot (914.4 m) long pressurized pipeline, and 2,000 feet (609.6 m) of ductwork carrying uncompressed CO 2

. The facility would contain CO 2 compression and dehy dration equipment nece ssary to capture and

condition CO 2 from the ADM ethanol produ ction plant. Th e pipeline would deliver the CO 2 from the compression-dehydration facility to the injection well. Installation of verification wells would result in similar operat ional activities as the CO 2 injection well (MGSC, 2008)

.

The pipeline that would transfer the CO 2 from the compression-dehydr ation facility to the CO 2 injection would be 4-inch to 6-in ch (10.16 cm to 15.24 cm) diameter schedule 40 or 80 steel pipe designed to meet standa rds for the temperature and pressure of the CO 2 stream. The pipeline would be installed primarily abovegro und with a small portion of un determined length installed underground near the inject ion well. The pipeline would follow as much as possible the current pipeline alleys at th e Decatur ADM Complex (MGSC, 2008)

.

Reservoir modeling would incorporate data deve loped during the pre-inje ction site assessment period, data developed from the initial well drille d on the injection site, and data collected as injection proceeds. The MGSC would initially characterize the project site using orthogonal two-dimensional (2D) seismic lines to confirm the geological structure at th e site and to test for any seismically resolvable faults that may exist. A well would then be drilled through the entire Mt. Simon Sandstone to the underlying granitic basement, followed by extensive logging, core sampling, and fluid sampling to build a comprehens ive site reservoir model. The model would enable understanding of injected CO 2 distribution and potenti al reactivity of the CO 2 and CO 2 - laden brine with the reservoir a nd the seals. The model would be expanded using a baseline three dimensional (3D) seismic survey and would help predict where additional geophysical surveys should be taken as CO 2 is injected (MGSC, No date).

The proposed project would continue to refi ne previously developed MMV techniques and incorporate new technologies to und erstand potential leakage pathwa ys of the larger scale test, provide post-injection monitoring, and provide assurance that hea lth and safety requirements are fully taken into account (MGSC, No date).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 18 October 2008 2.1.1 Project Location

The ADM Phase III Test Site would be on the east si de of the city of Decatur, Illinois, in Macon County (Figure 2.1.1-1). This site would be locat ed in Section 5 of Township 16 North Range 3 East, surveyed from the 3 rd Principal Meridian, and on flat terrain within the Decatur ADM Complex. The compression-dehydration facility w ould be located within the industrial complex to the south of the proposed injection well site (Figure 2.1.1-2). A pipeline would transport CO 2 as a supercritical fluid from the compression faci lity to the injection well following, as much as possible, an existing pipeline alle y and overhead catwalk that allo ws the pipeline to cross the railroad track, and would be protected fr om accidental injury following ADM current construction policies (MGSC, 2008)

.

The ADM Phase III Test Site infrastructure would be integrated into the current footprint of the Decatur ADM Complex and would be constructed between existing structures at the Decatur ADM Complex. No space outside the existi ng Decatur ADM Complex footprint would be required for the compression-dehydrati on facility. An agricultural field and wastewater treatment facility, both owne d by ADM, are located near the CO 2 injection well. A field drainage ditch is

located on the northeast co rner of the field. Bu ildings, tanks, roads, etc., associated with manufacturing operations are also on the Decatur ADM Complex (MGSC, 2008)

.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 19 October 2008 Figure 2.1.1-1. Regional Vicinity MapU.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Proposed Action and Alternatives 20 October 2008Figure 2.1.1-2. Project Area MapU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 21 October 2008 2.1.2 Construction

Proposed new construction would include a surf ace facility, an approximately 3,000-foot (914.4 m) long pressurized pipeline, and 2,000 feet (609.6 m) of ductwork carrying uncompressed CO 2

. The facility would include the CO 2 compression and dehydration equi pment necessary to capture
and condition the CO 2 from the ADM ethanol production plant. The facility would be capable of delivering approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of CO 2 over a three-year period or approximately 367,700 short tons (365,000 metric tons) pe r year. The pipeline would

deliver the CO 2 from the compression-dehydration facility to th e injection well (MGSC, 2008)

.

2.1.2.1 CO 2 Supply

The source of the CO 2 for this project would be the ethanol fermentation tanks located south and slightly east of the proposed compre ssion-dehydration facili ty. The outlet CO 2 stream from the ethanol fermentation facility is typically greater than 99% pure CO 2 , saturated with water vapor at 80oF and atmospheric pressure (MGSC, 2008) . Collection pipes and fans/blowers would be used to pull/push the CO 2 to the compression-dehydration facility. Wet, uncompressed CO 2 would be transported in stainl ess steel ductwork, thereby eliminating corrosion as a potential concern. Precise pipeline length is current ly unknown, but the approximate uncompressed CO 2 pipeline length would be 2,000 f eet (609.6 m) (Carroll, 2008a).

2.1.2.2 Compression-dehydration Facility

The compression-dehydration facility would consist of an inlet water knoc kout prior to the first stage of compression. The first stage of comp ression would use an electrically driven screw compressor to compress the low pressure CO 2 from atmospheric pressu re to approximately 300 psia (2,069 kPa). Cooling of the CO 2 after the initial compression st age would be achieved using an air-cooled exchanger or tube heat exchange r. A water knockout would be necessary before the 290 - 315 psia (2000 - 2170 kPa) CO 2 stream is routed to a on ce-through scrubber to remove alcohol and other impurities (MGSC, 2008)

.

Next, the CO 2 stream would pass through a packed-bed water scrubber to remove impurities such as acetaldehyde, methanol, and other water-soluble organic chemicals. The CO 2 stream would then be dehydrated using a TEG ab sorbing solution. Water-saturated CO 2 would be fed to the bottom of a packed-bed absorber tower where it would contact TEG in a countercurrent flow.

The water laden TEG would leave the bottom of the absorber and would cross exchange with pure TEG in a heat exchange that cools the TEG on its way to the top of the absorber. A fuelfired heater would heat the TEG to remove wate r vapor and regenerate the TEG in the stripper (MGSC, 2008)

.

The dehydrated CO 2 would leave the top of the absorber and go to a multi-stage reciprocating compressor. The two-stage reciproc ating compressor would compress the CO 2 to the density and pressure needed for injection. Interstage cooling between comp ression steps would be performed using a heat exchanger. It is anticipated the outlet pressure of CO 2 would be 1,200-U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 22 October 2008 1,400 psig (9,653 kPa). The critical pressure for CO 2 is 1056 psig (7,281 kPa), so the CO 2 would be at supercritical conditions prior to injection (MGSC, 2008).

2.1.2.3 Pressurized Pipeline

The pipeline that w ould transfer the CO 2 from the compression-dehydration facility to the CO 2 injection well would be 4-inch (10.16 cm) to 6-inch (15.24 cm) diameter schedule 40 or schedule 80 steel pipe designed to meet standards for the temperat ure and pressure of the CO 2 stream. The pipeline would be installed aboveground, followi ng the current pipeline alleys at the Decatur ADM Complex as much as possible (Figure 2.1.1-2 ). The pipeline would be located only on Decatur ADM Complex property. The pressurize d pipeline length would be approximately 3,000 feet (914 m) (MGSC, 2008).

2.1.2.4 Injection Well

The injection well and verification wells would be located in a field north of the primary industrial complex (Figure 2.1.1-2). Previously, this fi eld was used for grain farming and laid

fallow. The proposed injection rate is approximately 1,100 short tons/day (1,000 metric tons/day) of supercritical CO 2 with a cumulative amount of approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) over three years. If the Proposed Action is funded, it is scheduled to begin in December 2009 (NETL, 2008b).

Based on regional geology, the specif ic injection interval within the Mt. Simon is planned to be

near the base of the Mt. Simon Sandstone and the granite basement rock. The injection interval

would be identified based on well lo gs, core samples, and drill stem tests from the initial well drilled on the site during Phase II ( NETL, 2008b).

For the anticipated Mt. Simon net thickness and permeability, reservoir modeling and nodal analyses suggest that a single injection well with 9 5 / 8 inch (24.45 cm) diameter injection casing and 4.5-inch (11.43 cm) diameter injection tubing would be ad equate to meet the 1,100 short tons/per day (approximately 1,000 metric tons/day) injection rate into the injection tubing. Predrilling modeling would be revi sed once well logs and core samples are recovered from the Phase II well. The proposed project timeline ca lls for a 12-15 month period between completing the Phase II well (drilling and casing) and CO 2 injection during Phase II I. Perforating the well casing would occur in the Mt. Simon formation shortly before CO 2 injection beings, assuming identification of a highly permeability zone. If the potential injectivity of this interval is not large enough or the interval is not found, the well could be perfor ated at differe nt depths and permeability tests conducted so that an appropria te injection interval could be determined ( NETL, 2008b ).

The installation, operation, and eventual closure of this injection well are carefully governed by a regulatory program administered by USEPA, and delegated to qualified states such as the state of Illinois, known as the Underground Injection Co ntrol (UIC) permit program . MGSC has applied for a UIC permit for the establishment of this injection well as a Class 1 well, a designation of wells that inject industrial non- hazardous liquids, municipal wast ewaters or hazardous wastes beneath the lowermost Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 23 October 2008 USEPA’s UIC regulations prohibit injection we lls from causing “the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into an underground source of drinking wate r, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any prim ary drinking water regulation...or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons” (40 CFR 144.12(a)). The federa l UIC Program has been implemented since 1980 and has responsibility for managing over 800,000 injection wells. The programmatic components of the UIC Program are designed to prevent fluid movement into USDWs by addressing the potential pathways through which injected fluids can migrate into USDWs. These programmatic co mponents are described in ge neral below (USEPA, 2008a):

• Siting : Injection wells are to be sited to inject into a zone capable of storing the fluid, and to inject below a confining system that is free of known open faults or fractures.

• Area of Review (AOR) and Corrective Action : Examination required of the vertical and horizontal extent of the area potentially influe nced by injection and storage activities; and identification of all artificial penetrations in the area that may act as conduits for fluid movement into USDWs (e.g., active and ab andoned wells) and, as needed, perform corrective action to these open wells (i.e., artificial penetrations).

• Well Construction : USEPA requires injection wells to be constructed using well materials and cements that can withstand injection of fl uids over the anticipated life span of the project.

• Operation : Injection pressures must be monitored so that fractures that could serve as fluid movement conduits are neither propagate d into the layers in which fluids are injected or initiated in th e confining systems above.

• Mechanical Integrity Testing : The integrity of the injection well system must be monitored at an appropriate frequency to pr ovide assurance that the injection well is operating as intended and is free of significant leaks and fluid m ovement in the well bore.

• Monitoring : Owners or operators must monitor the injection activity using available technologies to verify the location of th e injected fluid, the pressure front, and demonstrate that injected flui ds are confined to intended storage zones (and, therefore, injection activities are protective of USDWs).

• Well Plugging and Post-Injection Site Care : At the end of the injection project, USEPA requires injection wells to be plugged in a mann er that ensures that these wells will not

serve as conduits for future fluid moveme nt into USDWs. Additionally, owners or operators must monitor injection wells to ensu re fluids in the stor age zone do not pose an endangerment to USDWs.

2.1.2.5 Verification Wells

There are plans to drill and comp lete up to two verification wells within the Mt. Simon. Because of the research aspects of this project, these well s would be drilled to verify the location of the

CO 2 within the Mt. Simon. The placement of these verification wells would be based on the

location of the CO 2 plume as inferred from other techniques such as a seismic survey (ADM, 2008a).

The verification wells would be drilled and cased. As the verification wells are drilled, completed, and tested, the monitoring program would expand to include these additional wells.

The verification wells would be drilled between year s two and four of the project to provideU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 24 October 2008 information to confirm geophysical and modeling estimates of plume location and geochemical/geomechanical effects of the CO 2 on the injection reservoir and caprock ( NETL, 2008b)

.

The verification wells would use a state-of-the-art system designed by Schlumberger Oilfield Services to monitor and collect fluid samples a nd take pressure measurements in the target

formation and a number of other formations overlying the Mount Si mon Sandstone. The WestBay System TM consists of series of sampling ports situated at different intervals along the casing and separated by hydraulic packers, which can be used to isolate each sampling location to reduce the number of required mon itoring wells (Schlumberger, 2008a).

2.1.2.6 Groundwater Monitoring Wells

UIC programs help protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination by injection wells (See Section 1.3). ADM subm itted a permit applica tion for a Class I Nonhazardous Permit (ADM, 2008a). The Proposed Action would comply with the stipulations of the permit.

Four shallow, groundwater monitoring wells woul d be drilled around the injection well to the bedrock (200-300 feet (60.96 – 91.44 m) deep) to serve as a regulatory basis to monitor groundwater quality. Up to twel ve additional wells would be dr illed at the edges of the ADM

Phase III Test Site to estab lish the general direction of gr oundwater movement prior to CO 2 injection (ADM, 2008a). The preci se location of these wells will be determined after initial geological data is gathered and analyzed from the injection well site.

Using this information, groundwat er modeling would be used to determine locations and necessity of additional groundwater monitoring wells. Wells would likely be spaced at different increments from the injection well (e.g., 25- 150 feet (7.62 – 45.72 m)) once the modeling is completed. Additional work would be done to identify existing groundw ater wells in the immediate area of the injec tion well that can be used for monitoring (ADM, 2008a).

At this time, there is one existing shallow groundw ater well, completed under Phase II, relatively close to the proposed injection site. The area of review has a 2.5-mile (4.02 kilometers (km)) radius. However, during the 3 years of activ e injection of this pr oposed project, the CO 2 would be expected to move no more than 1,250 feet (381 m) laterally in the deepest part of the Mt. Simon, and much less than that as it would migrated towards the top of the injection formation. Monitoring of all of the identifi ed existing groundwater wells in the 2.5 mile (4.02 km) radius in the UIC area of review (AOR) would be unn ecessary because of th e planned number and location of new shallow groundwat er monitoring wells within the immediat e injection well area and the extensive monitoring planned for the injection zone (ADM, 2008a).

All groundwater monitoring wells would be installed and eventually abandoned according to Illinois Department of Public Health regulati ons. During drilling, continuous cores would be collected from selected monitoring well locations and archived at the Illinois State Geological Survey. Field descriptions of the cores would be recorded and the potential monitoring interval identified (ADM, 2008a).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 25 October 2008 Monitoring wells would be constructed with 2- inch (5.08 cm) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe

with threaded connections. We ll screens, slotted screen with 0.010-inch (0.254 millimeter (mm)) slots, would be used for groundwat er monitoring wells. The screen ed interval would have a sand pack of appropriate thickness based on the monito ring interval identified from core samples. Bentonite would be placed above the sand pack to near surface. Concrete pad and a well protector would be placed around each well at the surface. The elevations of the monitoring wells would be determined by level surveyi ng, based on the known el evation of a local benchmark. Prior to implementing the sampli ng schedule, all wells would be developed. Dedicated bladder pumps and pressure transduc ers would be installed in each well (ADM, 2008a).

It is anticipated that background samples woul d be collected until approximately November 2009, allowing a minimum of one year of bac kground monitoring. Groundwater samples would be collected monthly to determine background water quality near the CO 2 injection site. Up to sixteen monitoring wells would be in stalled at or near the injection site. After collecting baseline data on water chemistry, temperatures, pH, and pressure, the groundwater would be collected on a quarterly basis. Data from the four wells closest to the injection well would fulfill the regulatory requirements of the UIC permit and the remaining wells would be used for research purposes only (ADM, 2008a).

2.1.2.7 Vadose Zone Soil Vapor Monitoring Stations

Vadose zone samplers would be installed to provide soil gas samples. The samplers would

monitor CO 2 concentrations to validate integrity of seal formation, injection well, and other potential migration pathways to th e biosphere (MGSC, No date). Vadose zone samples located at varying depths using field tile drains and drive po int samplers may be used to provide soil gas samples that would be collected on a periodic basis (NETL, 2008b).

Indirect strategies include geophysical monitori ng of the deep and shallow bedrock, aerial or satellite imagery, and multi-phase/multi-componen t flow models for simulating gas and liquidphase flow in the injection formation (in-zone) and the near-surface environment (out-of-zone) (MGSC, No date)

.

2.1.2.8 Atmospheric Modeling Data Collection Stations

Direct measurement of CO 2 concentrations in the air is an in tegral part of the MMV program to ensure the health and safety of the public and to curtail environmental impacts. Because of the

natural variations in CO 2 concentrations and fluxes in the near surface environment that arise from soil, plant, and subsurface processes, se veral monitoring techniques would be employed (MGSC, No date).

Eddy covariance is a technique using an In frared Gas Analyzer (IRGA) and numerous micrometeorological variables including wind velocity, relativ e humidity, and temperature to

determine CO 2 fluxes over a large area. This technique would be employed with the Proposed

Action because it could be a cost-e ffective technique to monitor CO 2 fluxes. The complexity ofU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 26 October 2008 the Decatur ADM Complex with respect to potential CO 2 sources (industrial, residential, vehicular) and temporal releases may make data interpretation difficult. This technique would require a minimum of one year of background da ta and would be depl oyed early in the MMV program. Based on predominant wind directions and area to be monitored, two eddy covariance systems may be constructed (MGSC, No date).

2.1.2.9 Injection Well Surface Facilities

Facilities and improvements would be constructe d or placed at the ground surface within a 300 feet (91.44 m) by 300 feet (91.44) ar ea in the immediate vicinity of the injection well (see Figure 2.1.1-2). These facilities, many of which are temporary to the drilling activity, would support well construction, operation, and project monitoring. In addition to the wellhead itself, these

would include:

• Pipe tubs (to hold drill pipe and casing),

• Tubs, Catwalk (ramp at the side of the drill rig where pipe is laid out be lifted to the derrick floor),

• Catwalk water tank,

• Fuel trailer,

• Frac tanks (tanks to hold fl uid for stimulating the well),

• Pumps (used to pump drilling mud during drilling operations),

• Drill rig, pumps,

• Trip tank (a small mud tank used to ascertain the amount of mud n ecessary to keep the

wellbore full with the exact amount of m ud that is displaced by drill pipe),

• Steel pits (a temporary steel cont ainment for holding wellbore fluids,

• Mudlogger ( a person who records information de rived from examination and analysis of formation cuttings made by the bit and of mud circulated out of the hole to determine the presence of natural gas or oil),

• Pits, Mudlogger, 50,000 gallon ( 189.27 kiloliter) reserv e pit (an earthen, plastic-lined pit to clean out the mud pump a nd store excess drilling mud),

• 150,000 gallon (567.81 kiloliter) reserv e pit (settling or shaker an earthen, plastic-lined pit adjacent to the shale shaker where the drill cuttings are sepa rated from the mud,

• Manifold rack (a pipe fitting with several si de outlets to connect it with other pipes),

• Flare pit (usually a water-filled, plastic-lined, earthen pit over which, a flare is lit to burn off an produced natural gas during drilling operations),

• pit, 20 parking stalls,

• Three operations trailers,

• An office/conference room facility, and

• A communications shack.

2.1.3 Operations and Maintenance

2.1.3.1 General

The proposed injection of approximately 1.1 mill ion short tons (1 million metric tons) of supercritical CO 2 , at the rate of 25.5 pounds (lbs)/sec ond (sec) (1,000 metric tons/day) would utilize the Mt. Simon formation as a target storag e zone. Injection would be by a single well atU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 27 October 2008 the Decatur ADM Complex, an etha nol producer at Decatur, Illinois. There is one operating hydrocarbon well site on the Decat ur ADM Complex, and the closes t known penetration of the Mt. Simon formation is approximately 17 miles away (27.36 km) (NETL, 2008b). This is expected to be far beyond the ra dius of influence (1,250 feet ( 381 m)) of the proposed injection well (ADM, 2008a).

Prior to injection, the CO 2 stream from the ADM ethanol ferm entor would need to be dewatered and compressed. The minimum compressi on is to the critical point of CO 2 , which is 88 ° F (31.1°C) and 73 atmospheres pressure (7,395 kPa). In practice, a higher pressure would be required, given that the Mt. Simon formation pressure may be between 2,165 psig (14,928 kPa) and 2,598 psig (17, 910 kPa) (NETL, 2008b).

Compression of the gas stream and cooli ng would cause the wa ter vapor in the CO 2 to condense, but a condensate of almost pure water and CO 2 is a highly corrosive mixture, which could not be tolerated in view of the high pr essure of the system proposed. The alternative is dehydration with a glycol, such as TEG prior to comp ression or during compre ssion stages. The TEG systems, though well known in the oil and gas industry, usually operate at high pressure. Engineering experience with low- pressure dehydration is much more limited, although it should in principle be workable.

The current concept is for multiple stages of compression, accompanied by cooling and water knock-out, with a TEG system in th e final stage. The intent is to avoid the corrosion that would occur. This final design is still under consid eration for the aboveground facilities, primarily because the pressures to be encountered are yet determined from the data collected from the injection well. The compression system and fi nal design are yet to be chosen, because the pressure of the Mt. Simon formation must aw ait the drilling program for the injection and production wells (NETL, 2008b). It is anticipate d, however, that the compressors would be electrical, since an electrical power supply at the Decatur ADM Complex already exists.

Non-potable saline water would be produced dur ing drill stem testi ng and on-going sampling from verification wells (ADM, 2008a). In addition, water by-product of the CO 2 conditioning process prior to injection would be condens ation water from the dehydration, which would consist of essentially distilled water with a sm all mole fraction of TEG and perhaps traces of

ethanol. This fluid would be handled thr ough the existing ADM wastewater system for treatment, testing, and disposal.

Noise control would be maintained by housing the compressors in a dedicated process building.

2.1.3.2 Target Zone and Operational Integrity

ADM (2008a) has recognized that the successf ul operation of the Proposed Action would primarily be an issue of the integrity of the te st site and would require a number of monitoring processes. In principle, compression and dehydr ation are straightforwar d matters in petroleum engineering. They would be complicated in this instance by issues of co rrosion control that in part would have to be answered by design considerations of th e compression-dehydration system. Corrosion monitoring would be an inte gral part of the operations of the abovegroundU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 28 October 2008 facilities. Once operational w ithout significant corrosion, the compression-dehydration system would be a simple operation with little environmental impact.

Target Zone

The target zone chosen by the MGSC is the Mt . Simon formation. The top of the Mt. Simon formation is thought to be between 5, 000 a nd 6,000 feet (1.52 – 1.83 km) at the Decatur ADM Complex (NETL, 2008b). It is described as ve ry thick sandstone, overlain by the highly impermeable Eau Claire formation. The Eau Cl aire is expected to be 300-500 feet (91.44 – 152.40 m) thick in the injection area. Further, impermeable confining formations are the Maquoketa shale (about 2,500 feet (762 m) below grade) and at lesser depth still the New Albany shale (1,800 feet (548.64 m) below land surface).

For the Proposed Action, the MGSC has set asid e 10-12 months between dr illing of the injection well during Phase II operations and CO 2 injection during Phase III for the evaluation of the target zone, selection of the injecti on zone within the Mt. Simon fo rmation, and the construction of infrastructure and facilities. While some information from the distant wells suggests that the Mt. Simon may show the highest permeability at dept h, and show adequate permeability in the top 200 feet (60.96 m), the MGSC plans to evaluate the full Mt. Simon in terval in order to attain the target injection rate at a de pth as low in the Mt. Simon formation as possible (NETL, 2008b).

Since CO 2 would likely rise within the sandstone , it could do the following (ADM, 2008a).

• First, the CO 2 could dissolve in the saline formation water; this would be expected to be an important process at the high pressures involved, and should acidify the water;

• Second, the acidic water could attack the carbonaceous cements that are sometimes present in sandstone, but are lim ited at this site; this could be a favorable effect in that it would improve the permeability to fluid flow. However, initial computer simulations of geochemistry suggest that this effect would not be a major one.

• The Eau Claire formation, being dolomitic, is subject to attack by any residual CO 2 that had not been consumed by reactions in the ta rget zone. However, it is highly unlikely that approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of CO 2 would cause

sufficient breakdown of the Eau Cl aire to allow penetration to a higher zone; if that were to happen, the CO 2 could not penetrate the overlying shale layers, as these would be mostly inert to CO 2

.

Cement Integrity

The well would be cemented according to Illinois re gulations. There would be a period of 10-12 months between drilling and perfor ating, and initial use of the inje ction well. This is, in part,

intended to allow for core material to be studied such that the best injection depth interval can be chosen and perforated. During this period, the MGSC would r un casing logs (cement bond logs) to check cement integrity prior to deployment.

The initial cementing of well casi ng strings would be performed acco rding to requirements of the Illinois EPA Underground Injection Control Regu lations and defined in the permit application (ADM, 2008a).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 29 October 2008 Tests of the Mt. Simon Formation

The closest well penetrating th e Mt. Simon formation is over 17 miles (27.36 km) from the ADM

Phase III Test Site. It follows that little site -specific geologic informati on exists, and projections have been made from existing ge ological trends. The evaluation of data collected during drilling

of the CO 2 injection well would be used to determin e final depths of injection and operational conditions. Geologic, geomechanical, and ope rational information collected during well

installation includes:

• The formation pressure,

• The formation fracture pressure,

• The fracture gradient of the c onfining Eau Claire formation,

• Porosity,

• Permeabilities, horizontal and vertical (if possible), to CO 2 and water,

• Radius of influence,

• Injectivity, and

• Drill stem tests.

The results of the above would determine the injection pressure, which would not exceed the fracture pressure plus some built-in margin of safe ty. This in turn would determine the pipe size required for the planned injection rate and the duty of the compression system.

Integrity of the Pipeline

System pressure would be monitored closely, as a loss of pressure is indi cative of loss of the CO 2 supercritical fluid (ADM, 2008a).

Since CO 2 is neither toxic nor explosive, the worst case would be a sudden complete failure of pipe. This would release all the CO 2 in the pipe. The result would be dry ice formation at the break due to the sudden expansion, plus release of a large gas cloud as the supercritical fluid is

converted to CO 2 gas. The gas is non-toxic, but a s udden, large release from the pipeline might displace air for the workers at th e Decatur ADM Complex, or perhap s at the outskirts of Decatur

if the release was into a c onfined area (NETL, 2008b).

This scenario, though highly unlikely, would be m odeled, taking into account the sudden release and its atmospheric dispersion. If, after the final design is ch osen, the modeling suggests a possibility of health effects or even fatalities due to air displacement, it would be necessary to install automatic low-pressure s hut-downs at intervals along the pi pe. The effect of this would

be to limit the amount of CO 2 that could escape in a sudden, co mplete failure of the pipe (See Section 4.9).

ADM (2008a) has presented a contingency plan fo r system failure that includes the proposed high-pressure compression facility.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 30 October 2008 Summary

The integrity of the system against CO 2 release would be dependent on the following:

• Continuous corrosion testing,

• Frequent moisture testing of the dehydrated gas, and

• Continuous pressure monitoring of the pipe line, with automatic shut-down systems.

Prior to injection, the wells would be logged to determine the casing inte grity over the cemented intervals (cement bond log) as per ADM UIC Injection Control Permit (ADM, 2008a).

2.1.3.3 Monitoring, Mitigation, and Validation (MMV) Programs

A number of intermittent studies or continuous programs would be undertaken:

Air Dispersion

USEPA models for atmospheric di spersion of gases would be run to estimate dispersion of offgases from the compressor, as well as the issue of sudden CO 2 release referred to above. The outcomes would be used to assist and direct pi lot operation decisions, and to some extent design of the facility. In addition, th e models would be run to ensure public safety should a complete pipe rupture occur (NETL, 2008b).

Fluid Flow Modeling

A variety of models would be run to gain insight into the nature of fluid flows in the project area, including injection zone fluid flow modeling (reservoir simulatio n), geochemical and mechanical modeling, basin wide modeling, groundwater modeling, and near-surface modeling (NETL, 2008b). The intent of these programs would be to utilize observation well and system pressure data for the purpose of understand ing the physical processes that would be encountered as a consequence of the sequestration. The purpose of th is type of modeling is mainly for research. History matching of observation we ll results and wellhead pressure s at given flow rates would require a number of assumptions to be made due to reservoir and injection rate unknowns. These assumptions will be verified or modified as a re sult of this project and will provide information about subsurface processes important to future operations.

Groundwater Monitoring

Standard groundwater monitoring programs woul d be used to detect any changes in groundwater. Such changes are c onsidered unlikely in the potable groundwater zone due to the depth of the targeted Mt. Sim on sandstone and the presence of numerous shale gas migration

barrier formations between the Mt. Simon and the deepest potable groundwater zone.

The water changes in the injec tion zone would be monitored by chemical analysis of fluids

recovered from observation wells. In these wells, it is concei vable that pH changes and hardness, as well as alkalinity changes may be observed. Tra ce element concentration changes may also take place.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 31 October 2008 Injection Fluid Sampling

The injected fluids would be sampled prior to in jection in accordance with the UIC permit to test for the presence of non-condensable gases and cer tain organic components that may arise from the ethanol fermentor (ADM, 2008a).

Operations Monitoring

The MGSC would utilize automa ted devices to measure inject ion volumes, well pressures, annulus pressures, and formation temperatures. These would be used to determine the smooth functioning of the operation, absence of leaks, an d absence of flow behind the injection pipe. Continuous pressure readings in pipelines, at the wellhead, and in the wellbore annulus that are outside the permit limits would lead to automatic shutdown of the injectio n system, if necessary, per the injection control permit.

After some months of operation, it would likel y be found that some monitoring techniques would provide more useful information than others. The frequency of the less helpful measurements would then be decreased (ADM, 2008a).

2.1.4 Decommissioning

ADM would have several c hoices available to them:

First, they may decide to conti nue the sequestration program as part of their ongoing operations. In that case, regulatory approval would be obtained as necessary (ADM, 2008a).

Second, if they do not choose to continue or if the pilot has not shown unequivocally favorable results, the plant site does not require decomm issioning immediately. However, the wells would have to be abandoned, and the pipeline could be abandoned in place or the aboveground sections

removed. Well abandonment would be acco rding to IEPA UIC regulations. All decommissioning would be done in compliance w ith applicable laws and regulations.

2.2 No-Action

DOE’s provision of cost sharing in the Proposed Action is the Federal act ion that brings the Proposed Action under NEPA regulations. Under the No-Action alternative, DOE would not provide partial funding for the proposed project. In the absence of DOE funding, project proponents would not proceed with the proposed pr oject tasks. Thus, the components of the Proposed Action (including injection of CO 2 and building of compre ssion-dehydration facility)

would not occur under the No -Action alternative.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Elim inated from Detailed Analysis

It is important to remember that the decision under review in this EA is for DOE to either fund or not fund the Proposed Action. Two a dditional alternatives were available for satisfying DOE’s needU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 32 October 2008 for developing information on potenti al technological solutions for geological carbon sequestration in this region.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action include:

• Conducting the experiment at a nother field site in the sa me sedimentary basin and

• Conducting the experiment in another geogra phic area (different sedimentary basin).

The Proposed Action site was selected based on an optimum and advantageous combination of site characteristics, including:

• Regional geologic characteristics (depth and thickness of Mt. Simon, lack of faulting, and caprock’s presence and thickness);

• Local availability of large volumes of CO 2, ; and

• Willingness of the industrial partner to cooperate in this effort.

Other sites that were investigated by the MGSC lacked the strength of the ADM Phase III Test

Site in one or more of these characteristics. Alternative sites typically would have required significantly longer pipelines for transporting CO 2 and had less information regarding the geologic character of the injec tion formation and overlying caproc ks. Therefore, these other

sites were eliminated.

2.4 Issues Considered and Dismissed

The Purpose and Need section above highlighted the importance of th e overall program of evaluating carbon capture and storage (CCS) as one tool among many to address global climate change while providing this nation with a secure energy future. Many potential impact issues associated with EAs were reviewed to compile this EA for DOE. Because of the lack of potential impact to certain issu es due to the specific characteri stics of the Proposed Action, the following issues were considered bu t dismissed from detailed analysis:

Right-of-Way Acquisition There was no need for additional right-of-way.

Wild & Scenic Rivers There are no designated Wild & Scenic Rivers within a 75-mile (120 km) distance from the project

site.

Increase Local Government Expenditures The expected population dynamics of the temporary workforce are not expected to impose additional local government expenditures through need for new roads, schools, etc.

Impact Property Values This is a minor expansion within an existing industrial facility.

Alter Local Hydrology Pattern s None of the proposed construction would impact drainage in the local watershed.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Action and Alternatives 33 October 2008 Harm Tribal Lands No lands affili ated with Native American tribes would be impacted by the Proposed Action.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ The Environmental Analysis Approach 34 October 2008 3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH

This chapter describes how the environmental review team analyzed the potential impacts of this Proposed Action (i.e., injection and analysis of potential for geologic storage of CO 2 ). Chapter 4 provides a description of the affected environmen t and the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action along with an analysis of enviro nmental effects if the Proposed Action was not implemented.

3.1 Approach to the Analysis

An EA is intended to be a clear, focused analysis of impacts. It is not intended to be merely a compilation of encyclopedic information abou t the project or about the environment. Accordingly, the environmental review team used a systematic approach to identifying, and then answering the relevant impact questions.

The initial step was to develop a detail ed description of the components of the CO 2 storage process to be used at this test site to study the potentia l of geologic sequestration of CO 2 . This description was presented in Chapter 2.

For each project component (e.g., underground injection of CO 2 ), the team sought to identify all the types of direct effects which that activity could cause on any environmental resource. For example, clearing a site of vegetation could cause soil erosion. In doing this preliminary identification of the types of impacts that potentially could occur, the team drew upon their experience with previous projects.

For each potential direct effect, th e team then sought to identify the potential indirect effects on other environmental resources. For example, so il erosion could cause sedimentation in nearby streams, which could in turn harm the fish and other species in the stream.

In some cases, the team identified multiple e ffects on the same resource, which are shown in diagrams (Figure 3-1). Figure 3-1 is the overall Cause-Effect-Q uestion diagram for the entire project. This served as the framework of the anal ysis of impacts. That is, the team focused their efforts on answering these questions as to whether these effects would in f act occur, and if so, how extensive, how severe, and how long-lasting they would be.

Note that Figure 3.1 (next pages) contains refere nces to the specific section of the document where each impact is addressed. Site clearing could

cause Soil erosion? which could

cause Damage to stream species?U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 35 October 2008Site Selection,Preparation, &Constructionfor CO2InjectionRemove andDisturb Soils?Section 4.2Damage Wetlands?Section 4.4.2Generate Dust andEmissions?Section 4.1.2.1GenerateNoise?Section 4.8.6Degrade AirQuality?Section 4.1.2.1Increase in Operations Related Noise?Section 4.8.6.2Disturb Adjacent Landowners or Sensitive Receptors?Section 4.8.6.2Increase Risk forChemical/ FuelSpills?Sections 4.2.2,4.9.2, & 4.8.6.2Contaminate the Soils? Section 4.2.2Contaminate Surface or Groundwater? Section 4.9.2HeavyEquipment WillBe UsedDuringConstructionDamage Archeological or Cultural Resources?Section 4.10.2Removal ofVegetation?Section 4.5.2Harm Wildlife? Section 4.5.2Harm Protected Species? Section 4.5.2Loss of Habitat? Section 4.5.2Harm Human Health and Safety? Sections 4.8.6.2 & 4.9.2DrillingDisposal of Waste Mud/Debris?Section 4.11.2Disposal of Wastewater? Section 4.11.2Generate Noise/Vibrations? Section 4.8.6.2Increase in Construction Related Noise?Section 4.8.6.2Figure 3.1-1. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 1U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 36 October 2008Increase Local Jobs?Section 4.8.2.2Site Selection,Preparation, &Constructionfor CO2Injection(continued)Increase Income and Spendingin the Local Area?Section 4.8.2.2Purchase ofMaterials andEquipmentThere Will Bea Commitmentof LandChange in Land Use?Section 4.7.2Degrade Visual/Aesthetics?Section 4.7.2Environmental Justice?Section 4.8.7.2CreateLocalJobs?Section4.8.2.2Increase in Local Spending?Section 4.8.2.2Increase Local Population?Section 4.8.1.2Increased Risk to Pedestrians and Other Vehicular Traffic?Section 4.9.2Increase in Traffic?Section 4.9.2Transport ofEquipment,Materials, andPersonnel toand from SiteHarm Wetlands/Wildlife?Section 4.4.2SeeHeavy EquipmentaboveFigure 3.1-2. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 2U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 37 October 2008OperationandMaintenanceof CO2InjectionFacilitiesChanges to Human Health and Safety?Section 4.9.2Changes in Contribution to Climate Change?Section 4.1.2.3Transport,Storage, andHandling of CO2for InjectionDegrade Air Quality?Section 4.1.2Increase in Energy Usage?Sections 4.1.2.3 & 4.8.2.3Increase Risk for Accidents or Spills?Section 4.9.2Increase Local Traffic?Section 4.9.2Harm Human Health and Safety?Section4.9.2Contaminate Surface or Groundwater?Section 4.11.2Increase in Noise andLight EmissionsDisturb Adjacent Property Owners or Sensitive Receptors?Section 4.8.6.2Alter Character of the Neighborhood?Section 4.7.2Prepare CO2Prior toInjectionCompression/Dehydration ofCO2Prior to Injection?Section 4.9.2Disposal of Condensate?Section 4.11.2Air Emissions Generated atthe Facility Will ChangeSeeSite Selection, Preparation, &Construction for CO2InjectionFigure 3.1-3. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 3U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 38 October 2008Route Selection,Construction,and Operationof CO2TransportPipelineSelectingPipeline RoutesPipeline Use Will RequireMaintenance and May PossiblyLeak CO2or VOCsHarm Archeological/Cultural Resources?Section 4.10.2Increase in Invasive Species in Right-of-Way?Section 4.5.2Harm Surface Vegetation?Section 4.5.2Harm Human Health and Safety?Section 4.9.2Heavy Equipment Will BeUsed During ConstructionSeeSite Selection, Preparation, & Construction for CO2InjectionPurchase of Materials andEquipmentTransport of Equipment,Materials, and Personnel toand from SiteThere Will Bea Commitment of LandHarm Tribal lands?Section 4.10.2Harm Historic Properties?Section 4.10.2Figure 3.1-4. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 4U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 39 October 2008SubsurfaceInjections ofCO2Heavy Equipment Will BeUsed During InjectionSeeSite Selection, Preparation, & Construction for CO2InjectionPurchase of Materials andEquipmentTransport of Equipment,Materials, and Personnel toand from SiteChanges to LocalEmploymentAvailabilityDisturb Nearby Residents and Sensitive Receptors?Section 4.8.6.2Decrease Value of Adjacent Property?Section 4.8.6.2Increases inNoise andLightDisturbancesInjection ofCO2UndergroundIncreased Risk of CO2Leaks?Section 4.2.2Harm Vegetation?Section 4.5.2Harm Human Health andSafety?Section 4.9.2Increases inProduced WaterManagementIssues at theSurfaceIncreased Risk of Leaks and Spills?Sections 4.4.2 & 4.9.2Harm Health and Human Safety?Section 4.9.2Increased Risk of Wastewater Containing VOCs?Section 4.9.2Increased Risk of Hole Stability and FlowControl Problems in Older Wells?Section 4.2.2Disposal of WastewaterHarmProtectedSpecies?Section 4.5.2Degrade Air Quality?Section 4.1.2SeeSite Selection, Preparation, & Construction for CO2InjectionDegrade Water Quality?Section 4.3.2SeeSite Selection, Preparation, & Constructionfor CO2InjectionCause Soil Interactions?Section 4.2.2Cause Leaks of CO2?Sections 4.9.2, 4.4.2, & 4.5.2Figure 3.1-5. Cause-Effect-Questions Page 5U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ The Environmental Analysis Approach 40 October 2008 3.2 Analysis of Significance

The review team used a systematic process to evaluate the importance, or significance, of the predicted impacts. This process involved compar ing the predictions to th e significance criteria established by the team and set ou t below in Table 3.2. These significance criteria were based on legal and regulatory constraint s and on team members’ prof essional technical judgment.

Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds

Impact Significance Thresholds

Resource Area An impact would be significant if it EXCEEDS the following conditions.

Air Quality The project would not produce emissions that would impede the area’s conformity with the State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act.

Geologic Formations The Proposed Action would cause no measurable leakage of CO 2 from the storage formation to the surface or into another area in the subsurface, and there is no more than an imperceptible risk of inducing seismic events due to increased reservoir pressure.

Soils Any changes in soil stability, permeability, or productivity would be limited in extent. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time*, considering the size of the project. Mitigation, if needed, would be simple to implement and proven to be effective in previous applications.

Surface Water Any changes to surface water quality or hydrology would be confined to the immediate project area. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected area’s natural state.

Groundwater Any changes to groundwater quality and quantity would be at the lowest detectable levels. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time. Mitigation, if needed, would be proven to be effective in previous applications.

Wetlands Any impacts to wetlands would be confined to the immediate project area and would not cause any regional imp acts. Planned mitigation measures would fully compensate for lost wetland values in a reasonable time.

Terrestrial Vegetation Any changes to native vegetation would be limited to a small area and would not affect the viability of the resour ces. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected resource’s natural state. Mitigation, if needed, would be proven to be effective in previous applications.

Wildlife Any changes to wildlife would be limited to a small portion of the population and would not affect the viability of the resource. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected species’ natural state.

Threatened or Endangered Species Any effect to a federally listed species or its critical habitat would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence to the protected individual or its population. Th is negligible effect would equate to

a “no effect” determination in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service terms.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ The Environmental Analysis Approach 41 October 2008 Land Use Any change in land use would be limited to a small area and would not noticeably alter any particular land use at the ADM Phase III Test Site or in adjacent areas. The affected areas would fully recover in a reasonable time once the project is completed.

Population and Employment Changes to the normal or routine functions of the affected community are short-term or do not alter existing social or economic conditions in a way that is disruptive or costly to the community.

Infrastructure The project would not noticeably affect or disrupt the normal or routine functions of public institutions, roads, electricity, and other public utilities and services in the project area.

Parks and Recreation Any disturbance would be minor, temporary in duration, and in character with existing uses of the project area.

Visual Resources The action, along with planned mitigati on, would not permanently change the visual landscape in a way that is objecti onable to a number of local residents or frequent visitors. (or) The action, along with planned mitigation, would not change the visual

resource classification of the affected area.

Noise Noise levels in the project area would not exceed ambient noise level standards as determined by the Federal, state, and/or local government.

Environmental

Justice Neither minority nor low-income group s within the affected community would experience proportionately greater adverse effects than other members of the community would.

Human Health and Safety The project, with current and planne d mitigation measures, would pose no

more than a minimal risk to the health and safety of on-site workers and the local population.

Cultural Resources The action would not affect the context or integrity features (including visual features) of a site listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or of other cultural significance. Following consultations with the SHPO/Tribal Historic Preservation Office(r) (THPO) and any other potentially affected groups including Indian Tribes, local governments, and the National Park Service (NPS), the de termination of effect under Section

106 of the NHPA would be no adverse effect

.

Waste Management The action, along with planned mitigation measures, would not cause air, water, or soil to be contaminated with hazardous material that poses a threat to human or ecological health and safety.
* Recovery in a reasonable time: Constant, sustainable improvement is apparent and measurable when the site is routinely observed, and full recovery is achieved over a period of no more than several years.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 42 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFE CTED ENVIRONMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

4.1 Air Quality

4.1.1 Description

This is a description of regional climate, ambi ent air quality with resp ect to attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and identification of a pplicable air quality regulations.

4.1.1.1 Climate and Weather

Decatur, Illinois, average winter temperature is 25.7°F. The average summer temperature is 74.6°F. The total annual precipitation is 39 inches (99.06 cm) with 58% of this falling in April through September. The growing season for most crops also falls within the April through September period. The average seasonal s nowfall is 21.5 inches (54.61 cm) (MGSC, 2008).

4.1.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality St andards and Attainment Status

USEPA Region 5 and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) regulate air quality in Illinois. The CAA (42 US C 7401-7671q), as amended, gives th e USEPA the responsibility to establish the primary and secondary NAAQS (40 CF R Part 50) that set acceptable concentration levels for seven criteria polluta nts: fine particulate matter (PM 10 ),very fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NO

x ), ozone (O 3 ), and lead. Short-term standards (1-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) have been established for pollutants contributing to acute health effects, while l ong-term standards (annual averages) have been established for pollutants contributing to chronic health effects. Based on the severity of the pollution problem, nonattainment areas are categorized as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Each state has the authority to adopt standards stricter than those established under the federal program. However, the State of Illinois accepts the federal standards.

Federal regulations designate Ai r-Quality Control Regions (AQ CRs) in violation of the NAAQS as “nonattainment” areas. Federal regulations designate AQCRs with levels below the NAAQS as “attainment” areas. “Maintenance” AQCRs are areas that have previo usly been designated “nonattainment” and have been redesignated to “attainment” for a probationary period through implementation of maintenance plans. The ADM Ph ase III Test Site is completely within the West Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR (AQC R 075) (40 CFR 81.264). Federal regulations designate AQCR 075 as an attainment area for al l criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.314). Because the study area is in an attainment region, the air conformity regulations do not apply. However, the project’s emissions of criteria pollutants a nd the applicability thre sholds under the general conformity rules were carried forward for more deta iled analysis to determ ine the level of impact

under NEPA.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 43 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.1.1.3 Local Ambient Air Quality

Existing ambient air quality conditions can be es timated from measurements conducted at air quality monitoring stations close to the study ar ea (Table 4.1.1.3). With the exception of the eight-hour O 3 and PM 2.5 standards, air-quality measurem ents are below the NAAQS (USEPA, 2008b). The reported maximum of 0.091 parts per million (ppm) for the eight-hour level exceeds the standard of 0.08 ppm within the region. However, the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximu m 8-hour average O 3 concentrations over each year has not exceeded 0.08 ppm; hence, the attainment status. The reported maximum of 37 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) for the 24-hour PM 2.5 level exceed the standards of 35 μg/m 3 . However, it was only exceeded once; hence, the attainment status.

Table 4.1.1.3. NAAQS and Monitored Air Quality Concentrations

Pollutant and Averaging Time Primary NAAQS 1 Secondary NAAQS 1 Monitored

Data 2 Location of

Station

CO

8-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) 9 (None) 2

1-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) 35 (None) 3 Sangamon County

NO 2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm) 0.053 0.053 (no data available)

- Ozone

8-Hour Maximum 4 (ppm) 0.08 0.12 0.091 Macoupin County

PM 2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean 5 (μg/m 3 ) 15 15 14

24-Hour Maximum 6 (μg/m 3 ) 35 35 37 Macon County

PM 10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 7 (μg/m 3 ) 50 50 24

24-Hour Maximum 3 (μg/m 3 ) 150 150 54 Macoupin County

SO 2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm) 0.03 (None) 0.003

24-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) 0.14 (None) 0.05 Sangamon County

3-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) - 0.5 0.198

1 - Source: 40 CFR 50.1-50.12. 2 - Source: (USEPA, 2008b). 3 - Not to be exceeded more than once per year 4 - The 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average O 3 concentrations over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 5 - The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations from must not exceed 15.0 μg/m 3

. 6 - The 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24 -hour concentrations at each po pulation-oriented monitor must not exceed 65 μg/m 3

. 7 - The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM 10 concentration at each monitor within an area must not exceed 50 μg/m 3

. ppm = parts per million μg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter

NO 2 = Nitrogen dioxideU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 44 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.1.1.4 Existing Facility Emissions

The Decatur ADM Complex operates a variety of grain processing activities, including milling, oil refining, alcohol, and ethanol production. It has many stationa ry sources of air emissions. Significant sources of emissions include storage tanks, dryers , boilers, evaporators, and conveyers. Insignificant sources include small boilers, storage tanks, and internal combustion engines. Based on the facility’s potential to emit, Decatur ADM Complex is a major source of volatile organic compounds (VOC), PM, CO, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), NO x, and SO 2 . A facility-wide Title V permit (permit numb er 115015AAE) was issued on August 18, 2004 (IEPA, 2004). As part of the permit requirements, the facility must comply with emission limits and operational hours for individual pi eces of equipment, and submit an annual facility-wide

emission statement. Table 4.1.1.4 lists the ov erall annual emissions for the Decatur ADM Complex. Notably, because CO 2 is not currently regulated, CO 2 emissions are not tracked at the facility.

Table 4.1.1.4. Existing (2007) Air Em issions for Decatur ADM Complex

Criteria Pollutants Decatur ADM Complex Annual Emissions (Short Tons per Year)

CO 3000

NO

x 2665

PM 10 1476

PM 2.5 439

SO 2 9206

VOC 3881 Source: (ADM, 2008b).

4.1.1.5 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are components of the at mosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Some greenhouse gase s occur naturally in the atmosphere, while

others result from human activities such as the bu rning of fossil fuels. Federal agencies, states, and local communities address global warming by preparing GHG inventories and adopting policies that will result in a decrease of GHG emissions. According to the Kyoto Protocol and California Climate Action Registry (CCA R), there are six GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) (UNFCCC, 2007; CARB, 2007a). Although the direct GHG (CO 2 , CH 4 , and

N 2 O) occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have increased their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i .e., ending about 1750) to 2004, concentrations of

CO 2 have increased globally by 35 percent. W ithin the United States, fossil fuel combustion accounted for 94 percent of all CO 2 emissions released in 2005. On a global scale, fossil fuel combustion added approximately 30 x10 9 short tons (27 x10 9 metric tons) of CO 2 to the atmosphere in 2004, of which the United States accounted for about 22 percent (USEPA, 2007a). DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA ) report indicates that United States’ CO 2 emissions have grown by an average of 1.2 percent annually since 1990 and energy-related CO 2 emissions constitute as much as 83 percent of the total annual CO 2 emissions (DOE, 2007b).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 45 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Since 1900, the Earth's average surface air temperat ure has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4oF. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within th e past 10 years, with the warmest year being 2005 (USEPA, 2007b). W ith this in mind, DOE, while preserving their core operations, is poised to support climate- changing initiatives to reduce GHG emissions.

4.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Short-term minor impacts to air quality would be expected with the implementation of the Proposed Action. Direct and indirect air emissi on would not exceed applicability thresholds, be “regionally significant,” or contribut e to a violation of any federal, state, or local air regulation. Air emissions would be limited to temporary di esel emissions from drilling equipment during well development and drilling of the observa tion and groundwater monitoring wells. A dehydration reboiler, which could generate limited ai r emissions, is the only expected source of air emissions during injection or monitoring ope rations. In summary, the project would not produce emissions that would impede the area’s c onformity with the State Implementation Plan

under the Clean Air Act.

4.1.2.1 Estimated Emissions and General Conformity

The general conformity rules requ ire Federal agencies to determine whether their action(s) would increase emissions of criteria pollutants above preset threshold levels (40 CFR 93.153(b)).

These de minimis (of minimal importance) rates vary depending on the severity of the nonattainment and geographic location. Because AQC R 075 is in attainment , the air conformity regulations do not apply. However, all direct and indirect emissi ons of criteria pollutants were estimated and compared to applicability threshol d levels of 100 short tons per year (tpy) to determine whether implementation of the Proposed Action would cause significant environmental impacts. The total direct and i ndirect emissions associat ed with the following

activities were accounted for (Table 4.1.2.1).

• Site preparation & construction,

• Construction and operation of transport pipeline,

• Operation and maintenance of injection facilities, and

• Subsurface injections of CO 2

.

Construction emissions would primarily be due to the use of diesel dril ling rigs, mud pumps, diesel generators and motors, heavy construction e quipment, deliveries to th e site, the application of architectural coatings, and fugitive dust. Drill rig operations during well construction are anticipated to occur 24 hours per day and 7 days per week for no more than three months. The operational emissions would primarily be due to vehicle operation, a nd the proposed propanefired dehydration reboiler at the new facilities. There are no pl anned operational activities along the proposed pipeline or at the well sites that wo uld generate emissions of criteria pollutants.

The total direct and indirect emissions associ ated with the Proposed Action would not exceed applicability threshold levels. Because AQCR 07 5 is an attainment area, there is no existing emission budget. However, due to the limited si ze and scope of the Proposed Action, it is not anticipated that the estimated emissions would ma ke up 10 percent or more of regional emissionsU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 46 October 2008

& Environmental Effects for any criteria pollutant and not be regionally significant. A detailed breakdown of drilling, construction, and operation emissions is located in Appendix A.

Table 4.1.2.1. Proposed Action Emissions Co mpared to Applicability Thresholds

Annual emissions (Short Tons Per Year)

Activity (Year) CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 De

minimis

threshold (Short

Tons Per Year) Would emissions

exceed applicability

thresholds? [Yes/No] Drilling and Construction (2008) 4.8 8.7 1.2 0.01 0.4 0.4 100 No

Operational Emissions 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 No

Note: SO

x is sulfur oxides.

4.1.2.2 Regulatory Review

New stationary sources of emissions may be subject to both federal and state permitting requirements. These requirements include, but are not limited to, New Source Review (NSR), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for selected categories of industrial sources. In addition, under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), new and m odified stationary sources of air emissions may be subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements if their potential to emit HAPs exceeds either 10 short tons per year of a single HAP, or 25 short tons per year of all regulated HAPs. These regulati ons are outlined in Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code Subpart B, Ai r Emission Regulations (IPCB, 2008).

The Decatur ADM Complex is in an attain ment area and would introduce only one new insignificant stationary source of air emissions; the dehydration reboiler. However, since it would be located at an existing major source, it is possible that the rebo iler would need a permit to construct, and be added to the list of insigni ficant sources outlined in the facility’s Title V permit. At the final design stages, the reboile r would be chosen and permitting requirements correspondingly determined.

The construction and drilling activities would be accomplished in full compliance with Illinois regulatory requirements through the use of compliant practi ces and/or products. Some applicable sections may include:

• Subchapter C: Part 212: Visible and Particulat e Matter Emissions,

• Subchapter C: Part 215: Organic Material Emissions Standards and Limitations, and

• Subchapter I: Part 237: Open Burning.

Construction and drilling activities would be expected to cause some localized dust. Standard mitigation techniques such as wa tering, erecting wind breaks, and us ing covers where practicable would be employed to minimize its effects.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 47 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming

Direct and Indirect CO 2 Emissions. Carbon emissions from the Decatur ADM Complex would be captured and sequestered in the Mt. Simon deep saline reservoir. It is anticipated that approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of CO 2 would be sequestered during the project three year injection peri od. However, the overall amount of CO 2 generated would increase due to the burning of diesel fuel dur ing drilling, the additiona l electrical demand (5-6 megawatt (MW)), and worker commutes. The net CO 2 emissions for the project were estimated (Table 4.1.2.3). A net decrease of approximately 988,000 short tons of CO 2 emission would be

realized over the life of the project. These 988,000 short tons of CO 2 are currently vented to the atmosphere and would not be if the sequestration project is successful. This is less than 0.0001% of the global CO 2 emissions. The additional 115,000 short tons of that would be generated would not be generated at all without the implementati on of the Proposed Action.

Table 4.1.2.3. Net CO 2 Emissions for the Proposed Action
Activity/Source Emissions (Short Tons) Drilling and Construction 494 Electricity Usage 113120

Worker Commutes 722 Sequestration (1102300)

Total Emissions (987964)

Fugitive CO 2 Emissions and Compressor Blowdown. Because sequestration of CO 2 is an integral part of research and development activities for the Proposed Action, fugitive air

emissions of CO 2 would occur during routine operations. Sources of emissions during sequestration operations could include injecti on and monitoring wells; and aboveground valves, piping, and wellheads that comprise the transmi ssion pipeline. In addition, compressors are often equipped with automatic blowdown valves that depr essurize compressors, bottles, separators, and interconn ecting lines in the ev ent of a shutdown.

It is expected that emissions from these source s would be very small. The majority of the CO 2 stream that would feed the system would otherw ise be vented to the atmosphere without the Proposed Action. Therefore, CO 2 that is vented from the unit during this project are emissions

that would otherwise have occurred if the co mpression unit, pipeline, and wells were not in place. Therefore, these sources of fugitiv e emissions would not increase overall CO 2 emissions.

Atmospheric monitoring and modeling for CO 2 . Direct measurement of CO 2 concentrations in the air would be an integral pa rt of the MMV Program to ensure the health and safety of the public and to curtail environmental impacts. Because of the natural variations in CO 2 concentrations and fluxes in the near surface e nvironment that arise from soil, plant, and subsurface processes several monitoring techniqu es would be employed. In addition, to track potential leaks the Hybrid Single- Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model (HYSPLIT), developed by the National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administration ( NOAA) and Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, would be used to si mulate the atmospheric dispersion and the

concentration distribution of CO 2 from multiple-source emissions of CO 2 , and/or other potential pollutants associated with a CO 2 release.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 48 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.1.3 Effects of No-Action

Selecting the No-Action alternative would result in no direct impact to ambient air-quality conditions. No drilling or c onstruction would be undertaken and no changes in facility operations would be expected. Ambient air-quality conditions w ould remain as described in

Section 4.1.1.3.

Selecting the No-Action alternativ e could have minor indirect impa cts to air quality. No-Action, meaning that this project is not carried out in any setting, would dela y planned larger-scale sequestration projects by perhaps several year s. The increased understanding of subsurface

behavior of CO 2 would not be gained. Additionally, an example of successful and safe sequestration, on any scale, could not be offere d to the public in suppor t of a larger, more expensive project. The complexities of a larger pilot might transl ate to long delays in public and regulatory approval, thereby jeopa rdizing goals of rapid action on climate change issues. A 3- year delay in initiating large-scale sequestra tion efforts would lead to an increase CO 2 emissions by approximately 5% and atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 would increase by as much as 6 ppm before any stabilization e ffort would be started.

4.1.4 Cumulative Effects

The State of Illinois takes into account the effect s of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable emissions during the development of the State Impl ementation Plan (SIP). The State of Illinois accounts for all significant stationary, area, and mobile emission sources in the development of this plan. Estimated emissions gene rated by the Proposed Action would be de minimis and would not be regionally significan t. Therefore, it is not antic ipated that the Proposed Action would contribute substantially to advers e cumulative effects to air quality.

4.2 Geology and Soils

4.2.1 Description

The ADM Phase III Test Site is located on the east side of the city of Decatur, Illinois, which lies in Macon County (Section 5 of Township 16 North Range 3 East). The site is located on the existing Decatur ADM Complex. Pr oject activities are planned im mediately north of the main ADM plant in an open field owned by ADM. Th e land use of the Decatur ADM Complex is characterized as industrial, although the test site has been previous ly leased for agricultural uses (MGSC, 2008). Water bodies in the vicinity in clude Lake Decatur, which was formed in 1920s by the damming of the Sangamon River, a princi pal tributary of the Illinois River (Decatur, 2008a; IDNR, 2003). This river and reservoir provi de surface drainage for the surrounding land and water supply for the city of Decatur (Decatur, 2008a). The site is located on essentially flat topography with slopes less than 5% as determin ed from topographic maps covering the area. There is no evidence of karst topography (suc h as sinkholes) in th e area (MGSC, 2008).

Subsurface. The subsurface geology of the Illinois Ba sin (Figure 4.2.1-1) in the project area consists of a thick sedimentary sequence of Ca mbrian to Pennsylvanian geologic formationsU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 49 October 2008

& Environmental Effects overlain by unconsolidated moraine deposits of the Quaternary-age Wedron Group (ISGS, 1996) . The thickest and most widespread brine reservoir in the Illinois Basin is the basal Cambrian-age Mt. Simon Sandstone. It is over lain by the Cambrian Eau Claire Formation, a regionally extensive very low-permeability shale, and underlain by Precambrian granitic basement. The deposition of the Mt. Simon Sandst one is commonly interpreted to be a shallow, subtidal marine environment. In general, the paleogeography of Illinois at the time of uppermost Mt. Simon deposition was one of a low-relief coas tal setting in a subsiding basin that was open

to the ocean to the south. In the northern half of Illinois, the Mt. Simon is used extensively for natural gas storage. Detailed rese rvoir data are available from thes e projects. Data from ten Mt. Simon gas storage projects shows that th e upper 200 feet (60.96 m) has porosity and permeability high enough to be a good sequestration target. The closest Mt. Simon penetration

to the test site is the Harris on #1 well about 17 miles (27.36 km) to the southeast (ADM, 2008a).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 50 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Figure 4.2.1-1. Illinois Basin’s Stratigra phic Column of Key Formations for CO 2 Injection
Source: (NETL, 2008b).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 51 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Mapping from regional data sugge sts that the gross thickness of the Mt. Simon is 1,000 to 1,600 feet (304.8 – 487.68 m) at the test site. The nearest well with a porosity log for the entire thickness of the Mt. Simon, the Humble Oil W eaber-Horn #1 well, was drilled on the Loudon Field anticline in Fayette County, a major oilfield 51 miles (82.08 km ) south of the project area. The Weaber-Horn #1 drilled through 1,300 feet (396.24 m) of Mt. Simon before drilling into the Precambrian granite (ADM, 2008a).

The top of the Mt. Simon at the Weaber-Horn #1 well was at 7,000 feet (2.14 km) and the gross thickness had an average porosity, calculated from wireline logs , of about 12 percent. The Weaber-Horn #1 well log porosity data are simila r to those found in the Hinton #7, the deepest

well at the Manlove Field in Ch ampaign County, approximately 37 miles (59.55 km) northeast of the project area. The Manlove Field is the deep est Mt. Simon natural gas storage field in the Illinois Basin (NETL, 2008b).

A regional Mt. Simon structure ma p suggests that the top of th e Mt. Simon is between 5,000 and 6,000 feet (1.52 and 1.83 km) measured depth at the test site. For the CO 2 injection portion of this research project, the injection interval w ould not be the entire thic kness of the Mt. Simon; rather it would be a subinterval within the gr oss thickness of this ma ssive sandstone geologic unit that has acceptable permeab ility properties (NETL, 2008b).

Within the Illinois Basin, three thick shale units function as major regional seals. These are, from shallowest to deepest, the Devonian-age New Albany Shale, Or dovician-age Maquoketa Formation, and the Cambrian-age Eau Claire Fo rmation. There are also many minor, thinner Mississippian- and Pennsylvania n-age shale beds that form seals for known hydrocarbon traps within the Basin. The lowermost seal, the Ea u Claire, has no known pene trations within a 17- mile (27.36 km) radius surrounding the test site; th erefore, there are no existing wellbores whose integrity would be of concern. All three major seals are laterally exte nsive and appear, from subsurface wireline correlations, to be conti nuous within a 100-mile (160.93 km) radius of the test site (NETL, 2008b).

The primary confining zone (seal) at the test site is the Cambrian age Eau Claire Formation. An isopach map based on regional well control sugges ts that the Eau Claire should be 300–500 feet (91.44 – 152.40 m) thick at the propose d test site. The estimated t op of the Eau Claire Formation would occur between 4,500 to 5,500 feet. The Eau Claire Formation is composed primarily of a silty, argillaceous dolomitic sa ndstone or sandy dolomite in northern Illinois and becomes a siltstone or shale in the central part of the Illinois Basin. Regionall y, the Eau Claire is a persistent shale inte rval above the Mt. Simon that is expected to provide a good seal

.

The database of UIC and gas storage wells with cores from the Eau Claire was also used to derive seal qualities. Data show that the Eau Claire’s median permeability is 0.000026 millidarcies (mD) and median porosity is 4.7%. At the Ancona Gas St orage Field, located 80 miles (128.75 km) to the north of the proposed te st site, cores were obt ained through 414 feet (126.19 m) of the Eau Claire, and 110 analyses were performed on a foot-by-foot basis on the recovered core. Most vertical permeability anal yses showed values of less than 0.001 mD up to 0.001 mD. Only five analyses were in th e range of 0.100–0.871 mD, the latter being the maximum value in the data set. Thus, even the more permeable beds in the Eau ClaireU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 52 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Formation are expected to be relatively tight a nd would tend to act as sealing lithologies (NETL, 2008b).

There are two secondary seals exp ected at the test site. The Ordovician-age Maquoketa Shale is laterally continuous across the test site and is es timated to be over 200 feet (60.96 m) thick at the test site at an estimated depth of between 2,500 to 2,600 feet (762 to 792. 48 m) measured depth. This shale is a regional seal fo r oil reservoirs from the Ordovician Galena (Trenton) Limestone. The Devonian-Mississippian-age New Albany Sh ale at a depth of approximately 1,800 feet (548.64 m) is about 140 feet (42.67 m) thick in th e project area. Extensive well control from

oilfields shows that this shale is a good seal fo r oil accumulations. Thus , it should also be a good secondary seal against the vertical migration of CO 2 (NETL, 2008b).

There are no mapped regional faults and fractur es within a 25-mile (40.23 km) radius of the proposed site. A preliminary 2-D seismic survey has been completed during Phase II of the project. Additional 2-D, 3-D, and vertical se ismic profile (VSP) data are planned to further characterize the site geology a nd monitor the fate of the CO 2 (ADM, 2008a).

Soils. Soils in the area were mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1990 (Figure 4.2.1-2). Five silt loam soil units ha ve been mapped within the project site: the Drummer silty clay loam (152), Flanagan silt loam (154A), Proctor silt loam (148B), Catlin silt loam (171B) and Dana silt loam (56B). The mo st common soil type is the Drummer, which is characterized by a nearly level poo rly drained soil that occurs in broad, flat areas on outwash or till plains. This soil is not highly susceptible to erosion due to the flat topography. The Flanagan silt loam is a nearly level, somewhat poorly drai ned soil located on broad ri dges on till plains and moraines. The soil is not highly susceptible to erosion due to the fl at topography. The land capability classification, or the su itability of a soil type for a particular field crop, for the Flanagan and Drummer soil types are moderately limited in the selection of species and require moderate conservation measures (NRCS, 2008). Specifically for these soil types, the land capability class of IIw denote that excess wa ter (ponding/flooding) can interfere with crop productivity.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 53 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Figure 4.2.1-2. Map of Soil Types over the ADM Phase III Test Site Source: (NRCS, 2008).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 54 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Table 4.2.1. Map Legend to NRCS-derived So ils Map for ADM Phase III Test Site
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres (m 2 ) in Area of

Interest Percent of Area of

Interest
56B Dana silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 9.3 (37,635) 6.1%

148B Proctor silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 5.9 (23,876) 3.9%

152A Drummer silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 64.9 (262,641) 42.9%

154A Flanagan silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 62.1 (251,310) 41.1%

171B Catlin silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 4.3 (17,401) 2.8%

198A Elburn silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.0 (16,187) 2.7%

679B Blackberry silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.6 (2,428) 0.4%

802B Orthents loamy, undulating 0.1 (404) 0.0%

Totals for Area of

Interest 151.2 (611,885) 100.0%

Source: (NRCS, 2008).

The Proctor, Catlin, and Dana soils are generall y well drained to moderately well drained and

have moderate rates of air and water movement. These soils have medium surface runoff, high water capacity, and moderate organic matter content. They have a land ca pability classification of IIe suggesting the soils have moderate limitations due to their susceptibility to erosion or prior damage due to erosion. The maintenance of adequa te plant cover can mitiga te their vu lnerability to erosion (NRCS, 2008).

At the test site, the low topographic relief sugge sts that there is esse ntially no potential for landslides, and negligible risk of subsidence (ADM, 2008a).

4.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The main potential negative effects of the Proposed Action (injection of approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of CO 2 over three years) are identified in the following paragraphs with accompanying notations re garding their likelihood of occurrence.

A sudden release of CO 2 to the surface would be consid ered unlikely because of the well technology to be used and the expertise of the tec hnology providers. If it was to occur, such an event is unlikely to have a large impact on the soil resources surrounded the well. Effects would be very localized and readily remediated. The main risk to the soils woul d be if a sudden release occurred late in the project after substantial injection had occurred (in Year 3 for example).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 55 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Under these circumstances, the injected CO 2 would have had time to interact with organic and mineral matter in the reservoir and potentiall y have dissolved orga nic compounds and other

contaminates. In related CO 2 -EOR experience when sudden rele ases have occurred, the main

adverse outcome to soils around the wellhead has been well blow out of dry ice contaminated with crude oil. There is no exp ectation of any crude oil in the re servoir at the ADM site. This has been readily cleaned up by removal and replacement with new soil.

Relatively slow leakage from the well bore due to casing and/or cement problems are likely to be detected ahead of time by the Mechanical In tegrity Testing proposed in the UIC Permit application (ADM, 2008a).

Relatively slow or extremely slow leakage fr om the injection zone through the seal and ultimately into the soils is an extremely unlikely event even on a time scale of hundreds of years.

Due to the highly unlikely nature of the above-des cribed effects, the conclusion is that there would be no measurable leakage of CO 2 from the storage formation to the surface or into another

area in the subsurface.

4.2.3 Effects of No-Action

If the No-Action alternative is implemented, the construction and injection activities of the Proposed Action do not take place. Thus, no imp acts to soils and geology would occur.

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects

ADM has no other projects planned for the area (C arroll, 2008b). Since there are no substantial impacts to geological and soil resources, the Pr oposed Action and the No-Action alternative do not substantially contribute to the cumulative imp acts to these resources in the project area or its vicinity.

4.3 Water Resources

4.3.1 Description

The only significant source of surf ace water in the immediate vicinity is Lake Decatur, which is located approximately 1 mile (1.61 km) to the east of the ADM Phase III Test Site. Lake Decatur is a 3,090 acre reservoir formed by th e damming of the Sangamon River, a major tributary to the Illinois River. Lake Decatur is the source of drinking water for the City of Decatur (Decatur, 2008a).

Water flows in the Sangamon River are monito red by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) downstream of the test site (05573540: Sangamon River at Route 48) and the Sangamon Dam. Hydrometric records from 1983-2007 indicat e an annual mean flow of 693 cubic feet (ft 3 )/sec (211.23 cubic meter (m 3 )/sec) and achieved a maximum peak flow of 31,800 ft 3 /sec (9692.64 m 3 /sec) in May of 2002 (USGS, 2007).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 56 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Surface water quality was assessed on the Sang amon River in Decatur, Illinois, between the years 1978-1997. Specific conductance was meas ured between 300-1010 microsiemens per centimeter (μS/cm) with a mean value of 586.6 μS /cm. The pH of surface water samples had a field test range between 6.4 and 8.8 over th e 1978-1997 sampling period (USGS, 2008).

Lake Decatur and the upstream reaches of th e Sangamon River were identified on the IEPA’s 2006 Section 303(d) (of the Clean Water Act) list of impaired waters (waters in which at least one applicable use is not fully supported). Us es not supported for Lake Decatur on the 2006 list were aquatic life, fish consumption, public a nd food processing water supplies, and aesthetic quality. The use not supported by upstream se gments of the Sangamon River on the 2006 list was primary contact. Although still impaired, th ese waters have been removed from the 2008 list because a Total Maximum Daily Load (T MDL) has been established by IEPA. The exception is that Lake Decatur is on the 2008 303(d) list for not supporting aquatic life and fish consumption (IEPA, 2008; IEPA, 2006).

The City of Decatur also relies on ten groundwater wells to supplement its water supply in times of drought. The source of groundwater is the Mahomet Aquifer, located 6 miles to the north of the ADM test site, where water is pumped into the Sangamon River to supplement water levels in Lake Decatur (Roadcap and Wilson, 2001). The Mahomet aquifer is a major aquifer at 150 – 300 foot depth capable of yielding significant amounts of water (usua lly greater than 1,000 gallons per minute or approximately greater than 3,800 liters per minute). Other shallower aquifers are found in the Banner Formation, the Glasford Formation, and more recent sediments (ADM, 2008a)

.

Sand and gravel aquifers are likely to be thin or absent in the Banner Formation, the lower portion of the Glasford Formation, and the more recent sediments . Sand and gravel aquifers are likely to be 5 to 20 feet thick in the upper portion of the Glasford Formation and are likely found within 100 feet of the ground surface (ADM, 2008a).

4.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action

As summarized in Section 2.1.2.4, the curren t regulatory framework for USEPA’s UIC permitting program includes multiple provisions fo r safeguarding and preventing injected fluid movement into USDWs. The permitted Class I injection well on the ADM test site would employ accepted industry standards in meeting the specified permit provisions and conditions. The findings of this section are valid only if the UIC permit applic ation is successful and a Class I permit is issued for the ADM test site injection well.

The sequestration of CO 2 in deep brine reservoirs involve s possible drilling through USDWs and a slow upward migration of sequestered CO 2 that has the potential to impact groundwater quality if not adequately trapped by confining layers. CO 2 interacts with the host brine to generate a low pH solution (on the order of 2.8 to 3.0). This acid water is known to mobili ze metals adsorbed to mineral grains. Injection of CO 2 could also cause pressure gr adients that can result in displacement of brine into overlyi ng aquifers. These outcomes are of relatively low risk for the

ADM Phase III Test because of the:

• Depth of the proposed injection zone,U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 57 October 2008

& Environmental Effects • Multiple sequences of shale seals betw een the injection zone and USDW,

• Absence of seismic activity in the local area, and

• Relatively low injection rates of CO 2 compared to proposed comm ercial projects or the FutureGen project.

The main potential negative effects of the Proposed Action (injection of approximately 1.1 million short tons (1 million metric tons) of CO 2 over three years) are identified in the following paragraphs with accompanying notations re garding their likelihood of occurrence.

A sudden release of CO 2 to the surface involves ex treme volume expansion of CO 2 from supercritical liquid state to gas and the large adiabatic decompression that occurs in such events are explosive in nature and result in high velocity ejection of dry ice and fr ozen formation water.

Some of this material would be injected into the shallow aquife rs around the wellhead. This type of event is considered unlikely for the Proposed Action because of the well technology to be used and the expertise of the technology providers. If it does occur, such an event is unlikely to have a large impact on the water resources surrounding the well. E ffects would be very localized and readily remediated (Skinner, 2003).

The main risk to water resources would be if a blowout occurred late in the project after substantial injection had occurred (in Year 3 for example). Under these circumstances, the injected CO 2 would have had time to interact with or ganic and mineral matter in the reservoir and potentially have dissolved organic compounds and other contaminates. In CO 2 -EOR experiences when blowouts have occurred, the ma in adverse outcome to shallow groundwater, immediately around the wellhead, has been well blow out of dry ice contaminated with crude oil (Skinner, 2003). This has been readily cleaned up by standard groundwater remediation

methods.

Relatively slow leakage from the well bore due to casing and/or cement problems are highly likely to be detected ahead of time by the M echanical Integrity Test ing proposed in the UIC Permit application.

With regard to relatively slow or extremely slow leakage from the injection zone through the seal into USDW, data in the specific test location is not yet available, but proxy information from other similar wells in the region may be used to infer such values by analogy and the proposed 12 to 15 month pre-injection data monitoring and modeling period for the ADM Phase III Test Program will confirm and modify that proxy info rmation as necessary. Potential impacts to groundwater will also be anticip ated and minimized by implem entation of a monitoring and mitigation plan that focuses on potential leakage pathways. For this test, there are four geological factors to consider when assessing the possibility that upw ard migration of the injected and sequestered CO 2 into USDWs. They are the numbe r of intervening confining layers that occur between the injection zone and US DWs, thickness of those confining layers, the permeability and porosity of the confining layers, and the potential for fracture to occur in the confining layers.

Section 4.2.1 indicated that there ar e three thick shale units that f unction as major regional seals. There are also many minor, thinne r Mississippian- and Pennsylvania n-age shale beds that formU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 58 October 2008

& Environmental Effects seals for known hydrocarbon traps within the ba sin (ADM, 2008a). Just as important, the lowermost Eau Claire seal has no known pene trations within a 17- mile (27.36 km) radius surrounding the site; therefore, integr ity of existing wellbores is not as significant an issue as in some shallower formations. All three major se als are laterally extensive and appear, from subsurface wireline correlations, to be conti nuous within a 100-mile (160.93 km) radius of the test site (ADM, 2008a).

Section 4.2.1 also states that the expected thicknesses of the confining layers at the test site are substantial, likely measuring 300-500 feet (91.44 – 152.40 m) for the primary Eau Claire formation, over 200 feet (60.96 m) for the Maquoke ta formation, and 140 feet (42.67 m) for the New Albany Shale formation. The shallower seco ndary formations have already demonstrated their effectiveness as regional seals for oilfields (NETL, 2008b).

Section 4.2.1 summarizes porosity and permeability values from nearby gas storage wells, concluding that even the more permeable beds in the Eau Claire formation, with permeability values as high as 0.871 mD are expected to be relatively tight and te nd to act as sealing lithologies (NET, 2008b).

The main faults and or fracture zones of con cern are ones that may penetrate through the seals into the reservoir (that is one s that penetrate the containment zone). Based on information presented in the UIC permit (ADM, 2008a) applica tion, no faults have been documented within 25 miles (40.23 km) of the test site. Section 4.2.1 indicates that a preliminary 2-D seismic survey has been completed during Phase II of the project. Additional 2-D, 3-D, and VSP data are planned to further characterize the site geology and monitor the fate of the CO 2

. There is no specific data available on the fracture pressure of the Eau Cl aire Formation, but there are indications of successful storag e of gas in the Mt. Simon without fracturing the overlying Eau Claire for 10 underground natural gas storage rese rvoirs in Illinois operating in the Mt. Simon at depths ranging from 1,420 to 3,950 feet (432.82 to 1,203 m) (ADM, 2008a).

The injection process does not utilize substantial volumes of wate r. Therefore, there should not be a direct impact on the supply of water resources of the area.

The surface water resources primarily represente d by Lake Decatur are subject to the same

subsurface effects described above for USDWs. The difference is the potential effects are reduced by the greater vertical separation from the saline rese rvoir as well as horizontal separation from the lake, which is approximately 1 mile (1.61 km) to the east of the ADM Phase III Test Site. As described earlier, a sudden CO 2 release to the surface ca uses formation of dry ice and frozen formation water, and the effects are very localized.

The soils are not highly erodible (See Section 4.2), so water contamination from increased runoff is not a major issue. Further, the fac ility has received a c onstruction permit under the General NPDES permit for construction stor m water discharges (Keller, 2008).

For reasons presented above, the project has lim ited potential to have negative effects on the availability and current uses of water resources and the potential to cause impairment of water resources through construction and oper ation of the seque stration project.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 59 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.3.3 Effects of No-Action

If the No-Action alternative is implemented, the construction and injection activities of the Proposed Action do not take place. Thus, no impacts to water resources are expected to occur.

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects

ADM has no other projects planned for the area (C arroll, 2008b). Since there are no substantial impacts to water resources, the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative do not substantially contribute to the cumulative impacts to these resources in the project area or its vicinity.

4.4 Wetlands and Floodplains

4.4.1 Description

There are no wetlands designated within the pr oject area boundaries according to the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS, 1987). The facility would be built within the existing industrial setting of the Decatur ADM Complex, and the pi peline would not be located near any wetland area. The nearest wetland is located adjacent to the western boundary of the ADM Phase III Test Site with a road separating it from the test si te (Figure 4.4.1-1). Additionally, there is a manmade settling pond at the test site that collects surface runoff and/or drain tile water.

The National Wetlands Inventory map unit outside of the northwest site boundary is classified as PEMAf (USFWS, 1987). The PEMAf unit is an em ergent wetland classified as palustrine emergent temporarily or semi-permanently flooded (USFWS, 2008a). Palustrine system designations include all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, emergent mosses, or lichens.

There are no floodplains in the ADM Phase III Test Site area. Th e nearest floodplain is associated with an unnamed tributary off the Sanga mon River and Lake Decatur to the east of the test site approximately 0.36 miles (0.58 km) (Il linois State Water Survey, 1996). Figure 4.4.1-2 (second page) shows the location of th e floodplains to the test site.U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Description of the AffectedEnvironment 60 October 2008& Environmental EffectsFigure 4.4.1-1. Water Bodies andWetlands near the Test SiteU.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Description of the AffectedEnvironment 61 October 2008& Environmental EffectsFigure 4.4.1-2. Floodplains near the ADM Phase III Test SiteU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 62 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action

As there are no wetlands or floodpl ains in the test site, wetland resources and floodplains would not be impacted by construction of the Proposed Action. Although three wells would be drilled along the western boundary of the te st site, they would be far e nough away so that there would be no impacts to the wetland located across the ro ad outside the study area. Furthermore, it is not likely that wetlands would be impacted by the discharge of wastewater from project activities. Similarly, the wells drilled on the eas tern boundary of the test site should be far enough away so that there would be no impacts to floodplains.

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO 2 to the surface could pos e detrimental effects on wetlands and floodplains near or at some distance from the test site. Wetland vegetation and water quality could be impacted by increased concentrations of CO 2 , possibly resulting in changes in species composition, plant death, chan ges in pH, and water quality (International Energy Agency, 2007).

Although leakage of CO 2 to the surface affecting wetlands an d floodplains in a widespread area is possible, it is more likely that any impacts to wetlands and floodplains would be confined to the immediate project area and would not cause any regional impacts. Thus, impacts on wetlands and floodplains by the Proposed Actio n would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.4.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the ADM Phase III Test Site work by the MGSC would not be implemented. No impacts to wetlands or floodplains would occur as a result of this alternative.

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects

Previous industrial development of the project area by ADM and recent agricultural practices may have resulted in impacts to any wetlands th at may have occurred onsite at one time. Wetlands in the project area vici nity are subject to adverse e ffects from ongoing agricultural, residential, and industrial activit ies; these activities are likely to continue in the future. The proposed project would not pose any threats to we tlands or floodplains in the project area, aside from the unlikely leakage of CO 2 to the surface, which would have widespread consequences on wetlands and floodplains. However, given the la rger impacts to wetlands and floodplains from past, present, and future activities, cumulative impacts contributed by the proposed project would be minimally adverse and are not expected to exceed the threshold of significance.

4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation

4.5.1 Description

The proposed new CO 2 injection wells and observation well s would be located in an area characterized by the Bailey Ecoregion classification as the Prairie Parkland (Temperate)U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 63 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Province of the Prairie Division (N ational Atlas, 2008). This ecor egion covers an extensive area from Canada to Oklahoma, with alternating prai rie and deciduous forest. Vegetation in this province is forest-steppe, charac terized by intermingled prairie, groves, and strips of deciduous trees (Bailey, 1995). Trees often cover the highe st hills. Grasses ar e the dominant prairie vegetation. The most prevalent t ype of grassland is bluestem pr airie, dominated by such plants as big bluestem, little bluestem, switchgrass, a nd Indian grass, along with many species of wildflowers and legumes. In many places where gr azing and fire are controlled, deciduous forest is encroaching on the prairies. Due to generally favorable conditions of climate and soil, most of the area is cultivated, and little of the original vegetation remains. The upland forest in this province is dominated by oak and hickory.

The Proposed Action site consists of land with in the Decatur ADM Co mplex that has been disturbed from its natural state. Surrounding land is industrial, residential, or agricultural. An adjacent fallow agricultural field owned by ADM co mprises most of the test site. Low growing grasses occur on the area surrounding the Anaerob ic Wastewater Treatment Facility, which has been previously disturbed.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources ha s compiled an inventory of resource rich areas (RRA) in Illinois (MGSC, 2008). The Proposed Action site does not li e within a designated natural area. The Sangamon River RRA, approxim ately seven miles (11.27 km) to the northeast of the Proposed Action site, is the closest RRA.

No critical habitats or federally listed plant speci es exist in the vicinity of the test site. Two federally listed plant species, Eastern prairie fringed orchid ( Platanthera leucophaea ) and prairie bush clover ( Lespedeza leptostachya ) – both threatened, and one Illinois state listed endangered plant species, wild hyacinth ( Camassia angusta ), occur in Macon County (USFWS, 2007; IDNR, 2008), but are not likely to be found in the project area. A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife technical assistance website (U SFWS, 2008b) on June 10, 2008, for federally listed threatened and endangered species resulted in a conclusion th at the Proposed Action would have “no effect” on listed species, their habitats, or proposed or designated critical ha bitat. An official consultation request and documentation memo are included in Appendix B.

4.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Construction activities associated with the Propo sed Action would occur in the fallow field north of the main ADM plant where there is no native vegetation growing, or in the complex itself. Some of the new proposed wells a nd pipeline may be placed in the areas of low growing grasses, which may be disturbed or removed for well a nd pipeline installation. The majority of disturbance would occur in previously di sturbed areas, minimizing adverse impacts on vegetation. The CO 2 compression-dehydration surface facility and part of the pipeline would be in the industrial complex part of the Decatur ADM Complex, whic h mainly consists of paved

surfaces.

Approximately a 100-foot (30.48 m) radius around the injection well would be disturbed during installation. The injec tion well pad and the surrounding opera tions area would disturb less than one acre, on which there would be very little, if any, vegeta tion. Installation of the twoU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 64 October 2008

& Environmental Effects verification wells, four onsite groundwater monitoring wells, and up to 12 additional groundwater monitoring wells (outside of the pr oject boundary) would disturb a very small area around each well, probably less than 0.5 acre (2023 m 2 ) total, on which there would be very little, if any, vegetation. Constr uction of the 3000-foot (914.4 m) pressurized pipeline would disturb ground for less than half its length as mu ch of the pipeline follows paved surfaces, likely not more than 0.5 acre (2023 m 2 ) on which there would be very li ttle, if any, vegetation. There could also be localized vegetation disturbance fr om foot traffic during in stallation, injection, and monitoring; however, this area would likely be minimal and limited to the areas immediately surrounding the equipment.

Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with fill material or on equipment. New introductions could allow for exotic plants to be come established and spread, especially in areas where the ground is newly disturbe d by construction activities. E xotic plants currently growing in the area can also become established and sp read on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that imported material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.

As no critical habitats or federa lly listed plant species exist in th e vicinity of the project area, there would be no impacts on threatened or endangered species.

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO 2 to the surface could pos e detrimental effects on vegetation near or at some distance from the project area. Although atmospheric CO 2 promotes plant growth, increased concentrations in the soil could lead to root asphy xiation and plant death (International Energy Agency, 2007). Impacts of seepage on on-shore ecosystems could also include altered biological divers ity and changes to the composition and numbers of species in the local environment. The range of effects on terrestrial ecosystems could extend to entire ecosystems and could be chronic, acute, or lethal depending on species affected and

concentrations of CO 2 . However, aerial imaging of the inje ction site would monitor vegetative conditions to validate integrity of seal forma tion, injection well, and other potential migration pathways to the biosphere. Any irregularities, such as dieback, that are detected would trigger

remediation measures.

Any changes to native vegetation would be lim ited to a small area and would not affect the viability of the resources. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected resource’s natural st ate. Therefore, impacts on terrestrial vegetation would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.5.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the ADM Phase III Test Site work by the MGSC would not be implemented. No impacts to terrestrial vegetation would occur as a result of this alternative.

4.5.4 Cumulative Effects

Vegetation in the ADM Phase III Test Site ha s been previously cleared for ADM industrial development and agricultural practices. These activities have involved removal, trampling, orU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 65 October 2008

& Environmental Effects destruction of vegetation and disturbance of ground cover. Any vegetation disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would occur in previously disturbed ar eas or areas devoid of any vegetation. It is also possible that an unlikely leakage of CO 2 to the surface would have wider spread consequences on vegetation. Over all, cumulative impacts from the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimally adverse and are not expected to exceed the thresh old of significance.

4.6 Wildlife

4.6.1 Description

Common mammals that occur in rura l areas in the vicinity of Decat ur, Illinois, include white-tail deer, groundhog, skunk, mink, red and gray fox, and ri ver otter. Common bi rds include Canada goose, owls, hawks, turkey vulture, and mour ning dove. Reptiles include snapping turtle, spotted turtle, timber rattlesnak e, western fox snake, eastern milk snake, and bull snake.

No critical habitat exists in the vicinity of the test site or in Macon County. One federally listed wildlife species, Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) - endangered, and two Illinois state listed endangered species, upland sandpiper ( Bartramia longicauda ) and Bewick’s wren ( Thryomanes

bewickii ), occur in Macon County (IDNR , 2008). Of these species, only the Bewick’s wren has been documented as occurring approximately one mile (1.61 km) south of the test site. A review

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service (USFWS) technical as sistance website (USFWS, 2008b) on June 10, 2008, for federally listed threatened a nd endangered species resulted in a conclusion that the Proposed Action would ha ve “no effect” on listed species, their habitats, or proposed or designated critical habitat. An official c onsultation request and a documentation memo are included in Appendix B.

4.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Activities for construction of the CO 2 compression-dehydration facilit y, installation of wells and pipeline, vehicle traffic, light ing during night work, and human presence would cause temporary displacement and disturbance of resident wildlif e for the two year duration of construction and

installation and thre e year injection period. Species are ex pected to return to the area after construction and injection is completed, although there may still be some minimal disturbance during the additional two years of post in jection monitoring ( MMV would take place concurrently with the three year injection peri od). These impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project area.

It is estimated that very mini mal (less than one acre (4,047 m 2 )) of wildlife habitat would be disturbed by installation of we lls and pipeline. Approximately a 100-foot (30.48 m) radius around the injection well would be disturbed during installation. The injection well pad and the surrounding operations area would di sturb less than one acre (4,047 m 2 ), on which there would be very little, if any, wildlife habitat. Insta llation of the two verifica tion wells, four onsite groundwater monitoring wells, and up to 12 additi onal groundwater monitoring wells (outside of the project boundary) would disturb a very sm all area around each well, probably less than 0.5 acre (2,023 m 2 ) total, on which there would be very litt le, if any, wildlife habitat. ConstructionU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 66 October 2008

& Environmental Effects of the 3,000-foot (914.4 m) pressuri zed pipeline would di sturb ground for less than half its length as much of the pipeline follows paved surfaces, likely not more than 0.5 acre (2,023 m 2 ) on which there would be very little , if any, wildlif e habitat.

As no critical habitats or federally listed animal species exist in the vicinity of the project area, there would be no impacts on threatened or endangered species.

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO 2 to the surface could pos e detrimental effects on wildlife near or at some distance from the projec t area. Effects of a leak would decrease in severity in a series of concentr ic rings, with those organisms cl osest to the leak suffering from

acute or even lethal concentrations of CO 2 (International Energy Agency, 2007). Changes in subsurface biogeochemical processes could lead to changes in soil pH with associated negative effects on microbial populations, leading to a ch ange in nutrients present which would progress up the food chain. Changes in th e quality of groundwater would have serious consequences on

water resources. Both food chain and water re source impacts would likely have detrimental

effects on animal health. Additi onally, prolonged exposure to high CO 2 concentrations may result in increased risk of asphyxiation for some wildlife (International Energy Agency, 2007).

Any impacts on wildlife from the Proposed Action would be limited to a small portion of the population and would not affect the viability of the resource. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of the proj ect and the affected species’ natural state. Therefore, impacts on wildlife would not be ex pected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.6.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the ADM Phase III Test Site work by the MGSC would not be implemented. No impacts to wildlife would occur as a result of this alternative.

4.6.4 Cumulative Effects

Wildlife and habitat in the project area have been , and continue to be, subject to disturbance and damage by ADM industrial development and activ ities, and agricultura l practices. Habitat

disturbance associated with new infrastructure as part of th e Proposed Action would be limited, and wildlife displacement and disturbance would be temporary lasting only for the duration of the construction, injec tion, and monitoring period. It is also possible that an unlikely leakage of

CO 2 to the surface would have wider spread conse quences on wildlife and habitat. Cumulative impacts from the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimally adverse and are not expected to ex ceed the threshold of significance.

4.7 Land Use

4.7.1 Description

The ADM Phase III Test Site would be located n ear Decatur, Illinois, within Macon County and entirely within the large Decatur ADM Complex that is owned and managed by ADM, one of theU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 67 October 2008

& Environmental Effects consortium partners of the MGSC. ADM is one of the world’s largest processors of soybeans, corn, wheat, and cocoa. ADM is a leading manuf acturer of biodiesel, ethanol, soybean oil and meal, corn sweeteners, flour, and other value- added food and feed ingredients (ADM, 2008a).

The Decatur ADM complex consists of various pr ocessing facilities including a corn wet milling plant with ethanol production, wh ich would be the source of CO 2 for this project. Additional primary facilities include cogeneration, bio-pr oducts, oilseed processing, and vegetable oil refining.

Nearby properties and/or land us es include Richland Community College; Caterpillar, Inc.; industry-related commercial businesses; and pr ivate farm (Figure 2.1.1-2). Macon County has a comprehensive plan under development that will es tablish existing and future land use plans, but these plans were not available for this analysis.

Land utilized for the proposed CO 2 compression-dehydration facility and much of the pipeline construction are visibly industrial in nature, which is in concert with their indus trial designation as part of the Decatur ADM Complex. The injecti on well area and the remainder of the pipeline

are would also be within the Decatur ADM Co mplex. The Decatur ADM Complex is a secured

and fenced area that would also include the in jection well area once this project commences.

The Drummer silty clay loam (152), Flanagan silt loam (154A), Proctor silt loam (148B), Catlin silt loam (171B) and Dana silt loam (56B) have al l been identified at th e test site based on the Soil Survey of Macon County (Figure 4.2.1-2)(MGSC, 2008). All of these soils are considered characteristic of prime farmland.

An alfalfa ground cover is planned for the vacant field where the injection well would be located beginning in the summer of 2008.

4.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The proposed project would slightly expand the vi sual and physical indus trial character of the very large Decatur ADM Complex while remaini ng entirely within existing ADM property. The current Decatur ADM Complex developed property size is 300 acres (1,214,057 m 2 ) while the proposed project would be four acres (Carroll, 2008c). Curren t industrial land use designations would be unaffected by this project. Though th e proposed injection we ll site is industrial property, there have been past uses there that were agri cultural. With the exception of a 300 foot by 300 foot (91.44 m by 91.44 m) area for injectio n well surface improvements, the injection well area would be planted in alfalf a, retaining much of the agricultural appearance of this area of the project and minimizing any effect s on identified prime farmland resources.

New elevated pipelines required by the project are planned to follow existing elevated pipe corridors on Decatur ADM Complex property, excep t for the portion immediately preceding the injection well area, which would be placed underground.

The compression-dehydration facility would be se t among other heavy indus trial uses featuring cooling towers and other plant facilities and equipment that are typi cal of this type of industrialU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 68 October 2008

& Environmental Effects facility. The appearance and operation of this pa rt of the project would be compatible with its immediately surrounding land uses.

The compression and pipeline facility will be bu ilt fully within the Decatur ADM Complex and will be integrated with the control of ADM's pr ocessing facilities. ADM may, therefore, choose to continue operation of the compression-dehydrati on facility, pipeline, a nd injection well after the project is complete. That decision will be based on value of that operation with respect to greenhouse gas mitigation laws that may come into effect between now and 2014 at the conclusion of the project. Should requirements for emissions reductions applicable to companies like ADM be adopted, then ADM may contin ue operations consistent with permitting requirements for geological sequestration that may be in effect at that time and considering the

relative value of the f acility with respect to other op tions available to the company.

Should ADM choose not to operate th e facility, the disposition of the equipment will be made in accordance with regulatory requirements and projec t closeout options available to ADM and to

DOE in view of DOE's role in supporting the ADM Phase III Test Site. Equipment that may be readily moved may be salvaged and other instal led components, such a concrete foundation slabs and buried pipeline segments, may be put to ot her uses within the D ecatur ADM Complex. The injection well would be plugged in accordance w ith the UIC permit issued at the time of its initial operation (Finley, 2008; ADM, 2008a).

The effects of the Proposed Action are that land us e impacts would be limited to a small area and would not noticeably alter any part icular land use at the test si te or in adjacent areas. The affected areas would fully recover in a reasonable time once the project is completed. Therefore, the impacts to land use from implementing the Pr oposed Action are not expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.7.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the ADM Phase III Test Site work by the MGSC would not be implemented. No impacts to land use would occur as a result of this alternative.

4.7.4 Cumulative Effects

No additional land use development is currently pla nned in the vicinity of the project outside of Decatur ADM Complex property (Carroll, 2008b; Chamber, 2008; Decatur, 2008b). ADM has no major development planned be yond routine expansion of curre nt plant facilities (Carroll, 2008b). This project would expand industrial de velopment in a predominately industrial land use area, so cumulative impacts would be negligib le with regard to most unplanned development that may occur in this area and should be cons idered compatible with the current industrial character of the project area.

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources

The socioeconomic assessment considers those elem ents of the human social environment that may be sensitive to changes resulting from impl ementation of the Proposed Action. Specifically,U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 69 October 2008

& Environmental Effects the assessment is concerned w ith how the Proposed Action woul d affect people, institutions, communities, and the local economy, as well as larger infrastructure, social, and economic systems. This section describes the socio economic conditions that may be affected by implementation of Proposed Action and addresse s the potential impact that may result from actions undertaken as a part of the Proposed Action.

4.8.1 Population

4.8.1.1 Description

The project area would be locate d on the east side of the metr opolitan area of Decatur, Illinois, and is entirely contained by the existing ADM industr ial complex. Within the corporate limits of the City of Decatur, the proj ect area would be surrounded by a mixture of industrial and agricultural land with some residential and co mmercial properties located in the area, but substantially removed from the site prope r. With a 2006 estimated population of 77,047 residents (Census, 2007a), Decatur is the county seat and also the larges t city in Macon County.

The city is part of the larger Decatur Metropo litan Statistical Area, which had an estimated population of 109,061 in 2007 (Census, 2008). Inco rporated communities within a 15 mile (24.14 km) radius of Decatur include: Argenta – population 841, Forsyth - population 2,871, Harristown - population 1,252, Long Creek - pop ulation 1,317, Macon - population 1,146, Mount Zion - population 5,061, Oreana - populat ion 941, and Warrensburg - population 1,193 (Census, 2007a) Block data (Census, 2000a) fo r the area immediately su rrounding the test site

indicate a total of 51 residents living in 19 housing units, with an occupancy rate of 100 percent. Despite the predominately urban character of th e Decatur region, 46.3 percen t, or nine of the

residential units in the areas nei ghboring the test site ar e classified by the U.S. Census as rural.

The estimated population for the city of Decatur shows a 5.9 percent decline from the 2000 population of 81,860, continuing a trend from the pr evious decade in which the city declined from its 1990 population of 83,885 (Census, No date ). In 2000, Decatur supported a total of 37,239 housing units with a median value of $63,200. Th e occupancy rate for all units in the city was 91.5 percent. The average population density for the metropolitan area of Decatur is 1,923 persons per square mile (2,589,988 m 2 ), with a housing density of 855.1 units per square mile (2,589,988 m 2 ) (Census, 2000b). The median age of Decatur residents, 37.2 years, is slightly lower than that for the surrounding county, 39.3 years. Approximately 76.0 percent of the population is 18 years or older, with 6.7 percen t under the age of five and 16.4 percent aged 65 and over (Census, 2000a).

The estimated population of Macon County in 2006 was 109,309 residents; a slight decrease from the 2000 total of 114,706 (Census, 2007b). In 2000, there were a total of 51,738 housing units in the county, with an occupancy rate of 90.3 percent and an average density of 86.5 units per square mile (2,589,988 m 2 ). Population density for this year was 86.5 persons per square mile (2,589,988 m 2 ) (Census, 2000b). Residents aged 18 years and older represented 75.4 percent of the total population. Children five years of age and younger account for 6.4 percent of the county’s population and persons 65 years of age and older ma ke up 15.2 percent (Census, 2000a).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 70 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.8.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Implementation of the Proposed Action would have only a minor, if not negligible, effect on the size and demographic characteristics of the loca l population. No additional, permanent full-time employment would be generated as a result of this alternative. Any increased labor requirement would be temporary and limited to the constr uction of the well, pipeline, and compressor

facilities. Estimates for the additional workfo rce required at the site range from 9 to 39 personnel, depending on the particular stage of the process (Schlumberger, 2008b). This temporary increase would be easily accommodated by existing local resources.

The Proposed Action would be in keeping with th e industrial character ex isting in the project area and would not introduce any new or incomp atible uses. The proposed well, compressiondehydration plant, and the associ ated pipeline would be locate d entirely within the existing Decatur ADM Complex boundaries. No additional land outside the existing footprint would be needed. As a result, no substantial impact would be associated with the pot ential to change the community character and setti ng, demographic composition, or hous ing availability beyond that already existing under ADM’s curren t operation. Therefore, the impacts from implementing the Proposed Action are expected to be below the significance threshold.

4.8.1.3 Effects of No-Action

Continuation of the No-Action alternative woul d mean that DOE funds would not be used to support the proposed drilling, construction, and m onitoring and data coll ection activities on the test site. Correspondingly, no change would o ccur in the existing c ondition, and the current management of the site would continue. No changes to local demographic composition or community setting and character would be anticipa ted under this alternative. Any future changes

in the use or infrastructure of the site would be dependent on ADM short and longer-term corporate planning and any specific future use dete rminations for the test site that may derive from that process. Therefore, the impacts from implementing the No-Action alternative are expected to be below th e significance threshold.

4.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts

As noted under the Proposed Action, the intr oduction of the Proposed Action would not be expected to account for any noticeab le changes in the size or dem ographic characteristics of the local population and would not contribute to a ny substantial changes in local community character and setting. When c onsidered in combination with ADM’s current and proposed management of the existing site and the future site condition, the cumulative effects would be expected to be minor and are not expected to exceed the thres hold of significance.

4.8.2 Employment and Income

4.8.2.1 Description

The local economy of the City of Decatur is characterized by a combination of heavy and light industries along with large-scale agricultural production and services. Farm ing and farm-relatedU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 71 October 2008

& Environmental Effects occupations continue to be a major source of em ployment in the Macon County area. Per capita personal income for the city of Decatur in 2006 was $19,761. Employment statistics for the year indicate that the city supported a total civ ilian labor force of 36,551 workers, with an unemployment rate of 6.8 per cent or 2,489 workers. The la rgest occupational categories included: management, professional, and re lated occupations, with 10,843 workers, or 31.8 percent of the workforce; sales and office occ upations, with 7,954 workers or 23.4 percent of the workforce; and service occupations with 7,107 work ers, or 20.9 percent of the total. Median household income in 2006 was $34,877 (Census, 2006a).

The leading employment sectors for Mac on County in 2006 were manufacturing, with 24.46 percent of total employment; hea lth care and social assistan ce, with 15.05 percent; and retail trade, with 12.75 percent of the total (BLS, 2006). Employme nt statistics for March 2008

indicate that the count y supported a total labor force of 55,183 workers, with an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent, or 3,356 workers. This re presents an increase of 0.3 percent from the 2007 annual average unemployment (BLS, 2008). The pe r capita personal income of $34,133 for that year was 89 percent of the state average, $38,409. Total personal income for the county was $3.7 billion (BEA, 2006). Median household income for 2006 was $41,009 (Census, 2006b). A summary of income distribution by h ousehold is presented in Table 4.8.2.1.

Table 4.8.2.1. Household Income for 2006

Number Percent Less than $10,000 4,859 10.39 $10,000 to $14,999 3,710 7.93 $15,000 to $24,999 5,739 12.27 $25,000 to $34,999 6,179 13.21 $35,000 to $49,999 6,473 13.84 $50,000 to $74,999 8,321 17.79 $75,000 to $99,999 5,782 12.37 $100,000 to $149,999 4,040 8.64 $150,000 to $199,999 890 1.90 $200,000 or more 768 1.64
Total Households 46,761 100
Source: (Census, 2006b).

4.8.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Implementation of the Proposed Action would be expected to have only minimal effect on the local economy, labor conditi ons, and the availability of production or consumer resources in the surrounding community. Permanent, longer term labor requirements for operation, monitoring, and maintenance of the proposed facility would not be expected to be substantial and could easily be accommodated by ADM’s existing labor force.

Labor requirements for the construction of the we ll, pipeline, and compressor facilities would be temporary and of short duration. Workforce es timates for the well dril ling operations include from 24 to 39 personnel working 24 hours per day se ven days per week for from four to sevenU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 72 October 2008

& Environmental Effects days during initial set up of th e drill rig. After drilling begins , the rig-based workforce would decline to approximately 9 to 18 personnel. At peak times, such as during logging or cementing operations, this number could potentially double (Schlumberger, 2008b). These requirements represent skill areas that c ould be accommodated by ADM’s ex isting workforce or from the larger Decatur and Macon County workforce wit hout major impact or stress to existing labor availability in the area. As a result, no cha nge in regional employment would be anticipated.

The planning, construction, opera tion, monitoring, and post inj ection activities proposed under Proposed Action would result in a tota l project spending of $84,274,927, including $66,730,912 in federal funds. The local economy of the C ity of Decatur and su rrounding Macon County is sufficient to capture much of this additional spending. This represents a potential beneficial impact to the local economy in the form of wage s and salaries paid to local workers and income to local commercial entities providing goods and services. Assuming that all expenditures were captured by the local economy, the Proposed Action spending over three years would be equal to approximately 2.4 percent of the annual total in come for Macon County. However, it is likely that at least a portion of projec t expenditures might be spent ou tside the local economy for labor goods or services not locally available, so that the actual benefit would probably be somewhat

less.

Resource requirements for the projec t would not be expected to re sult in substantial changes in the provision of infrastructure and other services to loca l residents. The compressiondehydration facility is estimated to require an increased electrical demand of 5 to 6 MW over the three-year injection period. Since the ADM pl ant produces its own elect ricity, this increase would not impact industrial or residential users in the local area. Similarly, water and wastewater treatment requirements would not have a local impact. The proposed requirement for 220 barrels (9,240 gallons or approximately 35 kiloli ters) of water is within existing capacity,

and wastewater would be directed to the wastewat er treatment facility or the water-reuse system that currently exists for the Decatur ADM Comp lex. No additional impact on supply or rate structure would be anticipated for local users in the surrounding commun ity. Therefore, the impacts from implementing the Proposed Action are expected to be below the significance

threshold.

4.8.2.3 Effects of No-Action

In the absence of federal funding, the Proposed Action would likely not proceed. ADM’s current management and operations at the test site w ould be expected to c ontinue unchanged. As a result, no change would be expected to occur in the existing condition or uses of the test site. Current trends in employment, production, a nd commercial activity would be expected to continue in their present pattern with no additional direct or indire ct impact to the local economy. Therefore, the impacts from implementing the No -Action alternative are expected to be below the significance threshold.

4.8.2.4 Cumulative Impacts

The introduction of the Proposed Ac tion to other planned or reasona bly foreseeable actions at the study site or in the surrounding area would be expected to have only a minor effect on the localU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 73 October 2008

& Environmental Effects economy. As noted under the Proposed Action, th e project would have minimal or no adverse impact on local employment or the availability a nd cost of local resources and services in the Decatur or larger Macon County economy. Therefor e, it would not be expected to contribute to any cumulative effect. Some potential benefit would be derived from the small, but potential additional labor requirement and from additiona l expenditures in the local economy associated with the Proposed Action. Thes e benefits could be experience d without adverse consequences and would not alter the existing condition or cont ribute substantially to the cumulative effect.

4.8.3 Infrastructure

Characterization of the current tr ansportation and other infrastruc tural elements of the project area focuses on the ability of these elements to serve existing demand as well as any increase that may result from implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.8.3.1 Description

The ADM Phase III Test Site would be located in an industrial area adjacent to the urbanized area of Decatur. The road system in the surr ounding region is a combination of intra-urban and rural roads. To the north, the te st site is bounded by Reas Bridge Road (Rd.) (Illinois (IL)- 24). North Brush College Rd. (IL-1) forms the western boundary of the test site. To the east and

somewhat removed from the test site boundary, Gun Club Road joins Christmas Tree Road to intersect with Reas Bridge road approximately one-half mile (805 m) from the northeastern corner of the test site. To the south, the D ecatur ADM Complex supports a network of service roads of varying capacity.

Traffic volume studies for the segment of North College Brush Road running north from the intersection at Faries Parkway i ndicate an average daily volume of 11,300 vehicles, increasing to 20,700 vehicles by 2025 (Blank et al., 2004). The curr ent daily truck traffic into and out of the Decatur ADM Complex is estimated at a pproximately 1,750 trips (Litynski, 2008a).

There are no utility transmission lines within th e boundaries of the project area, apart from those servicing ADM facilities. A pipeline right-of way crosses the southeastern corner of the test site and continues south along the site border to the Decatur ADM Complex. A freight rail line of

the Illinois Central Railroad crosses east to west in the area between the compressiondehydration facility and the inje ction well. A spur connects this line to the Decatur ADM Complex.

4.8.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would not substantially alter existing traffic patterns, level of congestion,

or road conditions in the im mediate and surrounding area of the project area. Temporary increases in traffic resulting from the proposed action are presented in Table 4.8.3.2 below.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 74 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Table 4.8.3.2. Well Construction Transport Estimate
Description of Transport Number* Type of vehicle Movement of rig & components to site 39-56 loads flatbeds Normal delivery of mud chemicals, bits, 4 flatbed Visits by ADM, Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), etc. 10 cars/trucks Cementing trucks 4 pump trucks & cement bins Logging trucks & tools 2 logging trucks w/tools Drill pipe, jars, drill collars, etc. 3 flat beds 20 inch casing 3 flat beds 13 3/8 inch casing 7-9 flat beds 9 5/8 inch casing 11-13 flat beds Crew changes, daily for rig personnel 3 cars or vans Vacuum trucks, waste disposal trucks, etc. 2 vacuum trucks Casing running, lay down machines 5 2 Short Ton + 4 flatbeds
Other miscellaneous trucks, vehicles 4 F150's, cars, vans

* Number of vehicles per week or number of loads

Note: Traffic will peak during set-up, mob ilization & demobilization, cementing & logging runs as well as when running pipe Adapted from: (Schlumberger, 2008c).

Any temporary increases in traffic during the cons truction phase would not be sufficient to cause a substantial change in conditions during these periods. No activities occurring at the test site would be likely to disturb power or other utility transmission line s in the area. Therefore, the impacts from implementing the Proposed Actio n are expected to be below the significance

threshold.

4.8.3.3 Effects of No-Action

Operations at the existing Decatur ADM Comple x are ongoing. In the event that the Proposed Action is not implemented, any subsequent e ffect on traffic flow and patterns would be considered part of the current traffic conditions in the area. No additional impact would be anticipated. There are no public u tilities at the site which might be disturbed either under current conditions. Therefore, the impacts from implemen ting the No-Action alternative are expected to be below the significance threshold.

4.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts would not be an ticipated in association with th e Proposed Action. There are no planned or reasonably foreseeable actions for the project area which when added to the effect of the Proposed Action would subs tantially change loca l road use or traffic patterns. There would be limited potential to alter or disturb power or other infrastr ucture services to the area asU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 75 October 2008

& Environmental Effects a result of the Proposed Action, but these potential impacts are not expected to exceed the threshold of significance.

4.8.4 Parks and Recreation

4.8.4.1 Description

Major facilities in the surrounding area include:

• Faries Park – a 7 acre (28,328 m 2 ) picnic and recreational ar ea located approximately 1.8 miles (2.9 km) from the test site to the s outheast (Moore, 2008; Ca rroll, 2008d; Litynski, 2008b).

• Nelson Golf Course and Park – a 45 acre (182,109 m 2 ) facility with picnic playground and sports facilities, located approximately three miles (4.83 km) to the southeast of the test site;

• Lions Park – a 2.5 acre (10,117 m 2 ) site that serves as a neighborhood park with picnic and court facilities, located approximately two miles (3.22 km) to the northwest of the test site; and

• Chandler Park – a 17.5 acre (70,820 m 2 ) lakefront park with picnic facilities, located approximately 2 miles (3 km) to the southwest of the test site (Decatur Park District, No date).

4.8.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The addition of the well, pipeline, and compre ssion-dehydration facility to the existing Decatur ADM Complex would generate negligible impact to recreational activities in the immediately surrounding area. No facilities exist in the immediate vicinity of the test site that might be disturbed by site activities. The Proposed Action would be in keeping with the existing

industrial character of test site and does not alter the exis ting setting or interf ere with the user experience of more remotely locat ed facilities. Therefore, th e impacts from implementing the Proposed Action are expected to be below the significance threshold.

4.8.4.3 Effects of No-Action

Parks and recreational oppor tunities both nearby and in the larger Decatur ar ea have historically existed along with ADM operations at the Decatur ADM Complex. No additional impact would be anticipated from continuing management practices or site activities. Therefore, the impacts from implementing the No-Action alternative are expected to be below the significance

threshold.

4.8.4.4 Cumulative Impacts

The addition of the Proposed Action to ongoing activities at the Decat ur ADM Complex would have no substantial impact to the character, setting, or visitor expe rience associated with parks or other recreational opportunities in the immediately surrounding and larger Decatur communities.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 76 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.8.5 Visual Resources

4.8.5.1 Description

There are no scenic vistas or aesthetic landscapes in the vicinity of the Proposed Action. The test site would be on the east side of Decatur, Illi nois, and within the D ecatur ADM Complex. The compression-dehydration facility would be located within the industrial complex to the south of the proposed injection well site. The pipeline would travel from the compression-dehydration facility to the injection well following, as much as possibl e, an existing pipeline alley and overhead catwalk to allow the pipelin e to cross the railroad track.

4.8.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, construction of a CO 2 compression-dehydration facility (which is

outside of the ADM Phase III Test Site but on ADM property), one injection well, monitoring wells, and pipeline would minimally alter the visual elements of the project area much of which is currently a fallow agricultural field. Howeve r, facilities constructe d under the Proposed

Action would not contrast with th e present landscape as industrial features are common in the vicinity of the test site.

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO 2 to the surface could pos e detrimental effects on terrestrial ecosystems, having impacts on visual resources if areas of vegetation are altered. Changes in species composition, frequency and de nsity of plants, or vegetation dieback could alter visual elements in the landscape and viewsheds.

Overall, it is not likely that the Proposed Action w ould change the visual landscape in a way that would be objectionable to local re sidents or frequent visitors. Thus, impacts on visual resources would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.8.5.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the ADM Phase III Test Site work by the MGSC would not be implemented. No impacts to visual resources w ould occur as a result of this alternative.

4.8.5.4 Cumulative Impacts

Visual quality at the test s ite has been predominantly altered by the past ADM industrial development. Agriculture, residential, and othe r ongoing industrial activities have also affected the visual quality of the surrounding area. Given the larger impacts to visual resources from past, present, and future activities, cumulative impacts added from the proposed project would be minimally adverse and are not expected to exceed the thresh old of significance.

4.8.6 Noise

Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirabl e because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise intrusive. Human response to noise variesU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 77 October 2008

& Environmental Effects depending on the type and characteristics of th e noise, distance between the noise source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. Noise is often generated by activities part of everyday life, such as constr uction or vehicular traffic.

Sound varies by both intensity and frequency. Sound pressure level, measured in decibels (dB), is used to quantify sound intens ity. The dB is a logarithmic un it that expresses the ratio of a sound pressure level to a standard reference le vel. Hertz (Hz) are used to quantify sound frequency. The human ear responds differently to different frequencies. A-weighting, described in a-weighted decibels (dBA), approximates this frequency response to express accurately the perception of sound by humans. Sounds encountered in daily life and their approximate level in dBA are provided in Table 4.8.6-1.

Table 4.8.6-1. Common Sounds and Their Levels

Outdoor Sound level (dBA) Indoor Snowmobile 100 Subway train

Tractor 90 Garbage disposal Noisy restaurant 85 Blender Downtown (large city) 80 Ringing telephone Freeway traffic 70 TV audio Normal conversation 60 Sewing machine

Rainfall 50 Refrigerator Quiet residential area 40 Library

Source: (Harris, 1998).

The dBA noise metric describes steady noise levels. However, very few noises are, in fact, constant; therefore, a noise metric, Day-night Sound Level (DNL) has been developed. DNL is defined as the average sound energy in a 24-hour period with a 10-dB penalty added to the nighttime levels (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.). DNL is a useful descriptor for noise because it averages ongoing yet intermittent noise, and it measures to tal sound energy over a 24-hour period. In addition, Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is often used to describe the overall noise environment. Leq is the average sound level in dB.

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) directs Federal agencies to comply with applicable federal, state, interstate, and local no ise control regulations. In 1974, the USEPA provided information suggesting th at continuous and long-term noise levels in excess of DNL 65 dBA are normally unacceptable for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals.

The State of Illinois’s Environmental Protection Act of 1985 limits noise to levels that protect the health, general welfare, and property. The State of Illinois limits the noises in individual frequency ranges at noise se nsitive land uses (Table 4.8.6- 2) (35 IAC H.901.101) (IL, 2008).

There are no maximum overall levels outlined in the regulation. In addition, Decatur has a local noise regulation as part of the z oning code that states it is unlawful to generate sound louder than 80 dBA at the property line (Decatur Zoning C ode Section XVII Subpart D) (Decatur, 2008c).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 78 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Sounds generated from construction activities are exempt from both the state and local regulations.

Table 4.8.6-2. State of Illinois Environmental Noise Standards

Allowable Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels (dB) of

Sound Emitted to Noise Sensitive Land Uses Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) Industrial

Source Commercial

Source Residential

Source

31.5 75 72 72

63 74 71 71

125 69 65 65

250 64 57 57

500 58 51 51

1000 52 45 45

2000 47 39 39

4000 43 34 34

8000 40 32 32

Sources: (IL, 2008 ; Decatur, 2008c).

4.8.6.1 Description

The Decatur ADM Complex and adjacent areas are primarily mixed use industrial and

recreational with Faries Park re creational complex to the east, and a community college to the north, and a rail station to the s outh of the project area. The near est noise sensitiv e area (NSA) is a community college north of the Decatur ADM Complex. Existing sources of noise at NSAs near the Decatur ADM Complex, compressor loca tion, and drilling site include rail traffic traveling east of the Wabash Rail Station, local road traffic, high-altitude aircraft overflights, and natural noises such as leaves rustling, and bird vo calizations. It is also possible that industrial

noise contributes to overall noi se environment outside of the facilities property boundary. For analysis purposes, the NSAs surrounding the facility have been categorized as quiet suburban

residential areas. This would constitute the worst case existing noise conditions. The noise environment consists of light traffic conditi ons where no mass transportation vehicles and relatively few automobiles and trucks pass. The background sound either is distant traffic or is difficult to identify by residents.

Table 4.8.6.1. Estimated Existing Noise Leve ls at Nearby Noise Sensitive Areas

Closest Noise Sensitive Area (NSA) Estimated Existing Sound Levels (dBA)

Site Distance Direction Type Land Use Category DNL Leq (Daytime) Leq (Nighttime)

Drilling Site 1,800 feet

549 m North School Compressor

Site 4,100 feet 1,250 m North School Quiet

Suburban

Residential 55 53 47

Source: (ANSI, 2003).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 79 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.8.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Short-term and long-term minor adverse effects to the noise environment would be expected with the implementation of the Proposed Action. The effects would be primarily due to heavy equipment noise during construction and drilling, and the operation of the proposed compressor.

This evaluation considers significant sound sources th at could affect NSAs.

Construction Noise . There would be some form of mode rate to heavy construction at the Decatur ADM Complex and the well locations. Individual pieces of c onstruction equipment typically generate noise levels of 80 to 90 dB A at a distance of 50 feet (15.24 m). Table 4.8.6.2- 1 presents typical noise levels (dBA at 50 feet (15.24 m)) that USEPA has estimated for the main phases of outdoor construction.

Table 4.8.6.2-1. Noise Levels Associated with Outdoor Construction

Construction Phase Leq (dBA) at 50 feet (15.24 m) from Source Ground Clearing 84 Excavation, Grading 89

Foundations 78

Structural 85 Finishing 89
Source: (USEPA, 1974).

With multiple items of equipment operating conc urrently, noise levels can be relatively high during daytime periods at locations within severa l hundred feet of an active construction sites. The zone of relatively high constr uction noise levels typically exte nds to distances of 400 to 800 feet (121.92 to 243.84 m) from the site of majo r equipment operations. Locations within 1,000 feet (304.8 m) would experience subs tantial levels (greater than 62 dBA) of construction noise. However, there are no NSAs within 1,000 feet (304.8 m) of the construction sites. Therefore,

affects due to construction noise would be consid ered minor. Construction activities are exempt from both the state and local regulations.

These effects would be temporary and would be considered minor. The following best management practices (BMPs) would be used to reduce these already limited effects:

• Construction would predominately occur dur ing normal weekday business hours in areas adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses such as residential areas; and

• Construction equipment mufflers would be properly maintained and in good working

order.

Drilling Noise. The Proposed Action would involve dri lling operations for the injection and monitoring wells. Components of the drilling equipment include the drill rig, mud pumps, and diesel generators. Drilling equipment is exp ected to operate twenty -four hours per day, seven days per week, for up to three months. The nearest NSA is 1,800 feet (549 m) north of the injection well location. A DNL of 54 dBA and a Leq of 48 dBA were estimated for the drilling operations at the nearest NSA. These levels are below the USEPA threshold of 65 dBA (DNL),U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 80 October 2008

& Environmental Effects are temporary, and would have only a minor effe ct on the noise environment. Detailed noise calculations are located in Appendix C.

The generator and combined diesel driven syst ems would have the standard exhaust muffles. Barriers can be installed around the noisy componen ts to diminish the noise but would not likely be necessary given the distance to the neares t NSA. Drilling noise would be expected to dominate the soundscape for all on-site personnel. Personnel, and particularly equipment operators, would utilize adequate personal hear ing protection to limit exposure and ensure compliance with federal health and safety regulations.

Operational Noise . The compressor facility is in the pr eliminary design stages. Therefore, a complete equipment list and associated manufactur ers specifications is not finalized. However, the only major noise-producing equipment expect ed is a 6000 horsepower (hp) [4474 kilowatt (kW)] reciprocating compressor. This compre ssor would operate 24 hours per day 7 days per week. Noise levels that would be generated by operation of the compressor at the nearest NSA have been compared to the levels outlined in the state and local noise regulation (Table 4.8.6.2- 2).

Table 4.8.6.2-2. Compressor Noise Levels at Nearest NSA Compared to

Noise Standards

Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) Allowable Sound Pressure Levels (dB) Predicted Compressor

Noise Levels Exceeds

Standard (Yes/No)

31.5 75 55 No

63 74 52 No

125 69 51 No

250 64 47 No

500 58 44 No

1000 52 44 No

2000 47 40 No

4000 43 27 No

8000 40 9 No Leq (dBA) 80 48 No
Sources: (IL, 2008; Decatur, 2008c).

Because of the limited amount of noise and the dist ance to the nearest NSA, violations of neither the state nor the local noise regulations are expecte d. Special variances to the state or local noise ordinance, mitigation measures, or both would not likely be required. Overall, these effects would be considered minor. Therefore, the im pacts from implementing the Proposed Action are expected to be below th e significance threshold.

4.8.6.3 Effects of No-Action

The No-Action alternative would have no impacts to noise because no drilling would occur, and no additional equipment would be installed. Noise levels would remain at their existing levels.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 81 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 4.8.6.4 Cumulative Impacts

The Proposed Action would introduce long-term incr emental increases the noise environment. However, these increases would be relatively small when compared to the existing conditions

and would be considered minor.

4.8.7 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Ad dress Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (The White House, February 11, 1994), requires that Federal agencies consider as a part of thei r action any disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects to minor ity and low income populations. Agencies are required to ensure that these potential effects are identified and addressed.

The USEPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national orig in, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmen tal laws, regulations, and policies.” For purposes of assessing environm ental justice under NEPA, the CE Q defines a minority population as one in which the percentage of minorities ex ceeds 50 percent or is s ubstantially higher than the percentage of minorities in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis (CEQ, 1997).

Consideration of the potential c onsequences of the Proposed Ac tion for environmental justice requires three main components:

• A demographic assessment of the affected community to identify the presence of minority or low income populations that may be potentially affected;

• An assessment of all potential impacts identified to determine if any result in significant adverse impact to the affected environment; and

• An integrated assessment to determine whet her any disproportionately high and adverse impacts exist for minority and low-inco me groups present in the study area.

4.8.7.1 Description

For the environmental justice analysis, the immedi ate site vicinity is de fined as those census blocks that contain a portion of the project area or immediately adjacent to the project area. In 2000, minority populations accounted for 17.5 percent of the total population of immediate site vicinity or a total of 9 residents (Census, 2000a). This is substantially lower than the minority percentage for the population of the City of Decatur as a whole. In 2000, minority population accounted for 22.3 percent of the city’s total pop ulation or 18,331 individuals. Hispanic or Latino populations (of any race) represented 1.2 pe rcent of the total, or 978 individuals. Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, those living at or be low the poverty line, constituted 16.5 percent of the population or 12,999 individuals in 2000 (Census, 2006c).

Minority populations made up approximately 15.2 percent of the total population of Macon County. Hispanic or Latino residents (of any race ) constitute approximately one percent of theU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 82 October 2008

& Environmental Effects total population or 1,120 individual s. In 2000, there were 14,316 i ndividuals living at or below the poverty level, or 12.9 percent of the population (Census, 2006c).

4.8.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Minority and lower income groups are generally not present in the study area in significantly greater proportions than for th e Decatur community as a whol e and the larger Macon County area. Additionally, both direct and indirect effects to local populations, resources, and the character and setting of the lo cal community would be antici pated to be minimal for all populations in the immediate study area and for the surrounding communities. Therefore, no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities would be expected.

4.8.7.3 Effects of No-Action

The present management of the test site by ADM would be expected to continue with no appreciable change to the exis ting activities at the Decatur ADM Complex. No disproportionate impact to minorities or low-income populati ons would be anticipated under the No-Action

alternative.

4.8.7.4 Cumulative Impacts

The Proposed Action considered by this EA woul d add only minimally to existing conditions in the project area and surrounding communities. As a result, any incremental impact would not be expected to be sufficient to exceed the signi ficance threshold and would most likely be experienced evenly across all populations.

4.9 Human Health and Safety

4.9.1 Description

Air pollution causes human health problems. Ai r pollution can cause breat hing problems; throat and eye irritation; cancer; birth defects; and damage to immune, neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems (USEPA, 2007c). National a nd state ambient air quality standards represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations that may occur and stil l protect public health

and welfare with a reasonable ma rgin of safety (See Section 4.1). In addition, OSHA regulations specify appropriate protective measures for all employees.

Spills from the construction of the Proposed Ac tion and its operation could also a source of possible impacts to human health and safety. Spills can introduce soil contamination and allow exposure pathways to workers and the public. The risks and effects of a spill depend on its composition. A common material used in constr uction and operation that can be spilled is gasoline. Gasoline irrita tes the lungs and is a skin irritant. Enough gasoline exposure can cause death or nervous system damage (ATSDR, 2007). Similarly, waste management also is a source of possible human health and safety risks from exposure to contaminants (See Section 4.11).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 83 October 2008

& Environmental Effects A primary concern to human health and safety within the project area would be CO 2 leaks. CO 2 is heavier than ambient air, co lorless, and odorless, which make s it an invisible hazard (DOE, 2007a). Since it is denser th an ambient air, leaked CO 2 will typically pool in hollows and confined spaces until dispersed by wind or othe r ventilation methods (DOE, 2007a; IPCC, 2005).

CO 2 under pressure or at high concentration leve ls can cause suffocation and permanent brain injury from lack of air (DOE, 2007a). Headach e, impaired vision, labored breathing, and mental confusion also can occur from exposure to CO 2 . The pressure drop from CO 2 leaks from vessels (pipes) creates a cold hazard, a nd even the vapor can cause frostbite (IPCC, 2005). Generally, the pooling and large, ra pid releases of the CO 2 are the situations of concern for human health and safety instead of small gr adual leaks due to concentration level differences (IPCC, 2005; DOE, 2007a).

No general CO 2 exposure standards exist yet for th e general public (DOE, 2007a). The immediately dangerous to life and health level of exposure for CO 2 is 5% or 40,000 ppm. For up to several hours, exposure to 0.5 to 1.5% CO 2 in the air typically is not harmful for people with normal health. However, people with impaired h ealth (such as cerebral disease), children, and people involved in complex tasks are mo re susceptible to the effects of CO 2 exposure. CO 2 exposure impedes people’s performance of complex tasks by causi ng labored breathing, headache, and mental confusion. The occ upational standard of maximum allowable

concentration of CO 2 in air for eight hours of continuous exposure is 0.5%, and for a short period, it is 3.0% (IPCC, 2005).

CO 2 once leaked can cause human health issu es in the water as well as air. CO 2 underground injection can contaminate groundwater if the CO 2 migrates to underground aquifers (See Section 4.3). This contamination can occur by the CO 2 causing the mobilization of chemicals such as metals in the soil into the aquifers. Despite monitoring and permitting requirements (USEPA’s UIC program), the risk to human health from potable water contamination still exists from underground injection. Similar to air emissions of CO 2 , gradual releases of CO 2 into water sources typically do not cause subs tantial harm to human health, but rapid releases could (DOE, 2007a).

Between 1994 and 2006, there were 31 CO 2 pipeline accidents reported, but there were no injuries or fatalities from these incidents in the United States (DOE, 2007 c). Some historical

causes of CO 2 pipeline incidences are relief valve failu re (4 failures), weld/gasket/valve packing failure (3 failures), corrosion (2 failures), and outside force (1 fa ilure). The incident rate from

1990 to 2002 for CO 2 pipelines in the United States was 0.0002 mile -1 yr -1 (0.00032 km -1 yr -1 ) (IPCC, 2005). This rate of failure is compara tively small. For comparison with natural gas pipelines, see Table 4.9.1.

Table 4.9.1. Comparison of Natural Gas Pipelines to CO 2 Pipelines from 1995 to 2005

Category Natural Gas CO 2 Miles (km) of Pipeline 304,001 (489,242) (in 2003) 3,300 (5,311)

Number of Incidents 960 12

Property Damage per Incident $484,000 $42,000

Injuries from Incidents 82 0U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 84 October 2008

& Environmental Effects Table 4.9.1. Comparison of Natural Gas Pipelines to CO 2 Pipelines from 1995 to 2005

Category Natural Gas CO 2
Fatalities 29 0

Source: (DOE, 2007a).

The workers on the project would be subject to the same types of health risks that are generally associated with their professions (DOE, 2007a). There is a rate of 15.2 deaths per 100,000 for construction workers, which is the third highest ra te of death from injury (NIOSH, No date).

The construction incident rate of total recordable cases of nonf atal occupationa l injuries and illnesses in 2006 was 5.9 per 100 full-time workers (BLS, 2007).

4.9.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would incl ude pipe installation; cons truction and operation of a compression-dehydration facility; co llection and transportation of CO 2 ; drilling of injection and observation wells; and inject ion of supercritical CO 2 (See Section 2.1). These could all present risks to human health and safety. The mate rials and equipment used for construction and operation would meet prescribed standards (MGSC, 2008).

The equipment that would be used for the im plementation of the Proposed Action represents only minimal risks to human health and safety under normal operating conditions (DOE, 2007a). Thus, if BMPs, maintenance, and regulations are followed, the equipment should pose little impact to human health and safety. Drilling into pressurized formations could release flammable gases like methane. Preventative measures to minimize well blowouts or venting of dangerous gases should be implemented. Measures to avoi d the equipment failure caused by high pressure would be executed (DOE, 2007a). ADM’s safety plans would be updated to include the new risks from handling the pressurized CO 2 (MGSC, 2008; MGSC, No date).

Since all of the construction and operation of the Proposed Action is on ADM property, the increase in traffic from workers and delivery of equipment and materi als should be partially limited to onsite, which reduces risk to pede strians and the general public. However, the Proposed Action would still represent an increase in traffic, which increases the potential for

accidents. The current truck traffic in and out of the Decatur ADM Co mplex is approximately 1,750 trucks per day (Litynski, 2008a). The expected increase in the numbe r of trips due to the Proposed Action from the current level of vehicle activity is minor. Thus, the impact to human health and safety from the increase in transpor tation is not expected to exceed the level of significance threshold (See Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.3).

Air emissions from the Proposed Action are not an ticipated to be regionally significant (See Section 4.1). Thus, the impacts to human health from air emissions would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold. Following mitigation measures and BMPs would reduce any impacts to human health from air quality. Further, workers would follow OSHA procedures, which would further reduce the impact to hum an health. The propane burning from the dehydration reboiler would produce some limited ai r pollutants, such as formaldehyde, which

can cause shortness of breath and blurred vision (ILO, 2004; MGSC, 2008). However, the Proposed Action only produces a very small amount of these air pollutant s, and these are theU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 85 October 2008

& Environmental Effects same types and quantities as with any burning of propane. Thus, there would be a minimal risk to human health and safety. A risk assessmen t is in process for the compression-dehydration facility.

The soils are not highly erodible (See Section 4.2), so water contamination from increased runoff, which could lead to human health and safety risks, is not a major issue (See Section 4.3). Further, the facility has recei ved a construction permit under th e General NPDES permit for the construction storm water discharges (Keller, 2008). Further, wastewater would be collected and pretreated. The pretreated wate r is subsequently sent to the City of Decatur Publicly Owned Treatment Works (MGSC, 2008). Therefore, the ove rall effect of the Proposed Action to surface water quality is expected to not exceed the significance threshold.

The only hazardous or toxic material used in the Proposed Action is CO 2 (MGSC, 2008). Thus, if safety procedures and BMPs are followed, sp ills and leaks from equipment and processes (other than CO 2 ) would be of low concentrations as well as nonhazardous and not toxic. This would represent a low risk to human health a nd safety (DOE, 2007c). Under normal conditions,

hazardous and toxic materials can be used safe ly when appropriate safety precautions are followed (DOE, 2007a). Thus, the minimal concentrations of VOCs in the collected CO 2 should be a minimal risk to human health and safety. A risk assessment is in process for compressiondehydration facility.

The design of the Proposed Action’s MMV plan would be to avoid, detect, and correct any

unintended CO 2 emissions (MGSC, No date). The Eau Claire Formation, the Mt. Simon Sandstone, and the thick shale un its present at the proposed in jection site make groundwater contamination highly unlikely (ADM, 2008a). However, groundwater monitoring would still occur to detect problems and initiate corrective action if necessary (ADM, 2008a; MGSC, No date). The groundwater monitoring would include testing for metals, ammonia, CO 2 , pH, dissolved oxygen, and other possible contaminants (MGSC, No date) (See Section 4.3). This would allow for early detection and appropriate measures to be initiated if there were any problems. This would reduce the risk to human health and safety. The maximum surface injection pressure of 2,200 pounds per square inch (15,300 kPa) is under the anticipated fracture pressure for the area (ADM, 2008a). This reduces the possibility of air and water contamination by CO 2 from fractures (See Section 4.2). The probabi lity of hazardous leaks from the storage is small (NETL, 2008c; Heinrich et al., 2004). W ith proper monitoring and mitigation, the risk from induced seismicity and fractures would be expected to be below the significance threshold.

ADM along with the MGSC would have a public outreach program that would inform multiple groups, such ADM staff and their families as well as general public and regulatory and governmental agencies, about CO 2 sequestration (MGSC, No date ). Education about potential threats and processes could reduce the risks and c onsequences of health and safety issues like accidents. A local emergency response plan would help reduce the risk of impact to the workers and the general public (DOE, 2007a). The primar y human health risk from the Proposed Action to the general public would be pipeline leaks releasing CO 2 (DOE, 2007a). A rapid release of

CO 2 has a very low probability due to monitori ng, proper siting, and BMPs (DOE, 2007a). The risks could be minimized by having appropriate sa fety and operating proc edures currently in place for gas processing facilities and pipeli nes including monitoring and inspections (DOE,U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 86 October 2008

& Environmental Effects 2007a). In general, CO 2 injection has occurred safely for over twenty years with oil and gas activities (NETL, 2008c). Therefore, with proper sa fety procedures and plans, the risk to the general public should not exceed the significance threshold.

The wet, uncompressed CO 2 would be transported in stainle ss steel ductwork, which reduces the corrosion concerns. However, even this CO 2 would be scrubbed. Thus, leaks from this wet, uncompressed CO 2 would not be a substant ial concern for human health and safety as it is currently permitted for discharge to atmosphere (Carroll, 2008a).

Other than having a smaller diameter, the CO 2 pipeline from the compression-dehydration facility to the injection site would be similar to most CO 2 pipeline systems. The carbon steel pipe segments are nominally 40 feet (12.19 m) long with welded seams. Stainless steel is not necessary for this section of the CO 2 piping as the CO 2 is dehydrated. Wall thickness would be determined based on final operati ng outlet pressure of the compression system plus appropriate safety allowances.

The right of way for the pipeline would be both aboveground on a pipe bridge across the railroad

tracks south of the test site a nd below ground as it approaches th e wellhead. Line markers would be used to locate the pipeline, and the location would be entered into the ADM database of plant facilities and information. Having the pipeline location information known in the database should help reduce the risk of accidents from construction and operation of other onsite activities. All the monitoring for CO 2 (See Section 2.1.3.3) would reduce the risk for CO 2 leaks, and the mitigation measures would reduce the conse quences of any incidents. A risk assessment is in progress to quantify these risks.

The Proposed Action would include an ambient CO 2 monitoring and alarm system during injection operations (MGSC, No date). Unde r the Proposed Action, ADM would install pressure and temperature alarms along the pipeline to info rm personnel of problems. Incorrect pressure (too much or too little) would cause automatic shutdown of the compressor and injection system to reduce the safety risks from equipment malfunction (ADM, 2008a). Pipeline inspection and monitoring would reduce the risks of failures and thus to human health. A common mitigation measure for leaking casing is venting the CO 2 under appropriate controlled conditions (MGSC, No date). One of the major concerns regarding pipeline safety is water and other contaminants causing corrosion leading to pipe fa ilure (DOE, 2007a). However, the CO 2 would be dried and removed of contaminants, which reduces the ri sk from pipeline failure (MGSC, 2008).

A detailed plan including human health, safet y, and environment concerns would be written (MGSC, No date). Atmospheric gas monitors with alarms would be installed along the CO 2 pipeline and in close proximity to the CO 2 injection wells. In the event that atmospheric CO 2 concentrations increase to a prescribed concen tration, alarms would be sounded to alert workers of a potential CO 2 release. In addition, an Eddy Covari ance tower would be installed downwind

of the CO 2 pipeline and injection well to continuously measure atmospheric CO 2 fluxes. In the

event of a substantial CO 2 release, employees would have b een informed and trained regarding appropriate evacuation procedures following ADM safety plans. Further, modeling of atmospheric dispersion and CO 2 concentration distribution around th e test site and vicinity from worst case scenario/s of atmospheric CO 2 releases would be conducte d in order to develop andU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 87 October 2008

& Environmental Effects implement additional emergency response plans th at are essential to reduce impacts to human

health and the environment.

The workers on the project would be subject to the same types of health risks that are generally associated with their professions (DOE, 2007a). Protective equipment such as hard hats, safety shoes, hearing protection (earplugs), and safety glasses would be worn (MGSC, 2008). Any further safety equipment needed for the possible h azards should be used such as a respirator or dust mask for someone working with equipment th at generates dust. Following safety hazards would minimize occupational hazards (DOE, 2007a).

The risks to human health and sa fety from a rapid release of CO 2 as a result of activities associated with the Proposed Action would de pend on the amount released and conditions (such as wind direction and strength) at the time of the release (DOE, 2007c). A sudden and rapid

release of CO 2 from equipment, such as a wellhead being removed, would likely be detected quickly. The processes for containing well blow- outs would be employed to stop such a release. Workers on-site would be the primary gr oup affected. If concentrations of CO 2 greater than 7 to 10% in the air were created, it would cause immediate danger to humans. Depending on the amount released and the pressure, the leak could take hours to days to contain, but it could take as little as minutes (IPCC, 2005; Heinrich et al., 2004). However, the leaked CO 2 amount is likely to be minimal compared to the amount injected due to dispersion of CO 2 in the ground away from injection site (Hei nrich et al., 2004; IPCC, 2005). Once the release is over, no lingering effects would occur (Heinrich et al., 2004). In addition, the oil and gas industry employs engineering and administrative controls to manage these types of hazards regularly (IPCC, 2005). Therefore, while the risk of accident s exists, the risks to human health and safety, with the proper response plans and monitori ng, should be below the significance threshold.

Currently, ADM staff handl es and transports CO 2 and has experience with high-pressure pipelines (ADM, 2008c). This experience is not with CO 2 at supercritical c onditions. However, the personnel are already familiar with the general risks and procedures associated with CO 2

. ADM’s current process safety management plan would be amended. Workers would also be updated on safety procedures, especially one s related to handling of high pressure CO 2 (MGSC, 2008). Additionally, the Proposed Action should be implemented in accordance with applicable guidance from the OHSA (Occupational Safety and Health Standards: 29 CFR 1910) as well as other applicable industry st andards and regulations (DOE, 2007a). Decommissioning of the facility would represent the same types of risks as the operation. Thus, with proper safety procedures, the impact to human health and safe ty should be minimal. While a risk assessment for Richland College has been completed, further risk assessments are planned. With the low

failure rate of CO 2 pipelines, proper siting, and the mon itoring involved, the overall risk to human health and safety is not expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.9.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, there would be no construction, opera tion, or decommissioning of the sequestration test site. T hus, none of the risks listed in th e previous section would occur, which would mean no impacts to human health and safety. The exception would be the fact that the Proposed Action’s purpose is to further the research for options in preventing global climateU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 88 October 2008

& Environmental Effects change. Possible deaths from sea levels risi ng, deaths from increased severity of storms, increase respiratory diseases, and increased deaths from heat are some of the wide variety of potential human health and safety impacts from global climate change (Miller, 2003). However, as many other projects are in operation or being pr oposed to assist in the reduction of risk from global climate change, not all of the global climate change risks are attributable to the No-Action alternative. Nevertheless, the No-Action altern ative does represent some risk to human health and safety, but not a substantial one.

4.9.4 Cumulative Effects

Since CO 2 is not flammable, there is less of a risk to human health and safety from the Proposed Action in combination with any existing projects in the area (IPCC, 2005). There are no planned projects in or near the project area ( ADM, 2008b; Chamber, 2008; Decatur, 2008b). The cumulative impacts of existing activities in a nd around the project area does not represent a substantial risk to human health and safety with existing and upcoming mitigation and safety procedures in place, which means the cumulative impacts with implementing the Proposed Action is not expected to exceed the significance criteria.

Since the current projects in the area do not pose a substantial risk to human health and safety,

the No-Action alternative does not represent any additional risks to human health and safety. As described in the previous section, the excepti on is that not implementing the Proposed Action (thus, implementing the No-Action alternative) w ould have an adverse impact to the progress towards solutions for global climate change. Howe ver, since this is a single project of many, the cumulative impacts to human health and safety for the No-Action alternativ e are not expected to exceed the threshold of significance.

4.10 Cultural Resources

Cultural and historic resources are protected by a variety of la ws and regulations, including the NHPA, as amended, and the Archaeological Reso urces Protection Act. Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulati ons (36 CFR 800) outline the procedures to be followed in the documentati on, evaluation, and mitigatio n of impacts cultural resources. The Section 106 process applies to an y federal undertaking that has the potential to affect cultural resources. The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) is the SHPO for Illinois (IHPA, 2007).

4.10.1 Description

No historical sites, federal or st ate historical areas, or Native American Indi an reservations occur in the proposed project area (EDR, 2008; MGSC , 2008). The closest National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) property is approximately 3.5 miles (5.7 km ) away to the northeast from the test site boundary (HAARGIS, 2002). Within th e project area, the majority of the land is already disturbed (Figure 2.1.1-2). With this di sturbance, no archeol ogical or historical resources have been found (See Appendix D). Fu rther, the project area is outside the "high archaeological resource potential area." This is de fined as the presence of certain soil types, suchU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 89 October 2008

& Environmental Effects as Parkland Sand and Mackinaw Member, and within a buffer of stream floodplains (ISM, 1994).

Two federally recognized Native American trib es have land claims in Macon County, the Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Rese rvation in Kansas and the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma (Lavallee, 2006). DOE sent consultati on letters to the nearby Native American Tribes and appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Offices to inform them of the project, invite input, and request information of any known sites or issues in the project area. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was the only response receiv ed, requested a particular consultation process including contacting the SHPO (See Appendix E). DOE performed this process, and no concerns were found. The closest cemetery to the project area is St. John cemetery, which is approximately 0.7 miles (1 km) south from the test site boundary (Figure 4.10.1).U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Description of the AffectedEnvironment 90 October 2008& Environmental EffectsFigure 4.10.1. Cemeteries and NRHP-listed Sites near Project AreaU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 91 October 2008

& Environmental Effects ADM has not performed a cultural resources su rvey in the project area (Carroll, 2008e).

Fossils need to be at or near the surface to allow access to them. Fossils are formed in sedimentary rock. There are no outcropping surfa ce sedimentary rocks in the project area, so there should be no readily accessible fossils (See Section 4.2).

4.10.2 Effects of Proposed Action

The potential for impacts to cultural resources is the greatest during the construction phase. Discovery of previously unknown cultural resources can occur during constr uction activities in historically undisturbed areas. The construction noise and ear thmoving activities can also deteriorate the use of the area for Native American activities (DOE, 2007a).

Some construction activities occu rring under the Proposed Action wi th the potential to disturb

cultural resources are land cl earing, transporting equipment, leveling, drilling, and laying pipelines. These earthmoving activities can cause an adverse impact to cultural resources by altering drainage patterns, creating fugitive dust, and crushing the resources. Altered drainage patterns and runoff can deteriorate the artifacts or move them. Fugitive dust can cover and remove, in the case of paintings, artifacts. Spills from refueling equipment also damages cultural resources, which reduces the info rmation potentially gained by th e items. Further, construction activities can alter or destroy the context of the cultural resources. Operational impacts include use of heavy equipment, which is described above, and improved access to the area, which increases the possibility of illegal collection of properties (DOE, 2007a). Decommissioning would require similar heavy equipment but would be a relatively short time frame relative to the operation and construction phases. Thus, decommi ssioning would be the same type of possible impacts as described above.

The SHPO also states that there are no historical properties that would be affected by the project (See Appendix D). The project ar ea is previously disturbed. Consequently, since no cultural resources have been found yet, there would be less of a possibility for discovering cultural resources during the Proposed Action.

As there is no surface sedimentary rock, the risk to fossils (paleontological resources) that could be used for scientific/educational purposes is negl igible (See Section 4.2). Due to distance to the nearest NRHP site (3.5 miles or 5.7 km), ther e should be no substantial impacts to visual resources to any known eligible or existing NRHP sites. DOE sent consultation letters to the nearby Native American Tribes and appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Offices to inform them of the project, invite input, and re quest information of any known sites or issues in the project area. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was the only response received, requested a particular consultation proce ss including contacting the SHPO. DOE performed this process, and no concerns were found (See Appendix E).

The cemetery is not in the location of the cons truction and operation. Thus, the Proposed Action should not have any direct impacts to the cemetery. The cemetery is in an industrial site, so the impacts from the Proposed Action should be no great er than what the ceme tery has experienced in the past (See Sections 4.8.5 and 4.8.6).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 92 October 2008

& Environmental Effects If cultural resources were discovered during th e construction, the constr uction would be stopped, and the SHPO, any relevant Tribes, or other agen cies consulted. If the cultural resources were found to be substantial, then the construction co mponent would need to be relocated elsewhere or other acceptable mitigation performed as SHPO a nd any relevant tribes or agencies dictate.

Based on the information above, the impacts fr om implementing the Proposed Action are not expected to exceed the impact significance threshold.

4.10.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, ADM would not conduct the CO 2 test or put the corresponding infrastructure in place. Thus, there would be no construction, operation, or decommissioning activities. Therefore, there w ould be no impacts to cultural res ources. However, the No-Action alternative would not fulfill the need of the project.

4.10.4 Cumulative Effects

ADM has no other projects planned for the area (C arroll, 2008b). Since there are no substantial impacts to cultural resources, the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative do not substantially contribute to the cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the vicinity of the project area or in the project area. As impact s to cultural resources ar e generally local (heavy machinery crushing resources, etc.), the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative both are unlikely to contribute to impacts to cultural resour ces outside the vicinity of the project area, and those local impacts would not be expected to exceed the th reshold of significance.

4.11 Waste Management

4.11.1 Description

During the drilling stage of the proposed projec t, which would include the drilling of one injection well and two verificati on wells, a number of wastes woul d be generated. These wastes could potentially include:

• Lubricating oils and greases,

• Used solvents,

• Used hydraulic fluid,

• Metal parts, wire and cable,

• Oily rags,

• Domestic sewage,

• Domestic solid waste,

• Contaminated soil from spills,

• Discarded cement,

• Containers (metal, w ood, plastic, etc.),

• Produced water (oily and/or saline), and

• Drilling mud and cuttings.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 93 October 2008

& Environmental Effects All drilling waste disposal methods will be in accordance with existing ADM conditions for the Decatur ADM Complex and or any and all local/fed eral or state regulations as indicated from any permit requirements for the project (Litynski, 2008c). An earthen “reserve pit” or earthen pit will be constructed and properly lined for drill cuttings, water-based drilling fluids, rig wash water and to a certain degree, rain water.

As cuttings are developed by the dr illing operation, they will be di verted to this lined earthen reserve pit and after the drilling/completion opera tions are completed, the pit will be “farmed” back to as close to its original state as possibl e, keeping in mind future operations for each of the wells to be drilled in the area. All used engi ne oils and any other chemical-related items that need to be changed/rolled out as part of the dr illing process, will be placed in sealed barrels, properly labeled and transported to an appropriate disposal location.

The underground injection control permit applic ation indicated that upon decommissioning, tubing would be sold as scrap metal, and the s ite would not treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste (ADM, 2008a). The permit application al so indicated shallow groundwater monitoring wells would be drilled using wi reline coring tools, which would require the use of bentonite based drilling mud, or the use of hollow stem augers.

A project environmental questionn aire indicated that 9,240 gallons (35 kiloliters) of wastewater would be produced from the dehydration/comp ression/cooling processe s (MGSC, 2008). The

water would be directed to the wastewater treatm ent facility or the water re-use system that exists for the Decatur ADM Complex. Add itionally, the operation of a compressor would generate waste products that could include:

• Used lube oil,

• Spent glycols,

• Used metal parts,

• Used gaskets,

• Oily rags,

• Filters,

• Containers,

• Contaminated soils from spills and leaks, and

• Domestic solid wastes.

The final compressor selections have not been ma de but would likely include an electric driven multi-stage reciprocating compressor. The exact nature and volumes of waste generated would be dependent on the final compressor selection. It is assumed that frame lubrication oil (which is typically lower weight mineral or synthetic oil) would typically be changed twice per year and cylinder oil (which is ty pically an animal fat for this applic ation) would be continuously metered into the compressor cylinders at lo w rates and would remain in the CO 2 stream. Each type of oil has a filter, and it is projected that approximately 8 to 16 filters would be used per year. The

lubrication oil and oil filters w ould be sent either to a waste oil recycler or disposed in accordance with applicable regulations.

If a TEG glycol dehydration unit would be sel ected for use, approximately 48 waste glycol particulate filters (half rich, ha lf lean) would be generated per year. Glycol carbon filters areU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 94 October 2008

& Environmental Effects changed as needed and it is estimated 200 lb s/year (90.72 kilograms ( kg)/year) waste carbon would be generated from regular maintenance. The glycol particulat e filters and the spent carbon would be disposed of offsite in accordance applicable regulations. The exact disposal protocol would follow that established by ADM to dispose of their other wastes. No hazardous waste would be generated.

There should be little to no saline water brought to the surface that is not controlled through well control or direct sampling via drill stem test (DST) or modular formation dynamics tester (MDT). The drilling fluids will have weight eno ugh to be in excess of formation pressure, thus no flow back is expected. Only during times wh en sampling is occurring will fluids be brought to surface in contained jugs and/or sample cham bers, likely using MDT. If large amounts of fluids are required, a DST would be used and ther e may be some fluid spillage on the rig floor,

which will be washed to the reserve pit (Greenberg, 2008).

4.11.2 Effects of Proposed Action

Based on the volumes of drill waste generated, it is not anticipated that there will be any drilling wastes that exceed the significance threshold (L itynski, 2008c). All drilling waste disposal

methods will be in accordance with existi ng local, state, or regulations.

Waste lube oil, filters, and spent carbon generated from de hydration/compression/cooling and transportation processes would be handled accord ing to applicable regulations and should not exceed any significance thresholds. Other wast e streams generated should not pose significant waste management problem as they would not be unique to the carbon se questration process.

Based on the anticipated volumes of domestic wastes to be genera ted and the approved disposal options available the impacts from these waste streams should not exceed significance thresholds. No hazardous waste is to be gene rated. Therefore, no hazardous waste management

issues should arise.

Any waste formation brine resulting from geoc hemical sampling would be in sufficiently low enough volumes that a suitable disposal option woul d be available. Therefore, impacts from waste management are not expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.11.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, no drilling wast e would be generated. No wastes from the dehydration/compression/cooling and transportation of the CO 2 would be generated and no waste formation brine from sampling would be realized.

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts

Potential cumulative impacts related to the drilling of the wells would include disposal of drilling mud and a minor quantity of produced water. Pr ovided all regulatory requirements were met and wastes were disposed of through an approved waste receiver, the cumulative waste impacts,U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Description of the Affected Environment 95 October 2008

& Environmental Effects related to the drilling re quirements of the Proposed Action, woul d not be expected to exceed the threshold of significance.

Potential cumulative impacts related to th e waste products from the compression and transportation of CO 2 for the Proposed Action are not expected to be substantial assuming suitable collection and handling of solid wastes, lubricating oils and coolants, and the treatment

and/or re-use of the wastewater stream at the Decatur ADM Complex.

There would likely to be negligible cumulative impacts regarding wastes related to sampling and monitoring of the wells due to the relatively sm all volumes of waste that would be generated

from these activities.

Overall, the Proposed Action woul d not cause air, water, or so il to be contaminated with hazardous materials (assuming appropriate drill ing waste management and compressor waste containment strategies are in pla ce) to a degree that would pose a threat to human or ecological health and safety.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Consultation and Coordination 96 October 2008 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

A kick-off meeting was held on May 14, 2008, at the NETL office in Morgantown, West Virginia, with representatives from NETL, the University of Texas, and Mangi Environmental Group to formally begin the EA process. Subseq uent to that meeting, a review was made of available information necessary for the completion of the EA and data gaps were submitted to NETL. A site visit and project briefing from the MGSC was held on May 22, 2008 in Champaign, Illinois, and Decatur , Illinois, where opportunities we re provided to ask questions and interview key personnel from the MGSC project.

5.1 Agency Coordination

The CEQ’s regulations for implementing NEPA allo ws Federal agencies to invite comment from tribal, state, and local agencies, as well as other Federal agencies in the pr eparation of EAs. The purpose of this coordination is to obtain specia l expertise with respec t to environmental and cultural issues in order to enhance interdiscip linary capabilities, and othe rwise ensure successful,

effective consultation in decision-making.

5.1.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The mission of the USFWS is to conserve, protect , and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of American people. The email from USFWS requested the Endangered Species Section 7( a)(2) Consultation process. Th e analysis addressed issues raised by USFWS in the body of the document, wh ich incorporated the requested process, and the necessary documentation memo is in Appendix B.

See Appendix B for letters sent to and received from agency.

5.1.2 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

NHPA requires DOE to consult with the SHPO pr ior to any constructi on to ensure that no historical properties would be adversely affected by a proposed project. DOE must also afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservati on a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed project. The SHPO had no objection to the project.

See Appendix D for letters sent to and received by the agency.

5.1.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 USC § 1996, establishes policy to protect and preserve the inherent and Constitutional right of Native Americans to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religi ons. The law ensures the protecti on of sacred locations; access of

Native Americans to those sacred locations and tr aditional resources that are integral to the practice of their religions; and establishes re quirements that would apply to Native American sacred locations, traditional resources, or tradi tional religious practices potentially affected by construction and operation of proposed facilities. Only the Bureau of Indian Affairs responded.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Consultation and Coordination 97 October 2008 Their only concern was to conduct a particular consultation process, su ch as contacting the SHPO, which DOE performed and the analysis a ddressed in the text of the document.

See Appendix E for letters sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal Councils and the one

letter received.

5.2 Public Involvement

The public comment period on the Draft EA wa s August 25 to September 25, 2008. An article informing the public of the availability of the Dr aft EA at the Decatur Public Library ran in the

Herald & Review on August 25 th and 26 th . DOE received no comments from the public (Noceti, 2008).U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ List of Preparers 98 October 2008 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

6.1 Mangi Environmental Group

James Mangi; Contract Management Randy Williams, Program Manager Dave Henney; MGSC Assessment Project Manager, Proposed Action; No-Action, Project Location; Alternatives, Land Use Dick Wildermann; Purpose and Need, Threshold Significance Criteria, Meghan Morse; Associate Project Manager, Do cument/Administrative Record Management, Human Health and Safety, Cultural Resources; Cause-Effect-Questions Ian Duncan; Geology and Soils; Water Resources Eveline Martin; Wetlands, Wildlife, Terrestrial Plants, Visual Resources Tim Lavallee; Air Quality, Noise Bud Watson; Legal Framework Rick Heffner; Socioeconomics Mark Blevins; GIS Lisa Edouard; Glossary

6.2 Wiebe Environmental Services

Jason Breakey; Operations/Program Manager Ed Osborne; Project Management, Soils Craig Robertson; Wate r Resources and Geology John Railton; Review for Threshold Impact and Public Significance Harald Thimm; Construction, Operation and Decommissioning. Kai Nielsen; Waste Management Kate Forbes; Background Res earch and Report Preparation.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 99 October 2008 7.0 REFERENCES

(ADM, 2008a). Archer Daniels Midland. 2008. Application for Underg round Injection Control

Permit . 199 pp.

(ADM, 2008b). Archer Dani els Midland Company. 2008. Decatur ADM Complex – Annual Emission Inventory Summary . 1 p.

(ADM, 2008c). Archer Dani els Midland Company. 2008. Site Visit with NETL and DOE . May 22, 2008.

(ANSI, 2003). American National Standards Institute. 2003. A merican National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 3: Short-term measurements with an observer present . New York: Acoustical Society of America.

(ATSDR, 2007). Agency for Toxic Subs tances and Disease Registry. 2007. ToxFAQs TM : Automotive Gasoline. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts72.html

.

(Bailey, 1995). Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoreg ions of the United States . Accessed

June 2008 at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris /emrishelp2/bailey_s_ecoregions_map.htm

.

(BEA, 2006). Bureau of Economic Analys is, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2006. Regional

Economic Accounts . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/act ion.cfm?fips=17115&areatype=17115&yearin=20

06

.

(Blank et al., 2004). Blank, Wesse link, Cook, & Associates, Inc. 2004. Planning Study, Brush College Road from William Street Road (I L 105) to Faries Parkway, Decatur, IL . Accessed June

2008 at http://www.ci.decatur.il.us/citygovernment/Bru shCollege/Brush%20College%20%20Road%20P lanning%20Study.pdf

.

(BLS, 2008). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Local Area Unemployment Statistics Information and Analysis . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm#data

.

(BLS, 2007). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Incidence rates of total recordable cases of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by quartile distributi on and employment size, private industry, 2006. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1769.pdf

.

(BLS, 2006). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2006 . Accessed June 2008 at http://data.bls.gov/LOCATION_QUOTIEN T/servlet/lqc.ControllerServlet

.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 100 October 2008 (CARB, 2007a). California Air Resource Board. 2007. Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Green House Gas Emissions (Draft). Propos ed Subchapter 10, Article 1, Sections 95100 to 95133, Title 17, California Code of Regulations . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact /2007/ghg2007/modifications.pdf

.

(CARB, 2007b). Californi a Air Resource Board. 2007. Air EMission FACtors (EMFAC) Model.

Accessed June 2008 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/o nroad/latest_version.htm

.

(Carroll, 2008a). Carroll, M. Environmen tal Compliance Manager, ADM. 2008. Personal

Communication. Compressor/fermentor link . June 18, 2008.

(Carroll, 2008b). Carroll, M. Environmental Compliance Manager, ADM. 2008. Personal

Communication. Proposed Development . June 18, 2008.

(Carroll, 2008c). Carroll, M. Environmen tal Compliance Manager, ADM. 2008. Personal

Communication. Re: Additional Question . June 17, 2008.

(Carroll, 2008d). Carroll, M. Environmental Compliance Manager, ADM. 2008. Personal

Communication. Faries Park . August 22, 2008.

(Carroll, 2008e). Carroll, M. Environmen tal Compliance Manager, ADM. 2008. Personal

Communication. Couple of quick questions . June 13, 2008.

(Census, 2008). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2008. Table 1 Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Sta tistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (CBSA-EST2007-01). Accessed June 2008 at http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSAest2007-annual.html

.

(Census, 2007a). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2007. Table 4: Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places in Illinoi s, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (SUB-EST2006-04-17) . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2006-04-17.xls

.

(Census, 2007b). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2007. Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-01-28) . Accessed June

2008 at http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-EST2007-01-17.xls

.

(Census, 2006a). U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. American Community Survey Decatur, IL

. Selected

Economic Characteristics: 2006 . Accessed October 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servle t/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US1718823&- qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-context= adp&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&- tree_id=306&-_lang=en& -redoLog=false&-_sse=on

.

(Census, 2006b). U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. American Community Survey Macon County, IL.

Selected Economic Characteristics: 2006. Accessed October 2008 at http://factfinder.census.g ov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 101 October 2008 qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-geo_id=05000U S17115&-context=adp&-ds_name=&- tree_id=306&-_lang= en&-redoLog=false

.

(Census, 2006c). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2006. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights Decatur and Macon County, Illinois . Accessed June 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/

.

(Census, 2000a). U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed Tables . Accessed June 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetM ainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=data sets_1&_lang=en

.

(Census, 2000b). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000 . Accessed June 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/serv let/GCTTable?_bm=y&-context=gct&- ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-CONTEXT=gct&- mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTPH1_ST2&-tree_id=4001&-redoLog=true&- _caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000U S17115&-format=CO-2&-_lang=en

.

(Census, No date). Census Bureau, Am erican FactFinder. No date provided. Population FinderDecatur city, IL . Accessed June 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopul ation?_event=Search&_name=Decatur&_state=0 4000US17&_county=Decatur&_cityTown=Decatur &_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph

.

(CEQ, 1997). Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act . Executive Office of the President. Washington, D.C. December 10, 1997.

(Chamber, 2008). Decatur Chamber of Commerce. 2008. Personal Communication. Proposed Development . June 16, 2008.

(Decatur, 2008a). The City of Decatur, IL. 2008. 2008 Annual Water Quality Report: PWS ID

1150150 . Accessed July 2008 at http://www.ci.decatur.il.us /watermanagement/2008%20Water%20Quality%20Report.pdf

.

(Decatur, 2008b). Planning and Zoning Departme nt, City of Decatur, IL. 2008. Personal

Communication. Proposed Development . June 16, 2008.

(Decatur, 2008c). The City of Decatur. 2008. Land Development Code. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.ci.decatur.il.us/citygovernme nt/citydocs/Zoning%20Ordinance.pdf

.

(Decatur Park District, No date). Deca tur Park District. No date provided. Parks in the Decatur

Park District . Accessed August 2008 at http://www.decatur-parks.org/main/parks_map.php

.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 102 October 2008 (DOE, 2007a). U.S. Department of Ener gy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2007. Carbon Sequestration Program Environmental Reference Document . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ carbon_seq/refshelf/nepa/index.html

.

(DOE, 2007b). U.S. Department of Ener gy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. International Energy Outlook 2007 . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/

.

(DOE, 2007c). U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. FutureGen Environmental Impact Statement

. Accessed on June 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologi es/coalpower/futuregen/EIS/

.

(DOE, 2003). U.S. Department of Energy. 2003. Final Environmental Assessment for Pilot Experiment for Geological Sequest ration of Carbon Dioxide in Sa line Aquifer Brine Formations. Accessed July 2008 at http://gc.energy.gov/NEPA/nepa_documents/ea/ea1482/EA-1482.pdf

.

(EDR, 2008). Environmental Data Resources. 2008. EDR NEPACheck® for 4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, IL 62521. Inquiry Number 2237495.2s. 31 pp.

(Finley, 2008). Finley, R. Director, Energy and Ea rth Resources Center, Il linois State Geological Survey. 2008. Personal Communication. Disposition of Compression and flow lines . July 18,

2008.

(Fisher, 2008). Fisher, K. Principal Engin eer, Trimeric Corp. 2008. Personal Communication. Flow Diagram text descriptions for EA . July 23, 2008.

(Greenberg, 2008). Greenberg, S. Sequestration Communications Coordinator, Illinois State Geological Survey. 2008. Personal Communication. Quantity and disposition of produced saline

water . July 17, 2008.

(HAARGIS, 2002). Historic Architect ural/Archeologica l Resources. 2002. HAARGIS: Main

. Accessed June 2008 at http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/

.

(Harris, 1998). Harri s, Cecil M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Meas urement and Noise Control

. New York: Acoustical Society of America.

(Heinrich et al., 2004). Jason J. Heinrich, Howard J. Herzog, and David M. Reiner. 2004. Environmental Assessment of Geologic Storage of CO 2 . Accessed July 2008 at http://sequestration.mit. edu/pdf/LFEE_2003-002_RP.pdf

.

(IDNR, 2008). Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Illinois Threatened and Endangered Species by County - Illi nois Natural Heritage Database . Accessed June 2008 at http://dnr.state.il.us/ORC/list_tande_bycounty.pdf

.

(IDNR, 2003). Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Illinois Rivers and Lakes Fact

Sheets . Accessed July 2008 at http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/educ ation/CLASSRM/aquatic/CL_A.PDF

.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 103 October 2008 (IEPA, 2008). Illinois Environm ental Protection Agency. 2008. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List-2008 . Accessed August 2008 at http://www.epa.state.il.us/ water/tmdl/303d-list.html

.

(IEPA, 2007). Illinois Environm ental Protection Agency. 2007. Waste Management: Underground Injection Control Program . Accessed July 2008 at http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/regulator y-programs/underground-in jection-control.html

.

(IEPA, 2006). Illinois Environm ental Protection Agency. 2006. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List-2006. Accessed August 2008 at http://www.epa.state.il.us/ water/tmdl/303d-list.html

.

(IEPA, 2004). Illinois Environm ental Protection Agency. 2004. Decatur ADM Complex – Title V

Permit Number 115015AAE . August 18, 2004. 1113 pp.

(IHPA, 2007). Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. 2007. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency: Welcome . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.illinoishistory.gov/

.

(IL, 2008). The State of Illinois. 2008. Environmental Regulations for the State of Illinois.

Accessed June 2008 at http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandI EPAEnvironmentalRegulations-Title35.asp

.

(Illinois State Water Survey, 1996). Illinois State Water Survey. 1996. One-Hundred and FiveHundred Year Flood Zones for Unincorporated Areas in Illinois. Urbana-Champaign,

IL. Accessed July 2008 at http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdi home/webdocs/st-hydro.html

.

(ILO, 2004). Internationa l Labour Organization. 2004. ICSC 0275-Formaldehyde. Accessed June

2008 at www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/c is/products/icsc/dtas ht/_icsc02/icsc0275.htm

.

(International Energy Agency, 2007). International Energy Agency. 2007. Study of Potential Impacts of Leaks from Onshore CO 2 Storage Projects on Terrestrial Ecosystems . Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Technical Study. Report Number: 2007/3.

(IPCB, 2008). Illinois Pollution Control Board. 2008. Environmental Regulations . Accessed June

2008 at http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandI EPAEnvironmentalRegulations-Title35.asp

.

(IPCC, 2005). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage . Accessed on June 2008 athttp://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCSfinal/IPCCSpecialReportonCar bondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm

.

(ISGS, 1996). Illinois State Geological Survey. 1996. Quaternary Deposits of Illinois . Accessed

October 2008 at http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/maps-data-pub /publications/pdf-files/quaternarydeposits-8x11.pdf

.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 104 October 2008 (ISM, 1994). Illinois State Museum. 1994. Archaeological Resource Potential in Illinois by County: ISM GIS Database archmod. Accessed August 2008 at http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/outmeta/archmod.f.html

.

(Keller, 2008). Keller, A. Manager, Permit Sec tion: Division of Wate r Pollution Control for

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Personal Communication. Notice of Coverage Under Construction Site Activity Storm Water General Permit . February 25, 2008.

(Lavallee, 2006). Lavallee, J. 2006. Native American Consultation Database Search (NACD).

Accessed June 2008 at http://home.nps.gov/nacd/

.

(Litynski, 2008a). Litynski, J. Project Manager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication. Fwd Re MGSC Initial Internal Draft . July 10, 2008b.

(Litynski, 2008b). Litynski, J. Project Ma nager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication. Faries

Park . August 22, 2008.

(Litynski, 2008c). Litynski, J. Project Manager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication. MGSC Initial Internal Draft . July 3, 2008.

(MGSC, 2008). Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium. 2008. Environmental Questionnaire . 31 pp.

(MGSC, No date). Midwest Geological Sequ estration Consortium. No date provided. An Assessment of Geological Carbon Sequestratio n Options in the Illinois Basin—Phase III Statement of Project Objectives . 26 pp.

(Miller, 2003). Miller, G. Tyler. 2003. Environmental Science

. 9 th edition . Pacific Grove,

California: Brooks/Col e-Thomson Learning.

(Moore, 2008). Moore, M. Receptionist, Deca tur Park District. 2008. Personal Communication.

Faries Park . August 22, 2008.

(National Atlas, 2008). National Atlas. 2008. Map Layers . Accessed June 2008 at http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html?openChapters=chpbio#chpbio

.

(NETL, 2008a). National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Program Facts: Carbon Sequestration: Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium—Deployment Phase. Accessed July 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publicatio ns/factsheets/project/Proj491.pdf

.

(NETL, 2008b). National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. NETL Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Peer Review Meeting ADM Test Site Project Information Form . 15

pp.

(NETL, 2008c). National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Lake Nyos and Mammoth Mountain: What Do They Tell Us about the Security of Engineered Storage of CO 2U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 105 October 2008 Underground? Accessed July 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publicatio ns/factsheets/program/Prog064.pdf

.

(NIOSH, No date). National Inst itute for Occupational Safety a nd Health (NIOSH). No date provided. NIOSH Topic: Construction Safety. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/t opics/constructionsafety/

.

(Noceti, 2008). Noceti, Pierina. 2008. NE PA Document Manager, NETL. Personal

Communication. Public Comments to Public Draft EA . September 26, 2008.

(NRCS, 2008). Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Official Soil Series Descriptions . Accessed July 2008 at http://soils.usda .gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html

.

(Roadcap and Wilson, 2001). Roadcap, G.S., Wilson, S.D., 2001. The Impact of Emergency Pumpage at the Decatur Wellfields on the Mahomet Aquifer: Model Review and

Recommendations . Accessed July 2008 at www.sws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/CR/ISWSCR2001-11.pdf

.

(Schlumberger, 2008a). Schlumberger. 2008. Westbay System: Multilevel Groundwater Monitoring in a Multiport System . Accessed July 2008 at http://www.slb.com/content/serv ices/additional/water/monitori ng/multilevel/westbay_multilevel _well.asp

.

(Schlumberger, 2008b). Schlumberger Carbon Services. 2008. ADM Project Transport and JM Plan Summary . Prepared by P.T. Hughs, P.E. 5 pp.

(Schlumberger 2008c). Schlumberger Carbon Services. 2008. ADM Project-Well Construction Transport Movement Estimate. Prepared by P.T. Hughs. P.E. 1 p.

(Skinner, 2003). Skinner, L. 2003. CO 2 Blowouts: An Emerging Problem . World Oil. 224 (1):

38-42.

(UNFCCC, 2007). United Nations Framewor k Convention on Climate Change. 2007. Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accoun ting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts . Accessed June

2008 at http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/accounting_reporting_and_review_under_the_kyoto_prot ocol/application/pdf/rm_final.pdf

.

(USEPA, 2008a). U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency. 2008 . Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells (Proposed Rule). Accessed August 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA -WATER/2008/July/Day-25/w16626.htm

.

(USEPA, 2008b). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 2008. USEPA AirDATA Website

. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/

.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ References 106 October 2008 (USEPA, 2007a). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 2007a. Inventory of US Greenhouse

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2005 . EPA 430-R-07-002. April 15, 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

(USEPA, 2007b). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 2007b . Climate Change . Accessed

June 2008 at www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html#emissions

.

(USEPA, 2007c). U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency. 2007. Basic Information: Air and

Radiation . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.html

.

(USEPA, 1974). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Pub lic Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Accessed October 2008 at http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels 74/levels74.htm#table%20of%20contents

.

(USFWS, 2008a). United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 2008. Wetlands Geodatabase

. Accessed June 2008 at http://wetlandsfws.er .usgs.gov/NWI/codes.html

.

(USFWS, 2008b). United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered Species Section 7(a)(2) Consultation . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endanger ed/section7/s7process/index.htm

.

(USFWS, 2007). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered Species in Illinois County Distribution of Federally Threatene d, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species - By County . Accessed June 2008 at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/s ection7/sppranges/illinois-cty.html

.

(USFWS, 1987). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 1987. Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Conterminous United States - Illinois . Accessed June

2008 at http://wetlandsfws.er.us gs.gov/NWI/download.html

.

(USGS, 2008). United States Geological Survey. 2008. Water Quality Samples for Illinois

. Accessed July 2008 at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/il/nwis/qw data?search_site_no=05573540&search_site_no_match _type=exact&format=station_ list&sort_key=site_no&group_key=NONE&sitefile_output_forma

.

(USGS, 2007). United States Geological Survey. 2007. Water-Data Report 2007 05573540 Sangamon River at Route 48 at Decatur, IL . Accessed July 2008 at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2007/pdfs/05573540.2007.pdf

.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 107 October 2008 8.0 GLOSSARY

Adiabatic Decompression – Thermodynamic process in which no he at is transferred to or from the working fluid.

Adsorbed – Condensed and forming a thin film on a surface.

Ambient – The natural surroundi ngs of a location.

Anthropogenic – Caused or produced by humans.

Anticline

–In structural geology, a fold that is convex up and has its oldest beds at its core.

Argillaceous Dolomitic Sandstone

– Sandstone containing substa ntial amounts of clay-like components and sedimentary carbonate rock.

Asphyxiation – A condition of severely deficient suppl y of oxygen to the body that arises from being unable to breathe normally.

Attainment Areas – A zone within which the level of a pol lutant is considered to meet United States National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

A-weighted Decibels – An expression of the relative loudne ss of sounds in air as perceived by

the human ear.

Best Management Practices – Innovative, dynamic, and impr oved environmental protection practices applied to oil and na tural gas drilling and production to help ensure that energy development is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.

Blowdown – Minimum discharge of recalcul ating water to discharged materials contained in the water, the further buildup of which would cau se concentration in amounts exceeding limits established by best engineering practice.

Brine – Water saturated or nearly saturated with salt.

Caprock – A non permeable rock formation that preven ts fluids from migrating upward from a porous formation.

Carbon Dioxide – Greenhouse gas created by combustion and emitted primarily from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity and operate vehicles,

abbreviated CO 2

.

Carbon Sequestration – The capture and storage of carbon lo ng-term in an effort to avoid

release of that carbon as car bon dioxide in the atmosphere.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 108 October 2008 Class I Non-Hazardous – These wells have nonhazardous materials underneath the lowest underground source of drinking water (IEPA, 2007).

Criteria Pollutants – The Clean Air Act requires USEPA to set standards for six common air pollutants. These commonly foun d air pollutants (also known as "criteria pollutants") are found all over the United States. They are particle pollution (often re ferred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead.

Cultural Resources – Archaeological sites, historical site s (e.g. standing structures), NativeAmerican resources, and paleontological resources.

Cumulative Effects – Those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect of the action when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Day-night Sound Level – The A-weighted equiva lent sound level for a 24 hour period with an additional 10 dB imposed on the equivalent sound levels for night time hours of 10 P.M. to 7

A.M.

Decibel – A unit of measurement that expresses the magnitude of a physical quantity (usually intensity) relative to a specified or implied reference level . The decibel is useful for a wide variety of measurements in science (for this application, it is sound).

Downhole – A location in the geologic strata that is lower/below a designated location.

Endangered Species – A species whose numbers are so small that the species is at risk for extinction. A federal list of endangered spec ies can be found in 50 CFR 17.11 (wildlife), 50 CFR 17.12 (plants), and 50 CFR 222.23( a) (marine organisms). Illinois maintains its list of endangered species with the Illinois E ndangered Species Protection Board.

Effluent – Waste stream flowing into the atmosphe re, surface water, groundwater, or soil.

Emergent – Amphibious plants or ecosystems that are partially or temporarily in the water or but not continuously or entirely.

EA – (Environmental Assessment), A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, that briefl y discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and anal ysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact st atement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

EIS – (Environmental Impact Statement), A detailed written statement required by Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Ac t, analyzing the environmental impacts of a Proposed Action, adverse effects of the project th at cannot be avoided, a lternative courses of action, short-term uses of the environment ve rsus the maintenance and enhancement of long-U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 109 October 2008 term productivity, and any irreversible and i rretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

Environmental Justice – The confluence of social and environmental movements, which deals with the inequitable environmental burden born by groups such as racial minorities, women, or residents of developing nations.

Equivalent Sound Level – The level of a steady-state noi se without impulses or tone components which is equivalent to the actual noise emitted over a period of time.

Erodible – The erodibility of soils can be described as their sensitivity to the effects of wind and water on the soil structure. This property is e xpressed as an erodibility index, where low values indicate high susceptibility to erosion, and high values corres pondingly indicate a low susceptibility to erosion. The erodibility index is determined by combining the effects of slope and soil type, rainfall intensity and land use. These aspects are represented by terrain morphology (soil and slope), mean annual rainfall, and broad land use patterns.

FONSI – (Finding of No Significant Impact), A doc ument prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a Federal action will have no signif icant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, ther efore, will not be pr epared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Greenhouse Gas – Greenhouse gases are the gases presen t in the earth's atmosphere which reduce the loss of heat into space and ther efore contribute to global temperatures.

Hazardous Waste – Waste substances which can pose a subs tantial or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed.

Hertz – The frequency of sound waves.

Hydrocarbon Traps

–A subsurface pool of hydrocarbons cont ained in porous rock formations that are trapped by overlying rock formations with lower permeability.

Isopach Map – A map with contours that display the st ratigraphic thickness of a subsurface rock

unit.

Kilowatt – A measurement of electric power.

Lithology

–Geological field focusing on macroscopic hand-sample or outcrop-scale description

of rocks.

Median Household Income – The median household income is commonly used to provide data about geographic areas and divide s households into two equal segments with the first half of households earning less than the average househol d income and the othe r half earning more.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 110 October 2008 Minority – Individual(s) who are members of the fo llowing population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hi spanic origin; or Hispanic.

Minority Population – Identified where either the affect ed area’s minority population exceeds 50 percent or the affected area’s minority population percentage is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

Moraine

–Glacially formed accumulation of unconsolidat ed glacial debris (soil and rock) which can occur in currently glaciated and formerly glaciated regions, such as those areas acted upon by a past ice age.

NAAQS – (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) , Standards established by the USEPA that apply for outdoor air throughout the country. Primary standards ar e designed to protect human health, with an adequate margin of safety, in cluding sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals sufferi ng from respiratory disease.

NEPA – (National Environmental Policy Act), Requi res all agencies, including Department of Energy, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public part icipation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate be tter environmental deci sion making (40 CFR 1500).

New Source Performance Standards – Are pollution control standa rds issued by the USEPA.

The term is used in the Clean Air Act Exte nsion of 1070 to refer to air pollution emission standards, and in the Clean Water Act referri ng to standards for discharges of industrial

wastewater to surface waters.

Nonattainment Areas – The Clean Air Act and Amendments of 1990 define a "nonattainment area" as a locality where air pollution levels pe rsistently exceed national standards or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that fails to meet standards. Designating an area as nonattainment is a formal rulemaking pr ocess, and USEPA normally takes this action only after air quality standards have been exceeded for several consecutive years.

Paleogeography

–The study of what the geography was in times past. It is most often used in

connection with the physical landscape.

Palustrine – Non-tidal wetlands.

Particular Matter – Small solid particles and liquid droplets in the sir.

Perfluorocarbons – (PFCs), Compounds derived fr om hydrocarbons by replacement of hydrogen atoms by fluorine atoms. PFCs are made up of carbon and fluorine atoms only.

Permeability – Formations that transmit fluids readil y, such as sandstones, are described as permeable and tend to have many large, well-connected pores.U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Glossary 111 October 2008 pH – The measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution.

Point Source Pollution – Single identifiable localized source of air, water, thermal, noise, or light pollution.

Porosity – A measure of the void spaces in a material.

Quaternary

–The geologic time period after the Ne ogene Period roughly 1.8 million years ago to the present.

Saline Formation – Layers of porous rock that are saturated with bring water.

Sequestration – Development and demonstration of technologies for the placement of CO 2 into a repository such that it will remain stored for very long periods of time (hundreds to thousands of years); the three pot ential pathways for storage are ge ologic sequestration, terrestrial sequestration, and ocean sequestration.

Stakeholders – A person, company, group of people, et c., that have a co ncern and financial

interest in an issue.

Stratigraphy – A branch of geology; studies of rock layers and layering.

Subsurface wireline correlations – Information derived from a l ogging procedure that consists of lowering a 'logging tool' on the end of a wireline into an oil well (or hole ) to measure the rock and fluid properties of the formation.

Supercritical CO 2 –Carbon dioxide that is in a fluid stat e while also being at or above both its critical temperature and pressure.

Vadose Zone – Area of soil between the ground surface and the area directly above the groundwater surface (i.e., the water table) of unconfined aquifers.

Vertical Seismic Profile

–(VSP), A technique of seismic measurements used for correlation

with surface seismic data.

Wetland – Area inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circ umstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil c onditions. Wetlands gene rally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Appendix A 112 October 2008APPENDICESAppendix A Air Emission CalculationsTable A-1. Drilling EmissionsHeavy Equipment UseEquipment TypeNumber ofUnitsDays onSiteHours PerDayOperatingHoursBore/Drill Rigs1 9024 2160Generator Sets4 9024 8640Other Construction Equipment3 9024 6480Drilling Equipment Emission Factors(lbs/hour)Equipment CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Bore/Drill Rigs0.5281 1.3416 0.1295 0.0017 0.0591 0.0591Generator Sets0.3461 0.6980 0.1075 0.0007 0.0430 0.0430Other Construction Equipment0.4504 1.1575 0.1215 0.0013 0.0503 0.0503Source: (CARB, 2007b)Drilling Equipment Emissions(tons)Equipment CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Bore/Drill Rigs0.5704 1.4489 0.1399 0.0019 0.0638 0.0638Generator Sets1.4952 3.0154 0.4642 0.0030 0.1858 0.1858Other Construction Equipment1.4592 3.7504 0.3937 0.0041 0.1631 0.1631Total Equipment Emissions3.5247 8.2147 0.9978 0.0090 0.4127 0.4127Drilling Worker CommutesNumber of Workers30Number of Trips2Miles Per Trip30Days of Drilling90Total Miles162000U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Appendix A 113 October 2008Table A-1. Drilling EmissionsPollutant CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Emission Factor (lbs/mile)0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001Total Emissions (lbs)1708.85 178.67 174.83 1.74 13.78 8.57Total Emissions (tons)0.8544 0.0893 0.0874 0.0009 0.0069 0.0043Source: (CARB, 2007b)Total Drilling Emissions (tons)Activity/Source CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Heavy Equipment3.5247 8.2147 0.9978 0.0090 0.4127 0.4127Worker Commutes0.8544 0.0893 0.0874 0.0009 0.0069 0.0043Total Drilling Emissions4.3791 8.3040 1.0852 0.0099 0.4195 0.4169Table A-2. Construction EmissionsConstruction Equipment UseEquipment TypeNumber ofUnitsDays onSiteHours PerDayOperatingHoursAir Compressors1 30 4 120Cement & Mortar Mixers1 30 7 210Cranes1 30 7 210Generator Sets1 30 7 210Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes1 30 7 210Construction Equipment Emission Factors (lbs/hour)Equipment CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Air Compressors0.3782 0.7980 0.1232 0.0007 0.0563 0.0563Cement and Mortar Mixers0.0447 0.0658 0.0113 0.0001 0.0044 0.0044Cranes0.6011 1.6100 0.1778 0.0014 0.0715 0.0715Generator Sets0.3461 0.6980 0.1075 0.0007 0.0430 0.0430Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes0.4063 0.7746 0.1204 0.0008 0.05990.0599Source: (CARB, 2007b)U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Appendix A 114 October 2008Table A-2. Construction EmissionsConstruction Equipment Emissions (tons)Equipment CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Air Compressors0.0227 0.0479 0.0074 0.0000 0.0034 0.0034Cranes0.0631 0.1691 0.0187 0.0001 0.0075 0.0075Generator Sets0.0363 0.0733 0.0113 0.0001 0.0045 0.0045Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes0.0427 0.0813 0.0126 0.0001 0.0063 0.0063Total Equipment Emissions0.1648 0.3716 0.0500 0.0003 0.0217 0.0217PaintingVOC Content1.25 lbs/gallonCoverage400 sqft*/gallonEmission Factor0.003125 lbs/sqftBuilding/FacilityWallSurfaceVOC[lbs]VOC[tons]Compressor Housing1000 3.125 0.0015625Support Facilities5000 15.625 0.0078125Total6000 18.75 0.009375Source: (CARB, 2007b)Delivery of Equipment and SuppliesNumber of Deliveries2Number of Trips2Miles Per Trip30Days of Construction30Total Miles3600Pollutant(pounds/mile) CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Emission Factor (lbs/mile)0.0219 0.0237 0.0030 0.0000 0.0009 0.0007Total Emissions (lbs)79.02 85.37 10.77 0.09 3.08 2.66Total Emissions (tons)0.0395 0.0427 0.0054 0.0000 0.0015 0.0013Source: (CARB, 2007b)Worker CommutesNumber of Workers20U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Appendix A 115 October 2008Table A-2. Construction EmissionsNumber of Trips2Miles Per Trip30Days of Construction30Total Miles36000Pollutant(pounds/mile)CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Emission Factor (lbs/mile)0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001Total Emissions (lbs)379.74 39.70 38.85 0.39 3.06 1.91Total Emissions (tons)0.1899 0.0199 0.0194 0.0002 0.0015 0.0010Source: (CARB, 2007b)Total Construction Emissions (tons)Activity/Source CO NOxVOC SOxPM10PM2.5Construction Equipment0.1648 0.3716 0.0500 0.0003 0.0217 0.0217Painting0.0000 0.0000 0.0094 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Delivery of Equipment and Supplies0.0395 0.0427 0.0054 0.0000 0.0015 0.0013Worker Commutes0.1899 0.0199 0.0194 0.0002 0.0015 0.0010Total Construction Emissions0.3942 0.4341 0.0842 0.0006 0.0248 0.0240*Note: sqft=square feetTable A-3. CO2Emission CalculationsDrilling and ConstructionDiesel Fuel Usage500 GallonsPerDayDrilling Period90 DaysTotal Fuel45000 GallonsTotal Fuel170343 LitersEmission Factor2.6304 kgCO2per literTotal Emissions448070.2 kgTotal Emissions494 TonsElectricity UsageElectricity Usage6000 kWHours26280 HoursU.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment______________________________________________________________________________Appendix A 116 October 2008Table A-3. CO2Emission CalculationsPower157680000 kWhEmission Factor0.6510 kgCO2/kWhTotal Emissions102649680 kgTotal Emissions113120 TonsWorker CommutesNumber of Workers20 WorkersNumber of Trips2 TripsMiles Per Trip30 MilesDays of Operation1095 DaysTotal Miles1314000 MilesEmission Factor1.1 lbs/mileTotal Emissions1444785.4 lbsTotal Emissions (tons)722.4 tonsSource: (CARB, 2007b)Total CO2Emissions (tons)Activity/SourceEmissions (tons)Drilling and Construction494Electricity Usage113120Worker Commutes722Sequestration(1102300)Total Emissions(987964)U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 117 October 2008 Appendix B USFWS ConsultationU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 118 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 119 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 120 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 121 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 122 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 123 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 124 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B 125 October 2008U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment________________________________________________________________________________Appendix C 126 October 2008Appendix C Noise CalculationsTable C-1. Drilling NoiseNSA 1 –Feet MetersCommunity College1800 549Octave Band Center Frequency, HzSource31.5631252505001000200040008000dBDrill Rig (@25 Feet)93 97 94 91 92 91 88 81 76Power level (PWL)121 125 123 120 121 120 116 109 105Transmission Loss (TL)Enclosure (1/2" wood)0.5 -5.5 -11.5 -17.5 -23.5 -29.5 -35.6 -41.6 -47.6PWL with enclosure122 23 17 11 5 -1 -7 -13 -19Mud Handling (Shakerand Pump) (@25 Feet)89 90 88 81 79 78 75 74 68PWL118 119 117 110 108 107 104 103 97Generators (LightPlant)325 435.5CF5 9 3 7 15 19 25 35 43Exhaust NoiseLw 145.1 140.1 136.1 142.1 138.1 130.1 126.1 120.1 110.1 102.1 134MufflerCorrection 25 25 29 29 27 25 24 23 23PWL 115.1 111.1 113.1 109.1 103.1 101.1 96.1 87.1 79.1 107CF4 11 13 13 12 9 8 9 17Inlet NoiseLw 107.6 PWL 103.6 96.6 94.6 94.6 95.6 98.6 99.6 98.6 90.6 105CF22 14 7 7 8 6 7 13 20Casing NoiseLw 118.1PWL96 104 111 111 110 112 111 105 98 117Excavator (@25 Feet)84 85 81 81 81 78 73PWL29 113 114 110 110 110 107 102 29Total Sound Intensity2.4907 1.0575 1.0167 0.3944 0.2741 0.3185 0.2104 0.0725 0.0122Total PWL124120120116114115113109101128HemisphericalSpreading-69 -69 -69 -69 -69 -69 -69 -69 -69AtmosphericAbsorption0 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -5 -13 -23U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment________________________________________________________________________________Appendix C 127 October 2008Table C-1. Drilling NoiseFlat Sound Level55 52 51 47 44 44 40 27 9Octave Band AWeighted Correction-39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 1 -1A-Weighted SoundLevel16 26 35 38 41 44 41 28 848Ldn 54Notes:Calculations based on available data from typical equipment set-ups, actual equipment would vary dependent on results of geotechnical evaluation and sitespecific design.Lw is sound power levels, CF is center frequency, and Ldn is equivalent day night level.Calculations do not account for effect of topographic features, reflection, and natural barriersTable C-2. Compressor NoiseFeetMetersNSA 1 - CommunityCollege4000 1219Octave Band Center Frequency, HzSource31.5631252505001000200040008000dBReciprocating Compressor6000.0CF11 15 10 11 13 10 5 8 15Lw 126.5PWL116 112 117 116 114 117 122 119 112 125Total Sound Intensity0.3554 0.1415 0.4474 0.3554 0.2242 0.4474 1.4149 0.7091 0.1415Total PWL116112117116114117122119112126Hemispherical Spreading-76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76Atmospheric Absorption0 0 0 -1 -3 -6 -11 -28 -51Octave Band A-WeightedCorrection-39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 1 -1A-Weighted Sound Level(without barrier)1 10 24 30 31 35 36 16 -1640Ldn 46U.S. Department of EnergyMGSC Phase IIINational Energy Technology LaboratoryFinalEnvironmental Assessment________________________________________________________________________________Appendix C 128 October 2008Table C-2. Compressor NoiseFeet MetersCritical DistanceCalculation1000 305Octave Band Center Frequency, HzSource31.5631252505001000200040008000dBReciprocating Compressor6000.0CF11 15 10 11 13 10 5 8 15Lw 126.5PWL116 112 117 116 114 117 122 119 112 125Total Sound Intensity0.3554 0.1415 0.4474 0.3554 0.2242 0.4474 1.4149 0.7091 0.1415Total PWL116112117116114117122119112126Hemispherical Spreading-64 -64 -64 -64 -64 -64 -64 -64 -64Atmospheric Absorption0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -7 -13Octave Band A-WeightedCorrection-39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 1 -1A-Weighted Sound Level(without barrier)13 22 37 43 46 51 56 49 3458Ldn 65U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 129 October 2008 Appendix D SHPO ConsultationU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 130 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 131 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 132 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 133 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D 134 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 135 October 2008 Appendix E Contact with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal CouncilsU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 136 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 137 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 138 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 139 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 140 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 141 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 142 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 143 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 144 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 145 October 2008 EnclosuresU.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 146 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 147 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 148 October 2008U.S. Department of Energy MGSC Phase III National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E 149 October 2008