## DOE/EA-1828

Final Environmental Assessment

Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project

“CO 2 

## Capture from Biofuels Production and Sequestration

into the Mt. Simon Sandstone”

Archer Daniels Midland Company Decatur, Illinois

For U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory

DE-FE0001547

April 2011ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Award No. DE-FE0001547 (Recovery Act - Indust rial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project/National Energy Technology Laboratory/Office of Fossil Energy).INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

### COVER SHEET

Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Title: CO 2 Capture from Biofuels Production and Sequestration into the Mt. Simon Sandstone (DOE/EA-1828D)

Contact: For additional copies or more information about this environmental assessment (EA), please contact: Mrs. Pierina Fayish U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory P.O. Box 10940, MS 922-M218 Pittsburgh, PA 15236 Facsimile: (412) 386-4775

E-mail: Pierina.Fayish@netl.doe.gov

Abstract: DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) in a cooperative ag reement with Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). If ADM received the funding, the company would de monstrate an integrated system of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) capture in an industrial se tting and geologic sequestration in a sandstone reservoir.

The CO 2 that would be sequestered is currently a by-product of ADM’s Decatur fuel-grade ethanol production facility. ADM would capture approximately one million short tons of CO 2 per year using dehydration and compression. The compressed CO 2 would be piped approximately one mile to an injection well and sequestered in the Mount (Mt.) Simon Sandstone Formation, a saline reservoir. The project team members include ADM, the Illinois State Geological Survey, Schlumberger Car bon Services, and Richla nd Community College.

DOE’s proposed action would provide approximate ly $141.4 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to ADM. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $207.9 million.

This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant advers e environmental impacts for the pr oposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation’s energy efficiency and the local economy, and could contribute to a mi nor reduction of greenhouse gases.

Availability: The draft EA is available on DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory website at http://www.netl.doe.gov/public ations/others/nepa/ea.html and at: Decatur Public Library

130 N. Franklin Street Decatur, IL 62523 (217) 424-2900INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents i April 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ ......... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... ........ iv

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

USE OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION .............................................................................................. ix

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

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

1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Related Project ............................................................................................................... .. 3

1.4 Scope of DOE Decision ................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Legal Framework ............................................................................................................. 5

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION A ND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 12

2.1 ADM’s Proposed Project ............................................................................................... 12

2.1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 12

2.1.2 Construction ............................................................................................................ 16

2.1.2.1 CO 2 Supply ...................................................................................................... 16

2.1.2.2 Pressurized Pipeline ......................................................................................... 16

2.1.2.3 Electrical Substation and Power Lines ............................................................ 17

2.1.2.4 Injection Well .................................................................................................. 17

2.1.2.5 Quantifying the Fate of Injected CO 2 .............................................................. 18

2.1.2.6 Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO 2 Containment .................... 18

2.1.2.7 Injection Well Surface Facilities ..................................................................... 19

2.1.2.8 Community College Outreach Facility ............................................................ 20

2.1.3 Operations and Maintenance ................................................................................... 20

2.1.3.1 General............................................................................................................. 20

2.1.3.2 Target Zone and Operational Integrity ............................................................ 21

2.1.3.3 Integrity of the Pipeline ................................................................................... 23

2.1.4 Decommissioning ................................................................................................... 24

2.2 Alternatives .................................................................................................................. .. 24

2.2.1 No-Action ............................................................................................................... 25

2.3 Issues Considered and Dismissed .................................................................................. 25

3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH .................................................... 27

3.1 Approach to the Analysis ............................................................................................... 27

3.2 Analysis of Significance................................................................................................. 27

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS ....................................................................................................................... ............... 30

4.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... ... 30

4.1.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 30

4.1.1.1 Climate and Weather ....................................................................................... 30

4.1.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status .................... 30

4.1.1.3 Local Ambient Air Quality .............................................................................. 30

4.1.1.4 Existing Facility Emissions ............................................................................. 31

4.1.1.5 Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming ......................................................... 32

4.1.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 33

4.1.2.1 Estimated Emissions and General Conformity ................................................ 33Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents ii April 2011 4.1.2.2 Regulatory Review .......................................................................................... 34

4.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 34

4.1.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 35

4.1.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 36

4.2 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................... 36

4.2.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 36

4.2.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 41

4.2.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 43

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 43

4.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................................. 43

4.3.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 43

4.3.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 44

4.3.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 46

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 46

4.4 Wetlands and Floodplains .............................................................................................. 46

4.4.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 47

4.4.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 48

4.4.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 49

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 49

4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 49

4.5.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 49

4.5.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 50

4.5.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 52

4.5.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 52

4.6 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... ..... 52

4.6.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 52

4.6.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 53

4.6.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 54

4.6.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 54

4.7 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... .. 54

4.7.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 54

4.7.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 55

4.7.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 56

4.7.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 56

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources .............................................................................................. 57

4.8.1 Population ............................................................................................................... 57

4.8.1.1 Description....................................................................................................... 57

4.8.1.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ................................................................ 58

4.8.1.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 58

4.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 58

4.8.2 Employment a nd Income ........................................................................................ 59

4.8.2.1 Description....................................................................................................... 59

4.8.2.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ................................................................ 60

4.8.2.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 60

4.8.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 61

4.8.3 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 61Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents iii April 2011 4.8.3.1 Description....................................................................................................... 61

4.8.3.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ................................................................ 62

4.8.3.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 63

4.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 63

4.8.4 Parks and Recreation............................................................................................... 64

4.8.4.1 Description....................................................................................................... 64

4.8.4.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ................................................................ 64

4.8.4.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 64

4.8.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 64

4.8.5 Visual Resources ..................................................................................................... 65

4.8.5.1 Description....................................................................................................... 65

4.8.5.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ................................................................ 65

4.8.5.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 65

4.8.5.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 65

4.8.6 Noise ....................................................................................................................... 6 6

4.8.6.1 Description....................................................................................................... 67

4.8.6.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ................................................................ 68

4.8.6.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 70

4.8.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 70

4.8.7 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................. 70

4.8.7.1 Description....................................................................................................... 71

4.8.7.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ................................................................ 71

4.8.7.3 Effects of No-Action ....................................................................................... 71

4.8.7.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 71

4.9 Human Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 72

4.9.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 72

4.9.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 73

4.9.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 77

4.9.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 77

4.10 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 77

4.10.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 78

4.10.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 78

4.10.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 79

4.10.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 79

4.11 Waste Management .................................................................................................... 80

4.11.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 80

4.11.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project ....................................................................... 81

4.11.3 Effects of No-Action ............................................................................................... 82

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 82

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................. 83

5.1 Preparation for Development of th is Environmental Assessment ................................. 83

5.2 Agency Coordination ..................................................................................................... 83

5.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................... 83

5.2.2 State Historic Preserva tion Office (SHPO) ............................................................. 83

5.2.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs ......................................................................................... 83

5.2.4 State Agencies ......................................................................................................... 83Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents iv April 2011 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS..................................................................................................... 85

6.1 Mangi Environmental Group ......................................................................................... 85

7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 86

8.0 GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................... 93

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... .......... 98 Appendix A Air Emission Calculations ............................................................................... 98 Appendix B Noise Calculations ......................................................................................... 102 Appendix C USFWS Consultation .................................................................................... 104 Appendix D SHPO Consultation ....................................................................................... 106 Appendix E Consultation with Tribes ............................................................................... 115 Appendix F State Agencies ............................................................................................... 121 Appendix G Environmental Synopsis ................................................................................ 128 Appendix H NWI Online Wetlands Mapper ...................................................................... 140 Appendix I Correspondence with USEPA Region 5 ........................................................ 141

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.4. Comparison of Impacts ............................................................................................. .... 4 Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds .................................................................................. 28 Table 4.1.1.3. NAAQS and Monitored Air Quality Concentrations ........................................... 31 Table 4.1.1.4. Existing (2009) Air Emi ssions for Decatur ADM Complex ................................ 32 Table 4.1.2.1. Proposed Project Emissions Comp ared to Applicability Thresholds ................... 34

Table 4.1.2.3. Net CO 2 Emissions for ADM’s Proposed Project ................................................ 35

Table 4.8.2.1. Household Income for 2008 ................................................................................. 59 Table 4.8.3.2-1. Well Construction Transpor t Estimate for the Injection Well ........................... 62 Table 4.8.3.2-2. Transport Estimate for the Substation Construction ......................................... 62 Table 4.8.3.2-3. Transport Estimate for the Na tional Sequestration Education Center Building

Construction .................................................................................................................. ................ 63

Table 4.8.6-1. Common Sounds and Their Levels ...................................................................... 66

Table 4.8.6-2. State of Illinois Environmental Noise Standards .................................................. 67 Table 4.8.6.1. Estimated Existing Noise Leve ls at Nearby Noise Sensitive Areas ..................... 68

Table 4.8.6.2-1. Noise Levels Associat ed with Outdoor Construction ....................................... 68 Table 4.8.6.2-2. Compressor Noise Levels at N earest NSA Compared to Noise Standards ....... 69 Table 4.9.1. Comparison of Na tural Gas Pipelines to CO 2 Pipelines from 1995 to 2005 ........... 73 Table A-1. Drilling Emissions ................................................................................................ ..... 98

Table A-2. Construction Emissions ............................................................................................ . 99

Table A-3. CO 2 Emission Calculations ...................................................................................... 101 Table B-1. Drilling Noise .................................................................................................... ...... 102 Table B-2. Compressor Noise .................................................................................................. .. 103

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1.1-1. Regional Vicinity Map ........................................................................................ 14 Figure 2.1.1-2. Project Area Map ............................................................................................. ... 15 Figure 4.2.1-1. Illinois Basin’s Stratigra phic Column of Key Formations for CO 2 Injections ... 37 Figure 4.2.1-2. Map of Soil Types over the ADM ICCS Facility Site ........................................ 40Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents v April 2011 Figure 4.4.1. Floodplains near the ADM ICCS Site .................................................................... 48Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Acronyms and Abbreviations vi April 2011 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

2D Two Dimensional

3D Three Dimensional

A.M. ante meridiem (i.e. before noon) ADM Archer Daniels Midland Company ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 AQCR Air Quality Control Region AQCR 075 West Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR BMP Best Management Practice

CAA Clean Air Act CCAR California Climate Action Registry CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration 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 Centimeters

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 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 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 Feet

ft 2 Square FeetIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Acronyms and Abbreviations vii April 2011 ft 3 Cubic Feet

GHG Greenhouse Gas

H 2 S Hydrogen Sulfide

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons hp Horsepower

Hz Hertz

i.e. id est , that is

IAC Illinois Administrative Code

ICCS Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency IHPA Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

IL Illinois ILCS Illinois Compiled Statutes IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey kg Kilograms

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 Millidarcies MDT Modular Formation Dynamics Tester

MEA Mono Ethanol Amine MGSC Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium

Mt. Mount MVA Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting MW Megawatt

N 2 O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emission Standa rds for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NETL National Ener gy Technology Laboratory

NHPA National Histor ic Preservation Act

NO 2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NO

x Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Regist er of Historic PlacesIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Acronyms and Abbreviations viii April 2011 NSA Noise Sensitive Area

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NSR New Source Review

O 3 Ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

P.M. post meridiem (i.e. after noon)

Pb Lead PEMAf Palustrine emergent temporaril y or semi-permanently flooded wetland

PFCs Perfluorocarbons

PM 10 Particulate Matter of 10 Micromet ers or Less in Aerodynamic Diameter

PM 2.5 Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Mi crometers in Aerodynamic Diameter ppb Parts per Billion ppm Parts per Million ppmv Parts per Million by Volume PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration psi Pounds per Square Inch psig Pounds per Square Inch Gauge

PWL Power Level RCC Richland Community College RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Rd. Road Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5

RRA Resource Rich Areas SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

sec Seconds

SF 6 Sulfur Hexafluoride

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

SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide

SO

x Sulfur Oxides TEG Triethylene Glycol

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

U.S. United States UIC Underground Injection Control

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 USGS U.S. Geological Survey VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

VSP Vertical Seismic ProfileIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Use of Scientific No tation ix April 2011 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

10 -3 = 1 = 0.001 10 x 10 x 10

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.Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 1 April 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Summary

High concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the atmosphere can exert a “greenhouse” effect that traps heat within the Earth’s atmosphere. Global emissions of CO 2 from human activity have increased from an insignificant level two centuries ago to over twenty-one billion metric tons per year in 2003 (DOE, 2007a). The most notable human activity associated with the generation of CO 2 emissions is the combustion of carbon-ba sed fuels (including oil, natural gas, and coal). Many scientists, in cluding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), believe there a danger from even a modest increas e in the Earth’s temper ature (called “global warming”) as it could alter the global climate and cause significant adverse consequences for human health and welfare (DOE, 2007a).

In one of many governmental efforts to address the concerns outlined above, the Department of Energy (DOE) funds projects that w ould demonstrate the capture of CO 2 from industrial sources and subsequent geologic sequestration of the cap tured gas. Geologic sequ estration involves the permanent storage of CO 2 in deep unmineable coal seams, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or saline (saltwater-filled) forma tions. Impermeable caprocks an d/or geologic structural or stratigraphic traps retain the CO 2 in the formation similar to natural gas storage trapping

mechanisms.

Congress appropriated significant funding for Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) in the American Recovery and Reinve stment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering DOE’s ICCS program. DOE solicited applicati ons for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000015), Carbon Capture and Sequestration from Industrial Sources and Innovati ve Concepts for Beneficial CO 2 Use on June 8, 2009. The announcement invited applications in two areas of in terest: (1) large-s cale industrial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) pr ojects from industrial sources, and (2) Innovative concepts for

beneficial CO 2 use. The application period closed on August 7, 2009, and DOE received 92 proposals across the two areas of interest. DOE selected 24 projects based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the funding opportunity anno uncement. Only 23 projects received awards.

This project, CO 2 Capture from Biofuels Production and Sequestration into the Mount (Mt.)

Simon Sandstone , was one of the projects DOE selected for Phase I funding in Area of Intent 1.

In Phase I, awardees received funding to perfor m administrative work to complete a Phase II proposal. Phase II projects were then competitivel y selected from the pool of Phase I awardees. This project was one of nine se lected for a Phase II award. On e part of the Phase II selection process considered potential envi ronmental impacts of all respons ive applications pursuant to 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1021.216.

DOE’s Proposed Action is to provide $141.4 million in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). The total cost of the project is estimated at $207.9 million.Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 2 April 2011 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 fossil fuels, requires NETL to review and, where possible, mitigate projected impacts to global climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels. One possible mitigation tech nique under review is th e capture and long-term

removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere through a proce ss called carbon sequestration. The focus of NETL’s “Carbon Capture and Sequestration fro m Industrial Sources and Innovative Concepts

for Beneficial CO 2 Use” initiative involve s capturing and storing CO 2 emissions prior to release into the atmosphere, as well as enhancing natu ral carbon uptake and storage processes. The principal goal of the NETL program is to gain a scientific und erstanding of carbon sequestration options and to provide cost-effective, environm entally sound technology options that ultimately may lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas in tensity 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 porous and permeable subsurface rock formations in such a way that they remain permanently stored.

The purpose of the proposed ADM project would be to demonstrate the ability of the Mt. Simon Sandstone to accept and retain one million short t ons per year or approximately 2.5 million short tons (2.26 million metric tons) of CO 2 injected over a period of 2.5 years (ADM, 2009a); thus testing large-scale sequestration sooner than might otherwise be possible.

Although the processes of geologic sequestration are relatively we ll known, there is a need for

additional research and demonstration to fill gaps in our scientific understanding of carbon sequestration; ensure the protec tion of human health and the environment; reduce costs; and facilitate the full-scale deployment of this t echnology. Extensive laboratory investigations, modeling studies, and limited small-s cale field studies assessed how CO 2 geologic sequestration would work in the subsurface. Comparing pred ictions from bench scale tests and numerical models with field results from large-scale inje ctions is necessary to validate the models and

demonstrate that scientific unde rstanding is correct (DOE, 2003).

Two-thirds of the United States ha s deep saline formations beneath it. These formations have an

estimated CO 2 storage capacity of up to 3.5 trillion s hort tons. Many of these formations are located in close proximity to major 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 project would help to resolve uncertainties associated with the reactions that may occur between CO 2 , brine, and minerals in the surrounding strata (DOE, 2007a).

The project, under carefully controlled and mon itored conditions, would determine whether, and to what extent, large-scale pressurization w ould 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 beIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 3 April 2011 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).

If funded, the proposed project 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 development of large scale projects 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 multiple high volume injection at a scale similar to what would

be done if CO 2 from power plants were captured and sequestered.

1.3 Related Project

ADM’s Decatur ethanol plant is the host site for another DOE project, Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) Phase III Large-Scale Fiel d Test (DE-FC26-05NT42588). That project was the subject of a separate environmental asse ssment (EA) (DOE/EA-1626) that resulted in a finding of no significan t impact (FONSI) dated November 28, 2008.

The proximity of the two projects requires the analysis of any cumulative impacts on the environment from the current MGSC project a nd proposed ICCS project. Cumulative impacts are addressed under each resource area in Chapter 4 of this document.

1.4 Scope of DOE Decision

The decision for DOE is to either fund or not fund the proposed project including the associated drilling and injection activities . The No-Action Alternative w ould be no DOE funds provided to ADM for its proposed project, and ADM would not pursue the drilling and in jection activities if DOE’s decision was to not fund the project. Thus, the No-Action Altern ative would involve no drilling and injection activi ties. Table 1.4 below is based on that premise.Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 4 April 2011 Table 1.4. Comparison of Impacts

Resource No-Action Alternative ADM’s Proposed Project

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 cont rast, there would be some
beneficial impacts due to the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions.
Geology and Soils No impacts Some long-ter m increase in subsurface pressures due to

CO 2 injection would be expected; however, the
proposed project 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 (see
Section 4.2.2).
Water Resources No impacts The proposed project 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/Floodplains No impacts No substa ntial 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.
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 dist urbance 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.Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 5 April 2011 Table 1.4. Comparison of Impacts

Resource No-Action Alternative ADM’s Proposed Project

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 us es of the project area
including a nearby park.
Visual Resources No impacts The proposed project 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 no ise impacts are expected during
construction and drilling. During operation, there may
be minor increases in operat ional 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 low- income 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 acc ordance 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 impact s 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 ec ological 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.

1.5 Legal Framework

DOE has prepared this EA in accordance with the Council on Envir onmental Quality (CEQ) “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act,” codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations in Parts 1500 through 1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508). These implement the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 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 th e potential environmental consequences of a Proposed Action in their decision- making processes. NEPA enc ourages Federal agencies toIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 6 April 2011 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 to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a 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 public is exposed. The CAA also contains emission cont rol permit programs to protect the nation’s air quality and establishes New S ource Performance Standards that establish design standards, equipment standards, work practices, and operational standards for new or modified sources of air emissions. Where the NAAQS emphasize 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 401 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 PartsIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 7 April 2011 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

.

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.

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

.Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 8 April 2011 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 religions. The law en sures the protection of s acred 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 American 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 toIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 9 April 2011 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 Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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 comply 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 onIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 10 April 2011 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 notificat ion if any structure of more than 200 feet (60.96 meters (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 navigati on. Illinois regulates 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.

 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 Inje ction Control Permit, 40 CFR Part 144Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Introduction 11 April 2011  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 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 415Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 12 April 2011 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

DOE’s Proposed Action is to provide ADM with $141.4 million in financial assistance in a costsharing arrangement to demonstrate the ability of the Mt. Simon Sandstone, a major regional saline reservoir in the Illinois Basin, to accept and retain approximately 2.5 million short tons of

CO 2 injected over a period of 2.5 years (ADM, 2009a)

. This Proposed Action would also meaningfully assist in the nation’s economic reco very by creating jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

2.1 ADM’s Proposed Project

The objective of the pr oposed project evaluated in this EA is to demonstrate an integrated system of

CO 2 capture in an industrial setti ng and geologic sequestration in a sandstone reservoir. The CO 2 that would be sequestered is currently a by- product in ADM’s Decaturfuel-grade ethanol production facility. ADM would capture approximately one million tons of CO 2 per year using dehydration and compressi on. The compressed CO 2 would be piped approximately one mile to an injection well and sequestered in the Mt. Sim on Sandstone Formation, a saline reservoir.

The proposed project woul d include the construction of a co mpression/dehydration facility, approximately 5,290-feet (1,611 m) of 8-inch pipe line, 1,224 feet (373 m) of 24-inch pipeline, one electrical substation, up to 4.67 miles (7.52 kilometer (km)) of electrical power line, one injection well with associated equipment, a nd one verification well for monitoring of the sequestered CO 2 (ADM, 2010a; ADM, 2010b). The project w ould also include construction of a 12,000 ft 2 (1,115 m 2 ) building on the Richland Community College Campus – the National Sequestration Education Center (NSEC), a cente r for outreach and education that will be operated by and eventually owned by the College. The compression facility has a design capacity to capture and condition 2,183 short tons (1,980 me tric tons) per day of bi ogenically produced CO 2 from the ADM biofuels production plant. An additional 1,091 short tons (990 me tric tons) per day of

CO 2 from the MGSC project will be in cluded when that project comple tes its injection period in the first quarter of 2014. The project would not operate continuous ly at its design ca pacity and overall project production levels w ould be targeted at a ca rbon capture and st orage goal of up to one million short tons (0.9 million metric tons) per year by 2014. The captured CO 2 would be compressed, transported via pipelin e to the injection well, and injected in to the Mount Simon Sandstone reservoir for permanent geologic sequestration.

The proposed project would continue to refine previously developed Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) techniques and incorporat e new technologies to understand potential leakage pathways of the larger scale test, provide post-injection m onitoring, and provide assurance that health and safety requir ements are fully accounted for (DOE, 2008).

2.1.1 Project Location

The project site would be on the east side of the city of D ecatur, Illinois, in Macon County (Figure 2.1.1-1). This site would be located in Section 5 of Township 16 North Range 3 East, surveyed from the 3 rd Principal Meridian, and on flat terra in within the Decatur ADM Complex. The compression/dehydration facility would be located within the industrial complex to the southIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 13 April 2011 of the proposed injection well site (Figure 2.1.1-2). A pipeline would transport CO 2 as a supercritical fluid from the co mpression/dehydration facility to the injection well following, as much as possible, an existing pi peline corridor that transfers steam to the Richland Community College campus.

The ADM ICCS Site infrastructure would be integr ated into the current footprint of the Decatur ADM Complex and would be constructed north of the railroad tracks a nd south of the MGSC injection well (ADM, 2009b). No space outside the existing Decatur ADM Complex footprint would be required for the compression/dehydration f acility, except for a 200-foot (61 m) pipeline easement on the Richland Community College property. A field drainage ditch is located on the

northeast corner of the fi eld. Buildings, tank s, roads, etc., associated with manufacturi ng operations are also on the Decatur ADM Complex (DOE, 2008)

.Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 14 April 2011 Figure 2.1.1-1. Regional Vicinity Map ADM ICCS SiteIndustrial Carbon Capture and Se questration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 15 April 2011 Figure 2.1.1-2. Project Area MapIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 16 April 2011 2.1.2 Construction

Proposed new construction would include the construction of a compression/dehydration facility, approximately 5,290-feet (1,611 m) of 8-inch pres surized pipeline, 1,224 feet (373 m) of 24-inch pipe carrying CO 2 at approximately 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), one electrical substation, up to 4.67 miles (7.52 km) of electrical power line, and one injection well with associated equipment. The facility would include the CO 2 treatment, compression, and dehydration equipment nece ssary to condition the CO 2 from the ADM ethanol production plants. The facility would be capable of delivering approximately 1.0 m illion short tons per year. The pipeline would deliver the CO 2 from the compression/dehydration facility to the injection well (ADM, 2009a; ADM, 2010b)

.

2.1.2.1 CO 2 Supply

The proposed sequestration site at the ADM fac ility will be supplied with 99 percent pure CO 2 from the ethanol production part of ADM’s operations. The CO 2 will be moisture laden and at atmospheric pressure from the fermentation vess els, so it will need to be dehydrated and compressed to approximately 2500 pounds per square inch (psi) and delivered to the wellhead as supercritical CO 2

.

A 24-inch (61 centimeter (cm)) 1,224-ft pipe will carry the CO 2 at approximately 10 psig from the outlet of the booster gas blower to the dehydration/compression facility. The dehydration/compression facility is proposed near the northern boundary of the ADM facility.

The CO 2 will be dehydrated, compressed to approximately 2500 psig and 95 degrees Fahrenheit (F) , and then moved about 5,290-feet through an 8-inch (15.24 cm) pipe to the injection well

location. That well location will be on a trac t of approximately 207 acres, also owned by ADM and located adjacent to their plant (ADM, 2010b).

Outlet CO 2 streams from ethanol fermentor vents are typically 99% + pure CO 2 , saturated with water vapor at 80 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and atmospheric pressure. Common impurities are ethanol and nitrogen in the range of 600 to 1000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) each. Other impurities in lesser amounts often include oxygen, methanol, acetaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. Early compositional analysis of the s ource stream has aided in the equipment selection and materials specification.

2.1.2.2 Pressurized Pipeline

The pipeline that w ould transfer the CO 2 from the compression/dehydration facility to the CO 2 injection site would be an 8-inch diameter schedule 40 or 80 steel pipe designed to meet standards for the temperatur e and pressure of the CO 2 stream. The pressurized pipeline length would be approximately 5,290-foot (ADM, 2010b). The first 4,000 feet of the pipeline would be installed aboveground using existi ng pipe bridges and racks, and following the current pipeline alleys at the Decatur ADM Complex (Figure 2.1.1- 2). The pipeline would be located on Decatur ADM Complex property, until it r eaches Reas Bridge Road just south of Richland Community College (RCC). At this point, the pipeline will be routed underground and will use RCC’s property easement for about 200 feet (ft) until the pipeline reache s the ADM property line. TheIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 17 April 2011 pipeline would continue underground until it reache s the injection well (1,100 ft). The pipeline alignment would follow as much as possible the curre nt pipeline alleys or easements that deliver

steam to the Richland Commun ity College campus (ADM, 2010b).

2.1.2.3 Electrical Substation and Power Lines

A 100MW Electrical Substation with an area of 250,000 square feet (ft 2 ) (23,225 square meters (m 2 )) would be constructed and located on the form er golf course (ADM land) east of the ADM plant. The substation construction will include el ectrical power lines that connect the substation with the existing power grid. The power lines wi ll follow one of two possi ble corridors to make this connection as shown on Figure 2.1.1-2. Th e power line routing s hown as Alternative A would be 4.67 miles (7.52 km) in length. Alternative B routing would be 4.25 miles (6.8 km) in length. The substation would be constructed w ithin the ADM property. Power lines would be constructed either on ADM property or using ut ility easements that would be obtained from

property owners.

2.1.2.4 Injection Well

The injection well and verification well would be located in a field north of the primary industrial complex and east of the Richland Community College campus (Figure 2.1.1-2). Previously, this field was used fo r agriculture and agricultural expos itions that have left simple unoccupied structures on the injection site. The proposed injection rate is approximately one million short tons per year of supercritical CO 2 (ADM, 2010a, ADM, 2010b).

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 determined based on well logs, core sample s, and drill stem tests from the initial well drilled on the site pr ior to injection ( DOE, 2008).

For the anticipated Mt. Simon net thickness and permeability, reservoir modeling and nodal analyses suggest that an 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 adequate to meet the up to one million short tons a year injection rate into the injection t ubing. Although subsurface information will be available from the MGSC project , pre-drilling modeling may be re vised once well logs and core samples are recovered from the injection and rese rvoir monitoring well installation. Perforating the well casing would occur in th e Mt. Simon formation before CO 2 injection begins, assuming identification of a high permeability zone. If the poten tial injectivity of this interval is not large enough or the interval is not found, the well coul d be perforated at different depths and permeability tests conducted so that an appropria te injection interval could be determined ( DOE,

2008 ).

The installation, operation, and eventual closure of the injection well is carefully governed by a regulatory program—the UIC permit program ad ministered by USEPA, and delegated to qualified states such as the state of Illinois. ADM currently has a Class I – Non-Hazardous area permit for CO 2 injection.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 18 April 2011 ADM is in discussion with US EPA Region 5 and Illinois EPA regarding a permitting path forward and will comply with all Class VI injection well regulations.

USEPA’s UIC regulations prohibit injection we lls from causing “the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into an underground source of drinking wa ter, 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 Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDWs) by addressing the poten tial pathways through which injected fluids can mi grate into USDWs. These pr ogrammatic components are most recently described in a proposed rule for Cla ss VI injection wells, published in the Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 167 on Monday, August 31, 2009.

2.1.2.5 Quantifying the Fate of Injected CO 2

Pressure and gas composition in the well annulus can be continuously monitored to determine the integrity of the injection string and the packer inside the casing used to isolate the injection zone from the remainder of the well. Changes in pressure or composition can be rapidly detected using pressure sensors or analyzers and the well shut-in to determine the cause of the change.

The verification well drilled near the injection well will allow sampling of reservoir fluids as well as track the downhole temperature and pressu re. This will allow for monitoring of the

interaction of the CO 2 with the formation. While it will probably be too early to identify

mineralization of the CO 2 (via cores) in these wells, ADM s hould be able to get information on

the fate of the CO 2 as it interacts with the formation wa ter. In addition, time-lapse fluid sampling from these wells will allow deta iled geochemical analysis of the CO 2 /saline water

interaction.

The impact of NaCl concentrations on CO 2 solubility is well known and is shown in Duan and Sun (2003) and Duan, Sun, Zhu, and Chou (2006). Injected supercritical CO 2 will be partitioned between the injected free phase, CO 2 trapped by capillary forces to develop a resi dual saturation

of CO 2 , and CO 2 that will dissolve in the brine. Th e effects can be read ily modeled both in advance and, more accurately, once the injecti on well is drilled and site-specific data are

collected.

Cement integrity measurements would be run pe riodically to determine the status of the bond

between the rock and the well cas ing. Advanced ultrasonic devices can be used for more detailed analysis: characterization of formati on/cement and cement/casing interfaces, hydraulic communication maps, and monitoring of the cem ent degradation. Casing and tubing corrosion can be estimated using a variety of measurements.

2.1.2.6 Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO 2 Containment

Reservoir modeling would incorporate: data deve loped during the pre-inje ction site assessment period, data developed from the MGSC injectio n and reservoir monitoring wells drilledIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 19 April 2011 approximately 1 mile from the proposed injection site, data developed from the ICCS projects injection and reservoir monitoring wells, data colle cted when the MGSC project begins injection and from data collected when the ICCS project be gins injection. During Phase 1 of this project, the project team has characterized the projec t site using orthogonal two-dimensional (2D) seismic lines to confirm the geological structur e at the site and to test for any seismically resolvable faults that may exist. During Phase 2 of this project, the project team will conduct a full three-dimensional (3D) seismic survey to pr ovide additional detail of the geological structure at the site and better predict the CO 2 plume shape and development. Next, the injection 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 comprehensive site reservoir model. The model, when combined with information produced for the MGSC project, would enable better understanding of injected CO 2 distribution and potential reactivity of the CO 2 and CO 2 -laden brine with the re servoir and the seals.

The extent of the plume movement would be calculated through the dyn amic model after the input of every new data point. Continuous monitoring of downhole pressure will provide valuable input to the model on a frequent scal e. Periodic monitoring with a visual sampling program will allow frequent updating with rele vant plume migration imaging. Time-lapse logging in all wells, along with the full complement of monitori ng and verification technologies, will be input to the dynamic model as acquire d, and the model tuned to fit the data. The Monitoring, Verification and Accounting (MVA) program proposed for this project would allow the extent of the plume aerial to be a ssessed periodically (ADM, 2009a).

Microseismicity is commonly used for hydrofrac m onitoring in the oil and gas industry. In low permeability formations, real-time microseismicity events detection allows imaging the fracture extension to help controlling injection parameters (pressure and rate) to avoid fracturing the caprock. Fracture propagation and geomechani cal models can be calibrated by comparing observations and predictions. Temperature contrast between the injected CO 2 and the formation may favor the failure of comple tion components, which may also lead to microseismic events (ADM, 2009a).

The monitoring of the environment is essentially fo cused on the detection of leaks, either directly by monitoring CO 2 concentration and fluxes (together with other fracture-pathfinder geogas), or indirectly by measuring their c onsequences on the environment. This involves measurements in shallower formations (aquifers, vados e zone, surface, or atmosphere).

The project will also employ a combination of di rect air sampling and electronic monitors to

measure near surface CO 2 concentrations and along with si mple air safety detectors based on

OSHA standards.

2.1.2.7 Injection Well Surface Facilities

Temporary facilities and improvements would be constructed or placed at the ground surface within a 300 feet (91.44 m) by 300 f eet area in the immediate vicin ity of the injection well (see Figure 2.1.1-2). These facilities, many of which are temporary to the dr illing activity, would support well construction. At the conclusion of the well construction the temporary facilitiesIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 20 April 2011 would be removed leaving only an access road and pad around the injection wellhead. The site would be fenced off and monitored daily. Du ring well construction the temporary facilities

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 separated 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),

 20 parking stalls,

 Three operations trailers,

 An office/conference room facility, and

 A communications shack.

2.1.2.8 Community College Outreach Facility

The ICCS project will also include construc tion of a building on the Richland Community College Campus – the National Sequestration Education Center (NSEC), a center for outreach and education that will be operated by and ev entually owned by the College. This 12,000 ft 2

(1,115 m 2 ) building will be located at the entrance to the developed (Farm Progress Site) area north of the Richland Community College Campus.

2.1.3 Operations and Maintenance

2.1.3.1 General

The proposed total project period injection of approximately 2.5 million short tons of supercritical CO 2 , at the rate of up to one million short tons per year would use the Mt. Simon formation as a target storage zone. Inject ion would be by one well at the Decatur ADM Complex. There is one operating 88-foot d eep hydrocarbon well site near the Decatur ADMIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 21 April 2011 Complex, and the closest known penetration of the Mt. Simon formation is the MGSC injection and reservoir monitoring well located north of the compression/dehydration facility. These wells are beyond the radius of influence (1,250 feet (381 m)) of the pr oposed injection well.

Prior to injection, the CO 2 stream would need to be dewatered and compressed. The minimum compression is to the critical point of CO 2 , which is 88 ° F (31.1 degrees Celsius (°C)) and 73 atmospheres pressure (7,395 kilopascals (kPa)).

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, and it will be carefully controlled in view of the hi gh pressure of the system proposed.

All well construction materials will be acid-resist ant and are duplicates of those used in the MGSC well, which uses CO 2 -resistant cement across the reservoir and primary seal, and 13- chrome steel casing in the lower 2,00 0 ft of the injection and seal z one and in the entire length of the injection tubing. The packer utilized will also be constructed of CO 2 -resistant metals and special elastomers rated for CO 2 service.

Non-potable saline water is pr oduced during drill stem testi ng and on-going sampling from the verification well (DOE, 2008). In addition, water byproduct of the CO 2 conditioning process prior to injection would be condensation water from the dehydr ation, which would consist of essentially distilled water with a small mole fr action of triethylene gl ycol (TEG) and perhaps

traces of ethanol. This fluid would be handled through the existing ADM wastewater system for treatment, testing, and disposal.

Noise control would be maintained by housing co mpressors and noise-generating equipment 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 project 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 are addressed by design considerations of th e compression-dehydration system. Corrosion monitoring would be an integral part of the operations of th e aboveground facilities. Once operational without significan t corrosion, the compression-dehydr ation system would be a simple operation with little environmental impact.

Target Zone

The chosen target zone is the Mt. Simon fo rmation. The estimated top of the Mt. Simon formation is between 5,000 and 6,000 feet ( 1.52 – 1.83 km) at the Decatur ADM Complex (DOE, 2008). It is very th ick sandstone, overlain by the impermeable Eau Claire shale

formation. The estimated Eau Claire thic kness is 300-500 feet (91.44 – 152.40 m) in the injection area. Further, impermeable confini ng formations are the Maquoketa shale (about 2,500Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 22 April 2011 feet (762 m) below grade) and at lesser dept h still the New Albany shale (1,800 feet (548.64 m) below land surface).

Unlike the MGSC carbon sequestration project, there is no need to set aside a long leading time period for the evaluation of the ta rget zone, selection of the inj ection zone within the Mt. Simon formation, and construction of infrastructure and facilities prior to commencing project operations. A significant amount of data has been acquired to char acterize the target zone during the MGSC project as well as the ICCS projec t Phase 1 and planned activity during the Phase 2 design and construction periods.

The ICCS well has a close enough proximity (less th an 1 mile from the MGSC Phase 3 injection and monitoring wells) that the information deve loped from the MGSC project (well cores and logs) should be similar and applicable to the ICCS well. The ADM project will confirm parameters of porosity and permeability, but the time required for this evaluation is significantly reduced from what was requi red for the MGSC project.

The distance between the two project’s injection wells is approximately 1 mile; therefore, no significant differences between the two sites have been observed or are expected. Additionally, the MGSC project should be in the operation period (injecting) for approximately one year before operations commence for the ICCS project. Because of these factors, the ICCS project has no requirement for additional data acquisition or monitoring to occur between the construction (drilling) and ope rational (injection) period.

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

 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 reac tions in the target zone. Models of one million metric tonnes of injected CO 2 after a one hundred year post-inj ection period show that injected

CO 2 will not reach the base of the Eau Claire shale making the long-term potential for

dissolution of the sh ale highly unlikely. 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 regulations. Prior to injection well operation, ADM would run 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 Injec tion Control Regulations and defined in the UIC permit

modification.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 23 April 2011 Tests of the Mt. Simon Formation

Site-specific geologic information has been developed for the MG SC carbon sequestration project. The evaluation of data collected during dril ling, evaluation, and initi al operation of the MGSC injection well would be used to determ ine final depths of in jection and operational conditions for the ICCS project. Geologic, geomechanical, and operational information collected during well installation, evalua tion, and operation 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.

2.1.3.3 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 (DOE, 2008).

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, and release of a larg e gas cloud as the supe rcritical fluid is

converted to CO 2 gas. The gas is nontoxic, but a sudde n, 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 (DOE, 2008).

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 has significant past experience compressing, treating, and handling CO 2 liquids. ADM has a well established emergency response plan that coordinates with the appropriate external agencies and is aligned with the needs of an integrated manufacturing complex. These established procedures will be appl ied and, if needed, modified to suit the needs of this specific process, therefore ADM will have contingency a nd maintenance plans to avoid and to respond to leaks, explosions, and overpressure events.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 24 April 2011 The process control system for the CO 2 compression facility is desi gned to prevent and to alert operations personnel in the even t of a significant deviation of the normal operating process parameters (e.g., CO 2 temperature, pressure, and flow). For example, in the event of an overpressure event, the process control system will automatically spillback CO 2 to the first stage of compression reducing the flow to the injection we ll. If the over pressure situation persists, the control system will open the atmospheric vent to bring the pressure down. During this period, the operations personnel will receive numerous alarms alerting them of the process deviation allowing them the opportunity to take corrective actions.

In the event of a failure, the compression facil ity will be equipped with emergency stops and automated isolation valves that will allow operati ons personnel to quickly shutdown, isolate, and depressurize the unit. These and other systems along with personnel traine d on the unit specific operating and maintenance procedures will promote safe operation of the plant. Additionally, all unit operations and maintenance personnel will be given safety and emergency response training prior to commissioning the unit.

This facility will be designed and constructed to meet appropriate ASME standards, e.g., the process piping will be designed in conforman ce with the ASME B31.3 standard. Existing standards that govern mechanical integrity (e.g. API 510) were developed for facilities processing flammable and reactive materials. This facility will be processing CO 2 which is non flammable and non reactive, therefore these stan dards are not appropriate for this process

service. Because ADM understand s the hazards that compressed CO 2 presents and to insure the mechanical integrity of the facility, maintena nce and inspection procedures will be developed that will cover the future operation of the CO 2 compression and transmission infrastructure.

Emergency response and mechanical integrity te sting specific to the sub surface facility (injection well bore), has been developed and is detailed in the UIC permit’s Appendices.

2.1.4 Decommissioning

ADM would have two choi ces available to them:

First, they may decide to con tinue the sequestration project as part of their ongoing operations. In that case, regulatory approval would be obtained as necessary.

Second, if they do not choose to continue or if the demonstration project has not shown unequivocally favorable results, the plant site does not require decomm issioning immediately. However, the well would have to be abandoned, a nd the pipeline could be abandoned in place or the aboveground sections removed. Well aba ndonment would be according to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) UIC re gulations. All decommissioning would be done in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

2.2 AlternativesIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 25 April 2011 DOE’s alternatives to this project consist of the 83 technically acceptable applications received in response to the Funding Opportunity Announcement, Carbon Capture and Sequestration from

Industrial Sources and Innovativ e Concepts for Beneficial CO 2 Use. Prior to selection, DOE made preliminary determinations regarding th e level of review required by NEPA based on potentially significant impacts identified in re views of acceptable applications. DOE conducted these preliminary environmenta l reviews pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 1021.216. These preliminary NEPA determinations and reviews were provided to the selecting official, who considered them during the selection process. A synopsis of the potential envi ronmental consequences of the proposed projects is attached as Appendix G, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 1021.216 (h).

Because DOE’s Proposed Action is limited to providing financial assistance in cost-sharing arrangements to projects submitted by applic ants in response to a competitive funding opportunity, DOE’s decision is limited to either accep ting or rejecting the project as proposed by the proponent, including its propo sed technology and selected site s. DOE’s consideration of

reasonable alternatives is theref ore limited to the technically a cceptable applic ations and a noaction alternative for each selected project.

2.2.1 No-Action

DOE’s provision of cost sharing in ADM’s proposed project is the Federal action that brings the proposed project under NEPA . Under the No-Action alternative, DOE would not provide partial funding for the proposed project. In the absence of DOE funding, project proponents (ADM) would not proceed with the proposed pr oject tasks. Thus, the components of the proposed project (including bu ilding of a compression/dehyd ration and injection of CO 2 facility)

would not occur under the No -Action alternative.

2.3 Issues Considered and Dismissed

The Purpose and Need section above highlighted the importance of th e overall program of evaluating ICCS as one tool among many to address global climate change while providing this nation with a secure energy futu re. Many potential impact issu es associated with EAs were reviewed to compile this EA. B ecause of the lack of potential impact to certain issues due to the specific characteristics of the proposed project, the following issues were considered but 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternatives 26 April 2011 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.

Harm Tribal Lands No lands affili ated with Native American tribes would be impacted by ADM’s Proposed Project.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

The Environmental Analysis Approach 27 April 2011 3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH

This chapter describes how the environmental review team analyzed the potential impacts of this ADM’s Proposed Project (i.e., injection and analysis of potential for geologic storage of CO 2 ). Chapter 4 provides a description of the affected environment and the potential environmental effects of ADM’s proposed project along with an analysis of environmental effects if the proposed project 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 pr oject site to study the potential 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. This served as the framework of the an alysis of impacts. That is, the team focused their efforts on answering these questions as to wh ether these effects would in fact occur, and if so, how extensive, how severe, and how long-lasting they would be.

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 the 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. Site clearing could

cause Soil erosion? which could

cause Damage to stream species?Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

The Environmental Analysis Approach 28 April 2011 Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds

Resource Area Impact Significance Thresholds 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 Pl an under the Clean Air Act.

Geologic Formations The proposed project 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 r easonable 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 reas onable time. Mitigation, if needed, would be proven to be effective in previous applications.

Wetlands and Floodplains Any impacts to wetlands/floodplains would be confined to the immediate project area and would not cause any regional impacts. Planned mitigation measures would fully compensate for lost wetlan d 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 resources. 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 reso urce. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size of th e 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. This negligible effect would equate to a “no effect”

determination in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service terms.

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 ICCS Site or in adjacent areas. The affected areas would fully recover in a reasonabl e time once the project is completed.

Population and Employment Changes to the normal or routine functions of the affected comm unity 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

The Environmental Analysis Approach 29 April 2011 Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds

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

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 mitigation, would not permanently change the visual landscape in a way that is objectionable 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 groups 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 planned 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. The consultations with the SHPO and any other potentially affected groups would result in the determination of effect under

Section 106 of the NHPA of 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 po ses 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 30 April 2011

& 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 NAAQS, and identification of app licable 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 (54.6 cm) (DOE, 2008).

4.1.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality St andards and Attainment Status

USEPA Region 5 and the IEPA re gulate air quality in Illinois. The CAA (42 USC 7401-7671q), as amended, gives the USEPA the responsibility to establish the primary and secondary NAAQS (40 CFR Part 50) that set acceptable concentrat ion levels for seven criteria pollutants: PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , CO, nitrogen oxides (NO

x ), O 3 , and lead. Short-term standards (1-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) have been established fo r pollutants contributing to acute health effects, while long-term standards (annual averages) have been establishe d for pollutants contributing to chronic health effects. Based on the severity of the polluti on problem, nonattainment ar eas are categorized as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Each state has the author ity 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 projec t area is completely within the West Central Illinois Intrastate AQCR (AQ CR 075) (40 CFR 81.264). Federal regulations designate AQCR 075 as an attainment area for all criteria pollu tants (40 CFR 81.314). Because the project area is in an attainment region, the air conformity re gulations do not apply. However, the project’s emissions of criteria pollutants and the appli cability thresholds under the general conformity

rules were carried forward for more detailed an alysis to determine the level of impact under

NEPA.

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 project area (Table 4.1.1.3). With the exception of theIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 31 April 2011

& Environmental Effects eight-hour O 3 and PM 2.5 standards, air-quality measurem ents are below the NAAQS (USEPA, 2008). The reported maximum of 0.091 parts per million (ppm) for the eight-hour level exceeds the standard of 0.08 ppm within th e region. However, the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average O 3 concentrations over each year has not exceeded 0.08 ppm; hence, the area is in attainment. The repor ted 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 and was granted attainment status.

Table 4.1.1.3. NAAQS and Monitored Ai r 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 Sangamon County 1-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) 35 (None) 3

NO 2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm)

1-Hour Maximum 8 (ppm) 0.053

0.100 0.053

0.100 (no data available) -

Ozone

8-Hour Maximum 4 (ppm) 0.08 0.12 0.069 Macon County

PM 2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean 5 (μg/m 3 ) 15 15 12 Macon County 24-Hour Maximum 6 (μg/m 3 ) 35 35 29

PM 10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 7 (μg/m 3 ) 50 50 24 Macoupin County 24-Hour Maximum 3 (μg/m 3 ) 150 150 54

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

24-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm) 0.14 (None) 0.025 Macon County

3-Hour Maximum 3 (ppm)

1-Hour maximum 9 (ppm) - 0.075 0.5 (None) 0.042

0.050

1 - Source: 40 CFR 50.1-50.12. 2 - Source: (USEPA, 2008). 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

. 8 - To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of th e daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb) (effective January 22, 2010). 9 - Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at e ach monitor within an ar ea must not exceed 75 ppb.

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, andIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 32 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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. CO 2 emissions are not reported by the facili ty since the first an nual reporting of CO 2 emissions under the USEPA Reporting Rule is for calendar year 2010.

Table 4.1.1.4. Existing (2009) Air Em issions for Decatur ADM Complex

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

CO 2993.5

NO

x 1685.34

PM 10 1,478.5

PM 2.5 415.36

SO 2 7087.5

VOC 3543.29 Source: (ADM, 2010c).

4.1.1.5 Greenhouse Gases 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 (CCAR), there are six GHGs: CO 2 , nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFC s), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) (UNFCCC, 2008; 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. Within the United States, foss il 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 (DOE, 2008). 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).

Since 1900, the Earth's average surface air temperat ure has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4oF. The eight warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred with in the past 10 years, with the warmest year being 2005 (USEPA, 2009a). With this in mind, DOE, while preserving their core operations, is poised to support c limate-changing initiatives to reduce GHG emissions.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 33 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 4.1.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

Short-term minor impacts to air quality would be expected with the implementation of the proposed project. 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. Dehydration re boilers, which could generate lim ited air emissions, would be the only expected sources of air emissions dur ing injection or mon itoring operations. In summary, the project would not produce emissions th at would impede the area’s conformity with the State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act.

4.1.2.1 Estimated Emissions and General Conformity

The general conformity rules re quire Federal agencies to dete rmine whether action(s) they engage in or permit 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 loca tion. Because AQCR 075 is in attainment, the air conformity regulations do not apply. However, all direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants were estimated and compared to applic ability threshold levels of 100 short tons per year (tpy) to determine whether implementation of the proposed project 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, cons truction, and drilling,

 Construction and operation of transport pipeline,

 Operation and maintenance of injection facilities, and

 Subsurface injections of CO 2

.

Construction and drilling emissions would primarily be due to the use of diesel drilling rigs, mud pumps, diesel generators and motors, heavy cons truction equipment, deliveries to the site, the application of architectural coatings, and f ugitive 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 for the well. The operational em issions would primarily be due to vehicle operation and the proposed natural gas-fired deh ydration reboiler in the regenerator column. There are no planned operational activities along the proposed pipeli ne or at the well sites that would generate emissions of criteria pollutants.

The total direct and indirect em issions associated with the pro posed project 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 size and scope of the proposed project, it is not anticipated that the estimated emissions would ma ke up 10 percent or more of regional emissions for any criteria pollutant and not be regionally significant. A detailed breakdown of drilling, construction, and operation emissions is located in Appendix A.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 34 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Table 4.1.2.1. Proposed Project Emissions Compared to Applicability Thresholds

Annual emissions (Short Tons Per Year) De minimis

threshold (Short Tons

Per Year) Would emissions exceed applicability thresholds? [Yes/No] Activity (Annual) CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 Drilling and

Construction 4.8 8.7 1.17 <0.01 0.4 0.4

100 No Facility Operations 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

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), PSD, and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for selected categories of industrial sources. In addition, under the National Emi ssion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), new and modified sta tionary sources of air emissions may be subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requireme nts 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 regulations are outlined in Title 35 of th e Illinois Administrative Code Subpart B, Air Emission Regulations (IPCB, 2002).

The Decatur ADM Complex is in an attain ment area and would introduce a limited 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.

4.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Direct and Indirect CO 2 Emissions. Carbon emissions from th e Decatur ADM Complex would be captured and sequestered in the Mt. Simon deep saline reservoir. It is anticipated that approximately 2.5 million short tons of CO 2 would be sequestered dur ing the initial 2.5-yearIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 35 April 2011

& Environmental Effects injection period. However, the overall amount of CO 2 generated would increase due to the burning of diesel fuel during drilling, the a dditional electrical demand (10-12 megawatt (MW)),

and worker commutes. The net CO 2 emissions for the project we re estimated (Table 4.1.2.3). A net decrease of approximately 2.3 million short tons of CO 2 emission would be realized over the life of the project. These 2.5 million short tons of CO 2 are currently vented to the atmosphere and would not be if the proposed project were implemented. This is less than 0.0001% of the global CO 2 emissions. The addition al 190,177 short tons of CO 2 from the drilling, construction, and electricity usage would not be generated at all without th e implementation of the proposed project.

Table 4.1.2.3. Net CO 2 Emissions for ADM’s Proposed Project

Activity/Source Emissions (Short Tons)
Drilling and Construction 494 Electricity Usage 188,587

Worker Commutes 602 Sequestration (2,500,000)

Total Emissions Reduction (2,309,823)

Fugitive CO 2 Emissions and Compressor Blowdown. Because sequestration of CO 2 is an integral part of research a nd development activities for the proposed project, fugitive air

emissions of CO 2 would occur during routine operations. Sources of emissions during sequestration operations include aboveground valv es, piping, and wellheads that comprise the transmission pipeline. In addition, compresso rs are often equipped with automatic blowdown valves that depressurize compressors, bottles, se parators, and interconnect ing lines in the event

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 project. 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 fug itive emissions would not increase overall CO 2 emissions.

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 allow for 2.5 million short tons

of CO 2 not to be sequestered, and therefore vent ed into the atmosphere. This would incrementally increase the amount of GHG in the atmosphere and continue to contribute to global warming.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 36 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 generated by the proposed project, when considered in addition to comparable emissions from the related MGSC project, would be de minimis and would not be regionally significant. Therefore, it is not anti cipated that the proposed project would contribute substantially to adverse cumulative effects to air quality.

4.2 Geology and Soils

4.2.1 Description

The ADM ICCS Facility is located on the east side of the city of Decatur, Illinois, which lies in Macon County (Section 5 of Town ship 16 North Range 3 East). The sites are located on the existing Decatur ADM Complex. Pr oject activities are planned north east of the main ADM plant in an open field owned by ADM. The land use of the Decatur ADM Complex is characterized as industrial, although the area has been previously leased for agricultural uses (DOE, 2008). Water bodies in the vicinity include Lake D ecatur, which was formed in 1920s by the damming of the Sangamon River, a principal tributary of the Illinois River (Decatur, 2008a; IDNR, 2003). This river and reservoir provide surface draina ge for the surrounding land and water supply for the city of Decatur (Decatur, 2008a ). The sites are lo cated on essentially flat topography with slopes less than 5% as determined from topogr aphic maps covering th e area. There is no evidence of karst topography (such as sinkholes) in the area (DOE, 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 formations 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 sites is the MGSC Phase III injection and reservoir monitoring wells. They are about 3,900 feet (1,200 meters) to the south of the proposed injection well location.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 37 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Figure 4.2.1-1. Illinois Basin’s Stratigra phic Column of Key Formations for CO 2 Injections
Source: (DOE, 2008).Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 38 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Core and well data from the existing well, dr illed for the Midwest Geologic Sequestration Consortium project 1 , located less than one mile from the pr oposed site, demons trate that 497 feet of the Eau Claire Formation are present. The upper 300 feet of the Eau Claire Formation at this location are comprised of tight dolomitic siltstone, dolomite, and limestone, in descending order.

The bottom 197 feet of the Eau Claire is shale wi th little or no carbonate stingers present. Geochemical and geophysical analyses confirm the presence of this thick shale. X-ray diffraction and other geochemical analysis are currently underway on the Eau Claire samples and information from these analyses will be in cluded in subsequent UIC Class VI permit applications. Mapping from regional data suggests that the gross thickness of the Mt. Simon is 1,000 to 1,600 feet (304.8 – 487.68 m) at the two sites. The nearest well w ith a porosity log for the entire thickness of the Mt. Simon, the MGSC Phase III site, was drilled on ADM property 3,900 feet from the proposed project. The MGSC III well drilled through 7164.7 feet of Mt. Simon before drilling into the Pr ecambrian granite (Weibel, 2010).

The gross thickness of the MGSC III well had an average porosity, calculated from wireline logs, of 13.4 percent and a permeability of 26 milidarcy s. The MGSC III well log porosity data are similar to those found in the Hinton #7, the deep est well at the Manlove Field in Champaign County, approximately 37 miles (59.55 km) northeast of the project area. The Manlove Field is the deepest Mt. Simon natural gas storage field in the Illinois Basin (DOE, 2008).

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 sites. For the CO 2 injection portion of this research project, the injection in terval would not be the entire th ickness of the Mt. Simon; rather

it would be a subinterval within the gross thickness of this massi ve sandstone geologic unit that has acceptable permeability properties (DOE, 2008).

Analysis of Mt. Simon Sandstone th in sections from 90 feet (27 m) of core demonstrate that the sandstone is cemented by silicate cements with little to no evid ence of carbonate cements.

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 only two known penetrations. The MGSC III project’s injection a nd reservoir monitoring wells ar e located about 3,900 feet from the proposed injection well. The next nearest pene tration of the Eau Claire seal is over 17-miles (27.36 km) from the site. The MGSC well is being continually monitored for integrity and other parameters. Thus, there are no existing wellbores whose integrity would be of concern. All three major seals are laterally extensive and appe ar, from subsurface wireline correlations, to be continuous within a 100-mile (160.93 km) radi us of the site locations (DOE, 2008).

The primary confining zone (seal) at the sites 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 proposed sites. Th e estimated top of the Eau Claire Formation

1 The legal name of this well is ADM CCS #1. For the purpose of distinguishing existing wells from proposed ICCS project wells, this well is identified as an “MGSC well” in this document.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 39 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 sites, cores were obtained 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 Claire Formation are expected to be relatively tight a nd would tend to act as sealing lithologies (DOE, 2008).

There are two secondary seals ex pected at the sites. The Or dovician-age Maquoketa Shale is laterally continuous across the s ites and is estimated to be ove r 200 feet (60.96 m) thick at the sites 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 (DOE, 2008).

There are no mapped regional faults and fractur es within a 25-mile (40.23 km) radius of the proposed sites. A preliminary 2-D seismic surv ey has been completed during Phase I of the ICCS as well as a 3-D and vertical seismic pr ofile (VSP) as part of the MGSC project. Additional 3-D and VSP data are pl anned as part of this project to further characterize the site geology and monitor the fate of the CO 2

.

Soils. Soils in the area were mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Figure 4.2.1-2). Nine loam units have been mapped with in the project site with Drummer silty clay loam (152), and Flanagan silt loam (154A) as mo st prevalent of the loam types. The most common soil type is the Flanagan silt loam. This is a nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil located on broad ridges on till plains and moraines. The soil is not highly susceptible to erosion due to the flat topography. Drummer, which is characterized by a near ly level poorly drained soil that occurs in broad, flat areas on outwash or till plains, is not highly susceptible to erosion due to the flat topography. The la nd capability classification, or the su itability of a soil type for a particular field crop, for the Flanagan and Dr ummer soil types are moderately limited in the selection of species and require moderate conservation measures (NRCS, 2008). Specifically for these soil types, the land capab ility class of IIw denote that excess water (ponding/flooding) can interfere with crop productivity.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 40 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Figure 4.2.1-2. Map of Soil Types over the ADM ICCS Facility Site Source: (NRCS, 2007).Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 41 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Source: (NRCS, 2009).

At the sites, the low topogra phic relief suggests that there is essentially no potential for landslides, and negligible risk of subsidence (DOE, 2008).

4.2.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

The main potential negative effects of the proposed project (injection of approximately 2.5

million short tons of CO 2 over 2.5 years) are identified in the following paragraphs with accompanying notations regarding th eir 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 surrounding 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). Under these circumstances, the injected CO 2 would have had time to interact with organic and mineral matter in the reservoir and potentiall y contain dissolved organic compounds and other

contaminants. In related CO 2 -Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) e xperience when sudden releases have occurred, the main adverse outcome to so ils around the wellhead has been well blowout of dry ice contaminated with crude o il. There is no expectation of a ny crude oil in the reservoir at

the ADM sites.

Relatively slow leakage from the well bores due to casing and/or cement problems are likely to be detected ahead of time by the Mechanical Inte grity Testing likely to be proposed in the UIC Permit application (DOE, 2008).Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 42 April 2011

& Environmental Effects MGSC models of one million metric tons of injected CO 2 after a one hundred year post-injection period show that injected CO 2 will not reach the base of the Eau Claire shale making the longterm potential for dissolution of the sh ale and subsequent leakage of the CO 2 highly unlikely.

The Mt. Simon Sandstone is a clean, second-cycl e sediment dominated by silicate minerals cemented by quartz. The availability of cations su ch as calcium is limited; therefore, the ability of precipitates to form and alter injectability is limited. The reaction rate for carbonate cement to form is very slow. Since the expected time pe riod for carbonate cement formation is hundreds to thousands of years post-injection, th e increase of availability of CO 2 in the Mt. Simon brine is highly unlikely to decrease permeability.

The USGS National Earthquake Information Center website (http://earthquake.usgs .gov/regional/neic/ ) indicates no record of signi ficant seismic activity (M3 or greater) in Macon County.

The nearest earthquakes, all in the M3 to M3.99 range are

1. in southeastern Christian County, about 28 miles from the injection site

2. in northern Piatt County, about 32 miles from the injection site

3. just south of Bloomington, in central McLean County, about 38 miles from the injection

site

The proposed injection site in Decatur Illinois is well away from the New Madrid and Wabash Valley seismic zones and there is no site-specific ma nifestation of these zones at the Decatur site. In fact, there are no mapped regional faults or fracture zones with a 25-mile radius of the proposed site. Thus, there are no evident planes of failure that could po tentially allow bedrock movement that would impact the in tegrity of the site and with a ny possible relationship to fluid injection pressures that coul d activate these surfaces.

Seismicity in the southern Illinois region of the Wabash Valley seismic zone is related to deepseated northeast trending normal and strike-slip faulting in the Precambrian basement. Decatur

is not on this trend and in fact this structural trend angles away from Decatur as you proceed

north from southern Illinois.

The nine largest events in this zone from 1958 to 1987 occurred at depths of 16,100 to 76,800 ft, much too deep to be affected by any fluid inject ion in the Mt. Simon Sandstone at Decatur, and

not at the distances involved. Additionally, the earthquakes of r ecord do not correlate with any known structures in the Paleozoic sedimentary section, which includes the Mt. Simon, thus any impact from daily injection pressures at Decatur is highly unlikely. Any microseismic activity detectable by instruments (not an earthquake) is likely to be related to fluid flow through tortuous pathways in the injection zone.

Timothy H. Larson, Ph. D., Geophysicist with Illinoi s State Geological Survey states that a deep well injection for disposing of waste has not cause d seismic activity. He also believes that the injection pressures of the CO 2 at the Decatur site are not hi gh enough to cause fracturing of the rock. High injection pressures have resulted in seismic activities in other areas of the U.S.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 43 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 project do not take place. Thus, no im pacts to soils and geology would occur.

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects

ADM has no other projects planned for the area (ADM, 2010d). Since th ere are no substantial impacts to geological and soil resources from th e proposed project or the related MGSC project with its comparable effects, the proposed project and the No-Action alternative do not substantially contribute to the cumulative impacts 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 proposed project si te. Lake Decatur is a 3,090 acre reservoir formed by the damming of th e 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 project site ( 05573540: Sangamon River at Route 48) and the Sangamon Dam. Hydrometric records from 19 83-2007 indicate an annual mean flow of 693 cubic feet (ft 3 )/second (sec) (211.23 cubic meter (m 3 )/sec) and recorded a maximum peak flow of 31,800 ft 3 /sec (9692.64 m 3 /sec) in May of 2002 (USGS, 2007).

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 the 1978-1997 sampling period (DOE, 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. TheIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 44 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 ICCS project 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 yieldi ng significant amounts of water (usually greater than 1,000 gallons per minute or approximately greater than 3,800 liters per minute). Other shallower aquifers are found in the Banner Form ation, the Glasford Formation, and more recent

sediments (DOE, 2008)

.

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 (DOE, 2008).

4.3.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

The current regulatory framework for USEPA’s UIC permitting program includes multiple provisions for safeguarding and pr eventing injected fluid moveme nt into USDWs (See Section 2.1.2.4). The permitted Class I injection wells on the ADM site would employ accepted industry standards in meeting the specified permit provisions and conditions.

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 (approximately 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 ICCS Site because of the:

 Depth of the proposed injection zone,

 Multiple sequences of shale seals between the injection zone and USDW, and

 Absence of seismic activity in the local area.

The main potential negative effects of the pr oposed project 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 project because of th e well technology to be used and the expertise of the technology providers. If it does occur, such an event is unlikely toIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 45 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 contaminants. 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). There is no exp ectation of any crude oil in the reservoir at the ADM sites.

Relatively slow leakage from the well bore due to casing and/or cement problems are easily detected ahead of time by the Mechanical Integr ity Testing likely to be 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. Potential impacts to groundwater will also be anticipated and mi nimized by implementation 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. These include the number of intervening confining layers that occur between the in jection zone and USDWs, thickness of those confin ing 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 form seals for known hydrocarbon traps within the basi n (DOE, 2008). The lowermost seal, the Eau Claire, has only two known penetrations. Th e MGSC III project’s in jection and reservoir monitoring wells are located about 3,900 feet from the proposed inj ection well. The next nearest penetration of the Eau Claire se al is over 17-miles from the site. However, the MGSC well is being continually monitored for integrity and other parameters. Thus , there are no existing wellbores whose integrity would be of concern. All three major seals are laterally extensive and appear, from subsurface wireline correlations, to be continuous within a 100-mile radius of the project site (DOE, 2008).

Section 4.2.1 also states that the expected thicknesses of the confining layers at the project site are substantial, likely measuring 300-500 feet for the primary Eau Claire formation, over 200 feet for the Maquoketa formation, and 140 feet for the New Albany Shale formation. The shallower secondary formations have already dem onstrated their effectiveness as regional seals for oilfields (DOE, 2008).

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 permeabilityIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 46 April 2011

& Environmental Effects values as high as 0.871 mD are expected to be relatively tight and te nd to act as sealing lithologies (DOE, 2008).

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 (DOE , 2008) application, no faults ha ve been documented within 25 miles (40.23 km) of the project site. Section 4.2. 1 indicates a preliminary 2-D seismic survey has been completed during Phase I of the ICCS as well as a 3-D and VSP as part of the MGSC project. Additional 2-D, 3-D, and VSP data ar e planned to further characterize the site geology

and monitor the fate of the CO 2

. There is no specific data avai lable on the fracture pressure of the Eau Claire Formation, but there are indications of successful storage of gas in the Mt. Simon without fracturing the over lying Eau Claire for 10 underground natural gas storage reservoirs in Illinois operating in the Mt. Simon at depths ranging from 1,420 to 3,950 feet (432.82 to 1,203 m) (DOE, 2008).

The injection process does not re quire substantial volumes of water. 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 to the east of the ADM ICCS site. As described earlier, a sudden CO 2 release to the surface causes formation of dry ice and frozen formation water, and the e ffects 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, ADM will obt ain all necessary permits for construction storm water discharges (ADM, 2010d).

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.

4.3.3 Effects of No-Action

If the No-Action alternative is implemented, the construction and injection activities of the proposed project 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 (ADM, 2010d). Since th ere are no substantial impacts to water resources from the proposed pr oject or the related MGSC project with its comparable effects, the proposed project and th e No-Action alternative do not substantially contribute to the cumulative impacts to these re sources in the project area or its vicinity.

4.4 Wetlands and FloodplainsIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 47 April 2011

& Environmental Effects This section identifies and describes wetlands and floodplains potentially impacted by the proposed project. In addition, this secti on provides the required floodplain and wetland assessment and public review for complian ce with 10 CFR Part 1022, “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmen tal Review Requirements.”

4.4.1 Description

There are no wetlands designated within the pr oject area boundaries according to the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS, 1987)(See Appendix H). The facility would be built within the existing industrial setting of the Decatur ADM Co mplex, and the project facilities would not be located near any wetland area. The nearest wetl and is located adjacent to the western boundary of the ADM complex with a road separating it from the project site (DOE, 2008).

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, 2009a). Palustrine system designations include all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, emergent mosses, or lichens.

Project construction that would be nearest to the wetland un it is the proposed electrical lines. These lines would be located along ADM’s west ern property boundary al ong the east side of North Brush College Road, with the road pass ing between the wetland unit and the proposed

electrical lines.

There are no floodplains in the ADM complex area. The nearest floodplain is associated with an unnamed tributary off the Sangamon River and Lake Decatur to the east of the project site approximately 0.36 miles (0.58 km) (Illinois Stat e Water Survey, 1996). Figure 4.4.1 shows the location of the floodplains to the test site.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 48 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Figure 4.4.1. Floodplains near the ADM ICCS Site

4.4.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

As there are no wetlands or floodplains in the project site, wetland re sources and floodplains would not be impacted by construction of th e proposed project. The injection well and

verification well would be drille d far enough away so that there would be no impacts to the wetland located outside the study area. Furthermor e, it is not likely th at wetlands would be impacted by the discharge of wastewater from proj ect activities. Similarly, the well would be far enough away so that there would be no impacts to floodplains.

Only the proposed electrical lines are near the identified wetland unit on the west side of North Brush College Road. At this location, the elect rical lines would be placed on new wooden poles

constructed on the east side of North Brush Co llege Road. The ground disturbance associated

with the electrical line construction is minima l and will have only a negligible effect on the

wetlands unit at this location.

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 proj ect site. Wetland vegetation and water quality could be impacted by increased concentrations of CO 2 , possibly resulting inIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 49 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 proj ect would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.4.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the proposed proj ect would not be implemented. No impacts to wetlands or floodplains w ould 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.

When considering the effects of these ongoing pr ojects, along with minimally adverse effects generated by the related MGSC project, the pr oposed project would not pose any additional threats to wetlands or floodplains in the proj ect area, aside from the unlikely leakage of CO 2 to the surface from either this project or the re lated project, which would have widespread consequences on wetlands and floodplains. Howeve r, given the larger im pacts to wetlands and floodplains from other past, present, and future activities, cumulative impacts contributed by the proposed project would be minimally adverse and are not expected to ex ceed the threshold of significance.

4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation

4.5.1 Description

The proposed new project faciliti es would be located in an area characterized by the Bailey Ecoregion classification as the Prairie Parkland (Temperate) Pr ovince of the Prairie Division (National Atlas, 2008). This ecore gion covers an extensive area fr om Canada to Oklahoma, with alternating prairie and deciduous forest. Ve getation in this province is forest-steppe, characterized by intermingled prairie, groves, an d strips of deciduous trees (Bailey, 1995). Trees often cover the highest hills. Grasses are the dominant prairie vegetation. The most prevalent type of grassland is bluestem prairie, dominate d by such plants as big bluestem, little bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass, along with many species of wildflowers and legumes. In many places where grazing and fire are controlled, de ciduous 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 50 April 2011

& Environmental Effects The proposed project site consists of land w ithin the Decatur ADM Co mplex that has been disturbed from its natural state. Surrounding land is industrial, residentia l, or agricultural. A fallow agricultural field north of the primary industrial complex and north and east of the Richland Community College campus comprises most of the project site. Low growing grasses occur on the project site, which has been previously disturbed.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources ha s compiled an inventory of resource rich areas (RRA) in Illinois (DOE, 2008). The proposed proj ect site does not lie within a designated natural area. The Sangamon River RRA, approxim ately seven miles (11.27 km) to the northeast of the proposed project site, is the closest RRA.

No critical habitats or federally listed plant speci es exist in the vicinity of the project site. One federally listed plant species, the Eastern prairie fringed orchid ( Platanthera leucophaea ) - threatened, and one Illinois state listed endangered plant speci es, wild hyacinth ( Camassia

angusta ), occur in Macon County (USFWS, 2009b; IDNR, 2008), but are not likely to be found in the project area. A review of the USFW S technical assistance website (USFWS, 2009c) on January 26, 2010 for federally listed threatened and endangered species re sulted in a conclusion that the proposed project would ha ve “no effect” on listed species, their habitats, or proposed or designated critical habitat.

4.5.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would oc cur within currently developed and fallow field areas in the interior and at the peri meter of the primary industrial complex where there is mostly non-native ve getation growing. The new proposed well and pipeline would be placed in the areas of low growing grasses, which may be disturbed or removed for well and pipeline installation. Th e majority of disturbance would occur in previously disturbed areas, minimizing advers e impacts on vegetation. Part of the pipeline would be underground and co-located with steam lin es in a 200-foot easement on the property of Richland Community College, which mainly consists of paved surfaces.

Approximately a 300 foot by 300 foot area arou nd the injection well would be disturbed by

installation of fac ilities and improvements as described in Section 2.1.2.7. For the injection well, the well pad and the surrounding operations area would disturb approximately 2 acres (8,094

m 2 ), on which there would be very little vegeta tion. Installation of a verification well would disturb a very small area around each we ll, probably less than 0.5 acre (2,023 m 2 ) total, on which there would be very little vege tation. Installation of the 5,290-foot pressurized pipeline would be aboveground for most of its length, following th e current pipeline alleys at the Decatur ADM Complex as much as possible; a small portion w ould be co-located with steam lines in an easement on the property of Richland Community College. Thus, pipeline construction would not likely disturb more than 1 acre (4,050 m 2 ) on which there would be very little, if any, vegetation. Installation of 1,224 feet of ductwork carrying uncompressed CO 2 would also disturb vegetation along its length. There could also be localized vegetation disturbance from foot traffic during installation, injection, and monitoring; howev er, this area would likely be

minimal and limited to the areas im mediately surrounding the equipment.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 51 April 2011

& Environmental Effects A new ICCS facility would be constructed near the north boundary of the ADM complex. The footprint for this facility would be 30,000 ft 2 (2,787 m 2 ). Vegetation on this site would be cleared; however, most plants are non-native an d the area has been previously disturbed. Heavy equipment may cause temporary disturbance in adjacent areas beyond the footprint of construction. Repeated distur bance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes) during these activities would cause damage to plants and destru ction of the vegetation mat. There would also be localized vegetation disturba nce from foot traffic during cons truction. The overall impact on vegetation would be reduced by concentrating the area of dist urbance to the smallest area necessary to complete the project.

A new 500 ft (152 m) by 500 ft electrical substati on is proposed on the former golf course land owned by ADM that is east of the primary industr ial complex. The footprint for this facility would be 250,000 ft 2 (23,225 m 2 ). Vegetation on this site would be cleared; however, most plants are non-native and the area has been pr eviously developed as a golf course. Heavy equipment may cause temporary disturbance in adjacent areas beyond the footprint of construction. Repeated distur bance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes) during these activities would cause damage to plants and destru ction of the vegetation mat. There would also be localized vegetation disturba nce from foot traffic during cons truction. The overall impact on vegetation would be reduced by concentrating the area of dist urbance to the smallest area necessary to complete the project.

Total vegetation disturbance/clearing from c onstruction and installation of all project components would occur on approximately 10 acres (40,470 m 2 ).

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, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be em ployed to ensure that imported material does not contain exotic plant material.

 Obtaining gravel and fill fo r construction or maintenance from certified noxious weedfree sources. Gravel pits and fill sources would be inspected to identify weed-free

sources.

 Limiting the area of disturbance. For example, heavy construction equipment would be kept on road surfaces to the extent possible.

 Monitoring and removing any invasive speci es observed subsequent to project completion.

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 deathIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 52 April 2011

& Environmental Effects (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 proposed proj ect 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 complex has been previo usly cleared for ADM industrial development and agricultural practices, incl uding the related MGSC project. These activities have involved removal, trampling, or destruction of vege tation and disturbance of ground cover. Any vegetation disturbance associated with the propose d project would occur in previously disturbed areas 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. Overall, cumulative impacts from the proposed project when added to other past , present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including less than one acr e of disturbance for the injection well a nd less than 0.5 acres disturbance for each of four monitoring wells fo r the related MGSC project, would be minimally adverse and are not expected to ex ceed the threshold of significance.

4.6 Wildlife

4.6.1 Description

Common mammals that occur in rural areas near Decatur, Illi nois, include white-tail deer, groundhog, skunk, mink, red and gray fox, and rive r otter. Common birds 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 th e project site or in Macon County. One federally listed wildlife species, the 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 (USFWS, 2009b; IDNR, 2008). Of these species, only the

Bewick’s wren has been documented as occurrin g approximately one mile south of the projectIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 53 April 2011

& Environmental Effects site. A review of the USFWS technical assi stance website (USFWS , 2009c) on January 26, 2010 for federally listed threatened and endangered sp ecies resulted in a conc lusion that the proposed project would have “no effect” on listed species, th eir habitats, or proposed or designated critical

habitat.

4.6.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

Activities for construction of the CO 2 compression-dehydration fac ility, installation of an injection well and pipeline, vehicle traffic, lighting during night work, and human presence would cause temporary displacement and disturba nce of resident wildlife for the 2.5-year duration of the project. Species are expected to return to the ar ea after construction and injection is completed, although there may still be some minimal disturbance during the duration of post injection monitoring. These impact s would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project area.

It is estimated that approximately 10 acres of wildlife habitat would be disturbed by installation of an injection well and pipeline. A 300 foot by 300 foot area around the injection well would be disturbed by installation of f acilities and improvements as described in Section 2.1.2.7. The injection well pad and the surr ounding operations area would disturb a tota l of approximately four acres (16,187 m 2 ), on which there would be very little, if any, wildlife habitat. Installation

of the verification well would di sturb a very small area around each well, probably less than 0.5 acre total, on which there would be very little, if any, wildlife habitat. Construction of the 5,290- foot pressurized pipeline would be aboveground for most of its length, following the current pipeline alleys at the Decatur ADM Complex as much as possible; a small portion would be colocated with steam lines in an easement on the property of Richland Community College. Thus, pipeline construction would not likely disturb more than 1 acr e on which there would be very little, if any, wildlife ha bitat. Installation of 1,224 feet of 24-inch pipe carrying uncompressed

CO 2 would also disturb wildlife habitat along its length. A new 30,000 square feet compression/dehydration facility would be cons tructed near the north boundary of the ADM complex. A new 500 ft by 500 ft electrical substa tion is proposed on the former golf course land owned by ADM that is east of the primary industr ial complex. The footprint for this facility would be 250,000 ft 2 . All wildlife habitat on these two build ing sites would be disturbed and/or destroyed.

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, l eading to a change 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 detrimentalIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 54 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 project 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 proposed proj ect 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 activit ies, and agricultural practices, including the recent development of the related MGSC project . Habitat disturbance associated with new infrastructure as part of the proposed project would be limited, and wildlife displacement and disturbance would be temporary, lasting only for the duration of the construction, injection, and monitoring period. It is also possi ble that an unlik ely leakage of CO 2 to the surface would have more widespread consequences on wildlife and habitat. Cumula tive impacts from the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the related MGSC project, would be minimally adverse and are not expe cted to exceed the threshold of significance.

4.7 Land Use

4.7.1 Description

The ADM ICCS Site would be located near De catur, Illinois, within Macon County. The injection site and most of the project improvement s are located entirely wi thin the large Decatur ADM Complex that is owned a nd managed by ADM. A 200-foot por tion of the pressurized 8- inch pipeline is located within an easemen t on Richland Community College property. A proposed education center is located on Rich land Community College property and will ultimately be owned and managed by the college. ADM is one of the world’s largest processors of soybeans, corn, wheat, and cocoa. ADM is a leading manufacturer of biodiesel, ethanol, soybean oil and meal, corn sweeteners, flour, a nd other value-added food and feed ingredients (DOE, 2008).

The Decatur ADM complex consists of various pr ocessing facilities including cogeneration and a corn wet milling plant with ethanol produc tion, which would be the sources of CO 2 for this project. Additional primary fac ilities include bio-products, oils eed processing, and vegetable oil refining.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 55 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Nearby properties and/or land us es include Richland Community College; Caterpillar, Inc.; industry-related commercial businesses; and a private farm (Figure 2.1.1-2). Macon County and the City of Decatur have developed and implem ented a comprehensive plan in July 2009 that establishes existing and compatible future la nd uses. The proposed project area with its

industrial land use is consiste nt with the recently adopted City/County comprehensive plan (Decatur, 2009).

Land utilized for the proposed ADM compression/de hydration facility and much of the pipeline construction are either visibly i ndustrial in nature or are plan ned for industrial development, which is in concert with their industrial designa tion as part of the D ecatur ADM Complex. The injection well area and the pipeline are also within the Decatur ADM Complex, except for a 200- foot segment of the pipeline that passes through an easement on the property of the Richland Community College. The land utiliz ed for the electrical substation is a former golf course. The land was previously purchased by ADM to accommodate expansion, as represented here by the electrical substation. The Decatur ADM Complex is a secured and fenced area that would also include the compression/dehydrati on facility and the injection well sites 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 all been identified at the project site based on the Soil Survey of Macon County (Figure 4.2.1-2)(DOE , 2008). All of these soils are considered characteristic of prime farmland.

Project design parameters indi cate that if the injected CO 2 plume would migrate off site, it would take several years. ADM is aware of the lega l and mineral rights issues should the plume move off site and when work begins on Phase 2, ADM would take necessary steps to secure mineral rights and additional permitting and requirements specified by law.

An agricultural ground cover is planned surrounding the areas where the injection well would be

located.

4.7.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

The proposed project would slightly expand the vi sual and physical indus trial character of the very large Decatur ADM Complex while remaining almost entirely within existing ADM property. The current Decatur ADM Complex developed property size is 300 acres (1,214,057

m 2 ) while the proposed facility and injection well site would be almost 5 acres. Current industrial land use designations would be unaff ected by this project. Though the proposed injection well site is industrial property, there have been past uses there that were agricultural, including an annual agricultural exhibition that has resulted in some simple structures that remain on the site. With the exception of a 300 fo ot by 300 foot area for injection well surface improvements, the injection well area that is di sturbed would be replanted in agricultural ground cover, retaining much of the agricultural app earance of this area of the project and minimizing any effects on identified prime farmland resources.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 56 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 beyond the entry into the easement on the Community College propert y, which would be placed underground.

The ADM compression/dehydration fac ility would be set adjacent to other heavy industrial uses featuring cooling towers and other plant facilities and equipment that are typical of this type of industrial facility. The appearance and operation of this part of the project would be compatible with its immediately surrounding land uses.

The ADM compression/dehydration fac ility and pipeline will be built almost entirely within the Decatur ADM Complex (excluding the pipeline easement on the Community College property) and will be integrated with the control of ADM 's processing facilities. ADM may choose to continue operation of the compression/dehydration facility, pipeline, and injection well after the proposed DOE 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 require ments for emissions reductions applicable to companies like ADM be adopted, then ADM may continue operations consistent with permitting requirements for geological sequestration that may be in effect at that time and considering the relative value of the facility with respect to other options availa ble 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 ICCS Site. E quipment that is readily moved may be salvaged and other installed component s, such a concrete foundation slabs and buried pipeline segments, may be put to other uses within the Decatur ADM Complex. The injection well would be plugged in accordance with the UI C permit issued at the time of its initial operation.

Pore space rights may be necessary if the injected plume migrates offsite. ADM is aware of this need and would take required st eps when that becomes necessary.

The effects of the proposed project are that land use impacts would be limited to a small area and would not noticeably alter any part icular land use at the ICCS site 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 pro posed project are not expected to exceed the significance threshold.

4.7.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, the ADM ICCS Site work would not be implemented. No impacts to land use would occur be cause of this alternative.

4.7.4 Cumulative Effects

No additional land use development is currently planned near the project outside of Decatur ADM Complex property ( DOE, 2008). ADM has no major deve lopment planned beyond routineIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 57 April 2011

& Environmental Effects expansion of current plant facilities (ADM, 2010 d) and the recently comp leted MGSC project. This project would expand industrial development in a predominately indust rial land use area, so cumulative impacts would be negligible with re gard to most unplanned development that may

occur in this area and should be considered compatible with the current industrial character of the project area, and especially the related and similar MGSC project.

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources

This section describes the soci oeconomic conditions that may be affected by implementation of the proposed project and addresses any potential impact that may result.

4.8.1 Population

4.8.1.1 Description

The project site would be locate d on the east side of the metropolit an area of Decatur, Illinois, and is primarily contained by the existing ADM i ndustrial complex. Within the corporate limits of the City of Decatur, the project area woul d 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 2009 estimated population of 73,799 residents (Census, 2009a), 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 108,204 in 2009 (Census, 2009b). Inco rporated communities within a 15 mile (24.14 km) radius of Decatur include: Argenta – population 825; Forsyth – population 3,007; Harristown - population 1,236; Long Creek - pop ulation 1,342; Macon - population 1,128; Mount Zion - population 5,232; Or eana - population 814; and Warrensburg - population 1,160 (Census, 2009c). Block data (Census, 2000a) for the area immediately surrounding the project

site indicate a total of 51 resi dents living in 19 housing units, with an occupancy rate of 100 percent. Despite the predominately urban charac ter of the Decatur region, 46.3 percent, or nine

of the residential units in the ar eas neighboring the projec t site are classified by the U.S. Census

as rural.

The 2009 estimated population for the city of D ecatur, 73,799 shows a 9.8 percent decline from the 2000 population of 81,860, continuing a trend from the previous decade in which the city declined from its 1990 population of 83,885 (Censu s, 2008a). In 2009, Decatur supported a total of 37,657 housing units with a median value of $77,000 (Census, 2009b). The occupancy rate for all units in the city was 84.2 percent. The average population density for the metropolitan area of Decatur is 1,799 persons per square mile (2,589,988 m 2 ), with a housing density of 918.5 units per square mile (2,589,988 m 2 ) (Census, 2000b). The median age of Decatur residents, 37.2 years, is slightly lower th an that for the surrounding coun ty, 39.7 years. Approximately 25.3 percent of the population is 19 years old or younger, with 6.8 percent under the age of five and 16 percent aged 65 and over (Census, 2009a).

The estimated population of Macon County in 2 009 was 108,204 residents; a slight decrease of 5.7 percent from the 2000 total of 114,706 (Censu s, 2009d). In 2009, there were a total ofIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 58 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 52,509 housing units in the county, with an occupa ncy rate of 86.9 percent and an estimated average density of 90.4units per square mile (2,589,988 m 2 ). Population density for this year was estimated to be 186.4 persons per square mile (2,589,988 m 2 ) (Census, 2000b). Residents aged 19 years and younger represented 25.4 percent of the total population. Children under five years of age account for 6 per cent of the county’s population a nd persons 65 years of age and older make up 16.3 percent of the population (Census, 2009e).

4.8.1.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

Implementation of the proposed project would have only a minor, if not negligible, effect on the size and demographic characterist ics of the local population. Any additional, permanent fulltime employment generated as a result of this alternative would be minimal. Labor requirements would be temporary and limited to the construc tion of the well, pipeline, education center, substation, and compressor facilities. Estimates fo r the additional workforce required at the site range from 200-220 personnel during peak construc tion, estimates indicate that approximately 800 jobs will be created during th e projects 5-year period. This temporary increase would be easily accommodated by existing local resources.

ADM’s proposed project would be in keeping with the industrial character existing in the project area and would not introduce any new or incompa tible uses. The proposed ICCS site would be located primarily within the existing Decatur ADM Complex boundaries with the exception of a 200-foot length of pipeline th at lies within an easement on the Richland Community College property and an education center that is opera ted by and will eventually be owned by Richland Community College. No additiona l land outside the existing footpr int would be needed. As a result, no substantial impact woul d be associated with the pote ntial to change the community character and setting, demographic composition, or housing availability beyond that already existing under ADM’s current operation. Ther efore, the impacts from implementing the proposed project are expected to be below the significance threshold.

4.8.1.3 Effects of No-Action

The No-Action alternative woul d mean that DOE funds would not be used to support the proposed drilling, construction, and monitoring and data collection act ivities on the project site. In the absence of DOE funding, the proposed a lternative would not proceed. Correspondingly, no change would occur in the existing condition, a nd the current management of the site would continue. No changes to local demographic composition or community setting and character would be anticipated under this alternative. Any fu ture changes in the use or infrastructure of the site would be dependent on ADM short and longer-term corpor ate planning and any specific future use determinations for the project site that may derive from that process. Therefore, the impacts from implementing the No-Action alterna tive are expected to be below the significance

threshold.

4.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts

The introduction of the proposed ICCS site opera tion would not be expected to account for any noticeable changes in the size or demographic characteristics of the local population and wouldIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 59 April 2011

& Environmental Effects not contribute to any substantia l changes in local comm unity character and setting. As in this project, the small population increases as a resu lt of the related MGSC project were temporary and are not considered additive to the small temporary increases from this project. When

considered in combination with ADM’s current and proposed management of the existing site and the future site condition, in cluding the related MGSC project , the cumulative effects would be expected to be minor and are not expect ed to exceed the threshold 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. Farming and farm-related 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 2008 was $23,290. Employment statistics for the year indicate that the city supported a total civ ilian labor force of 36,121 workers, with an unemployment rate of 6.9 per cent or 2,492 workers. The la rgest occupational categories included: management, professional, and re lated occupations, with 9,719 workers, or 28.9 percent of the workforce; sales and office occ upations, with 9,624 workers or 28.6 percent of the workforce; and service occupations with 6,040 work ers, or 18.0 percent of the total. Median household income in 2006 was $39,394 (Census, 2008b).

The leading employment sectors for Mac on County in 2008 were manufacturing, with 19.1 percent of total employment; health care and social assistance, w ith 24.4 percent; and retail trade, with 11.7 percent of the total (Census, 2008c). Employment statistics for November 2009

indicate that the count y supported a total labor force of 54,472 workers, with an unemployment rate of 12.6.percent, or 6,872 work ers. This represents an in crease of 5.4 percent from the 2008 annual average unemployment (BLS, 2010). Th e per capita personal income in 2008 was $25,912 (Census, 2008c). Median household inco me for 2008 was $45,649 (Census, 2008c). A summary of income distribution by h ousehold is presented in Table 4.8.2.1.

Table 4.8.2.1. Household Income for 2008

Number Percent

Less than $10,000 2,712 5.9%

$10,000 to $14,999 2,803 6.1%

$15,000 to $24,999 5,497 12.0%

$25,000 to $34,999 6,520 14.2%

$35,000 to $49,999 7,936 17.3%

$50,000 to $74,999 8,639 18.8%

$75,000 to $99,999 6,106 13.3%

$100,000 to $149,999 3,336 7.3%

$150,000 to $199,999 981 2.1%

$200,000 or more 1,429 3.1%

Total Households 45,959 100%

Source: (Census, 2008c).Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 60 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 4.8.2.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

Implementation of the proposed project 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 or from the available local labor force.

Labor requirements for the construction of an injection well, pipeline, education center, substation, and capture facilities would be tem porary and of short duration. 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 subs tantial change in regional employment would be anticipated. However, the local labor market ha s experienced a sharp in crease in unemployment during the past 18 months. Temporary employmen t associated with th e proposed alternative would result in a minor beneficial impact to the cr eation of new employment in the local area.

Funding for this project is estimated at appr oximately $208 million. The local economy of the City of Decatur and surrounding Macon County is su fficient to capture much of this additional spending. This represents a pot ential beneficial impact to the local economy in the form of wages and salaries paid to local workers and income to local commercial entities providing goods and services. However, it is likely that at least a portion of project expenditures might be spent outside the local economy fo r labor, goods or services not lo cally 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 local re sidents. Since the ADM plant produces its own electricity, additional demand created by the proposed alternative would not impact industrial or residential users in the lo cal area. Similarly, wate r requirements would be within existing capacity and wastewat er would be directed to the wa stewater treatment facility or the water-reuse system that currently exists for the Decatur ADM Complex. No additional impact on supply or rate structure would be anticipated for local us ers in the surrounding community. Therefore, the impacts from implem enting the proposed project are expected to be below the significance threshold.

4.8.2.3 Effects of No-Action

In the absence of federal funding, the proposed pr oject would likely not proceed. ADM’s current management and operations at the project site w ould be expected to continue unchanged. As a result, no change would be expected to occur in the existing condition or uses of the project 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 61 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 4.8.2.4 Cumulative Impacts

The introduction of the proposed pr oject to other planne d or reasonably forese eable actions at the study site or in the surrounding area, including the recently completed and related MGSC project, would be expected to have only a minor effect on the local econo my. As described in Chapter 2, ADM’s proposed project would ha ve minimal or no adverse impact on local employment or the availability and cost of local resources and services in the Decatur or larger Macon County economy. The use of these resources for the related MGSC project has already

occurred and so are not cumulative when cons idered relative to the current ADM project.

Therefore, it would not be expected to contri bute to any cumulative effect. Some potential

benefit would be derived from the small ad ditional labor requirement and from additional expenditures in the local economy associated with the proposed project. These benefits could be experienced without adverse consequences a nd would not alter the existing condition or contribute substantially to the cumulative effect.

4.8.3 Infrastructure

4.8.3.1 Description

The ICCS Project Site would be located in an industrial area adjacent to the urbanized area of Decatur. The road system in the surrounding region is a combination of intra-urban and rural roads. To the north, the carbon cap ture site is bounded by Reas Br idge Road (Rd.) (Illinois (IL)- 24). North Brush College Rd. (IL-1) forms the west ern boundary of the projec t site. To the east and somewhat removed from the project site boundary, Gun Club Road joins Christmas Tree Road to intersect with Reas Bridge road a pproximately one-half mile from the northeastern corner of the project site. To the south, the Decatur ADM Complex supports a network of

service roads of va rying capacity.

Traffic volume studies for the segment of North Brush College 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. The current daily truck traffic into and out of the Decatur ADM Complex is estimated at approxi mately 1,750 trips (DOE, 2008).

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 project site and continues south along th e 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.

The project will draw electrical power from an onsite electrical power plant that would be supplemented by power from the local grid. The electrical subs tation and power line construction is proposed in this project to enab le provision of power from the local grid. The substation will be located on ADM property and the power lines will be located either on ADM property or in utility easements acquired from property owners.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 62 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 4.8.3.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

ADM’s proposed project would not substantially alte r existing traffic patterns, level of congestion, or road conditions in the immediate and surrounding area of the project site. Typical increases in traffic that might result from th e proposed project are presented in Tables 4.8.3.2-1, 4.8.3.2-2, and 4.8.3.2-3 below.

Table 4.8.3.2-1. Well Construction Transport Estimate for the Injection Well

Description of Transport Number* Type of vehicle

Movement of rig & components to site 39-56 loads flatbeds
Normal delivery of mud chem icals, bits, 4 flatbed Visits by ADM, Illinois Stat e 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, mobilization & dem obilization, cementing & logging runs as well as when running pipe Adapted from: (Schlumberger, 2008).

Table 4.8.3.2-2. Transport Estimate for the Substation Construction

Description of Transport Number* Type of Vehicle

Movement of grading equipment & equipment trailers 10 loads flatbeds

Delivery of ground cover 20 loads Dump Trucks

Visits by ADM, etc. 10 cars/trucks

Cementing trucks 10 loads pump trucks

Building 2 flat bed

Fencing Materials 2 loads flat beds

Fencing Crews 2 cars/trucks

Materials-Poles, wire, equipmen t, etc.. 20 loads flat beds

Crane 2 loads flat bed & crane

Crew changes, daily for personnel 4 cars/trucks

Vacuum trucks, waste disposal trucks, etc. 2 vacuum trucks

Ameren Personnel daily 3 trucks/utility trailer

Other miscellaneous trucks, vehicles 4 F150's, cars, vansIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 63 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Table 4.8.3.2-2. Transport Estimate for the Substation Construction

Description of Transport Number* Type of Vehicle

* Number of vehicles per week or number of loads

Note: Traffic will peak during set-up, mobilization & dem obilization, cementing & gravel runs as well as when compaction of yard is complete.
Source: (ADM, 2010e)

Table 4.8.3.2-3. Transport Estimate for the National Sequestration Education Center
Building Construction

Description of Transport Number* Type of vehicle

Movement of grading equipment & equipment trailers 5 loads flatbeds

Visits by ADM, etc. 10 cars/trucks

Cementing trucks 17 loads pump trucks

Building-steel & misc. materials 6 loads flat bed

Cranes, forklifts, aerial lift equipm ent, & etc. 4 flat bed & crane

Crew changes, daily for personnel 4 cars/trucks

Vacuum trucks, waste disposal trucks, etc. 2 vacuum trucks

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, mobilization & demobilization also after building foundation completion.
Source: (ADM, 2010e)

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 project site would be likely to disturb power or other utility transmission line s in the area. Therefore, the impacts from implementing the proposed projec t 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 project 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 project. There are no planned or reasonably foreseeable actions for the project area which when added to the effect of the proposed project would substa ntially change local ro ad use or traffic patterns. This is trueIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 64 April 2011

& Environmental Effects also of the related MGSC project, the majority of whose potentially cumulative infrastructure demands have already occurred. There would be limited potential to alter or disturb power or

other infrastructure services to the area as a result of the propos ed project, 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 project site to the southeast.

 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 project 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 project 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 sout hwest of the project site (DOE, 2008).

4.8.4.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

The addition of the injection well, pi peline, education center, substation, and compression/dehydration facility to the exis ting Decatur ADM Complex would generate negligible impact to recreational activities in the immediately su rrounding area. No facilities exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site that might be di sturbed by site activities. The proposed project would be in keepin g with the existing industrial ch aracter of the project site and does not alter the existing setting or interfere with the user experi ence of more remotely located facilities. Therefore, the impacts from implem enting the proposed projec t 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 project to ongoing activities at the Decatur ADM Complex, including the recently completed and related MGSC project, would have no substantial impact to the character, setting, or visitor experience a ssociated with parks or other recreational opportunities in the immedi ately surrounding and larger Decatur communities.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 65 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 4.8.5 Visual Resources

4.8.5.1 Description

There are no scenic vistas or aesthetic landscape s in the vicinity of the proposed project. The project site would be on the east side of Decatur, Illinois, and pr imarily within the Decatur ADM Complex. The ADM compression/dehydration facility would be located within the industrial complex to the south of the proposed injection well site. An electrical substation would be constructed on a former golf course adjacent to the industrial comp lex that is currently owned by

ADM. An education center would be located on property belonging to the Richland Community College. The pipeline would travel from the compression/dehydration facility to the injection well following, as much as possible, an existing pipeline corridor that transports steam to Richland Community College.

4.8.5.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

Under the proposed project, constr uction of a compression/dehydration facility (which is located immediately south of the MGSC injection well site on ADM property), an electrical substation, and education center, one inje ction well, various deep and shallow monitoring wells, and pipeline would minimally alter the visual elem ents of the project area, much of which are agricultural fields. In the area of the injection well, simple structures remain on the site from previous agricultural exhibitions that will continue to be conducted after the injection well is in place. However, facilities constructed under the proposed project would not contrast with the present landscape as industrial features are common in the immediate vicinity of the ICCS 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 th e proposed project would change th e 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 ICCS Site work by ADM would not be implemented. No impacts to visual resources would oc cur because of this alternative.

4.8.5.4 Cumulative Impacts

Visual quality at the project site has been predominantly altered by the past ADM industrial development, including the MGSC carbon sequestrati on project. Agriculture, residential, and other ongoing industria l activities have also affected the vi sual quality of the surrounding area. Given the larger impacts to visual resources from past, present, and future activities, and theIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 66 April 2011

& Environmental Effects similar character of the nearby MGSC project, cumulative impacts added from the proposed project would be minimally advers e and are not expected to exceed the threshold 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 varies depending on the type and characteristics of th e noise, distance between the noise source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. Nois e is often generated by activities that are part of everyday life, such as cons truction 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 67 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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, 2008b). 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

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

Sound Emitted to Noise Sensitive Land Uses

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, 2008b).

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 sensitive 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 68 April 2011

& Environmental Effects Table 4.8.6.1. Estimated Existing Noise Levels 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 860 ft

261 m West School Quiet

Suburban

Residential 55 53 47

Compressor Site 2,500 ft

790 m North
Source: (ANSI, 2003).

4.8.6.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

Short-term and long-term minor adverse effects to the noise environment would be expected with the implementation of the proposed project. 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 (15.2 m). Table 4.8.6.2-1 presents typical noise levels (dBA at 50 feet (15.2 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 (15.2 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 (122 to 244 m) from the site of major equipment operations. Locations within 1,000 feet (305 m) would experience substantia l levels (greater than 62 dBA) of construction noise. There are no NSAs within 1,000 feet of the construction sites except for the propos ed education center. Although the existing college is within 1,000 feet of the propos ed education center, building of

the education center would be te mporary and end with the cons truction phase. These effects

would be minor. Construction ac tivities are exempt from both the state and local regulations.

These effects would be temporary and would be considered minor. The following 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; andIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 69 April 2011

& Environmental Effects  Construction equipment mufflers would be properly maintained and in good working

order.

Drilling Noise. ADM’s Proposed Project woul d involve drilling operations for the injection well. Components of the drilling equipment include the drill rig, mud pumps, and diesel generators. The generator and combined diesel driven syst ems would have the standard exhaust muffles. Noise from heavy equipment would be temporar y and end with the drilling phase. Drilling equipment is expected to operate twenty-four ho urs per day, seven days per week, for up to six

months. The noise would be cl early audible at the nearest NS A 860 feet (261 m) west of the injection well location. At this distance, the DNL would be approximately 62 dB. These levels

would be below the threshold for land use inco mpatibility for long-term noise sources. Noise levels within the buildings would be significantly less, and unlikely to in terfere with classroom operation. Although unlikely, if the drilling nois e became loud enough to interfere with normal

levels of verbal communication inside the buildings, sound barriers w ould be effective in reducing noise levels. Due to the short-term na ture of the drilling activities, and given the primary function of the college is indoors, these effects would be minor under NEPA.

Drilling noise would be expect ed to dominate the soundscape for all on-site personnel. Personnel, and particularly equipment operato rs, would utilize adequate personal hearing protection to limit exposure and en sure compliance with federal he alth and safety regulations.

Operational Noise . The compressor facility is in the pr eliminary design stages. Therefore, a complete equipment list and associated manufact urers specifications is not finalized. The only major noise-producing equipment would be four 3,250 horsepower (hp) reciprocating compressors, two 2,000 hp blowers, and two 500 hp multistage pumps. Only one pump and one blower would be operated at a time. The compressors would be an order of magnitude louder than the proposed pumps or blowers and would mask them completely. The compressors would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Noise levels that would be ge nerated by operation of the compressors at the nearest NSA have been co mpared to the levels out lined 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 47 No

63 74 43 No

125 69 48 No

250 64 46 No

500 58 43 No

1000 52 44 No

2000 47 46 No

4000 43 33 No

8000 40 11 No Leq (dBA) 80 50 No Sources: (IL, 2008; Decatur, 2008b).Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 70 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 project 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.

4.8.6.4 Cumulative Impacts

ADM’s Proposed Project would introduce long-te rm incremental incr eases in the noise environment. However, these increases would be relatively small when compared to the existing conditions, including the similar long-term compre ssor noise contribution of the related MGSC project, 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 proj ect 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 71 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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, 2006).

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 the 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, 2006).

4.8.7.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

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 project 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 project considered by this EA woul d add only minimally to existing conditions for environmental justice in the project area, which includes the rela ted MGSC project, and surrounding communities. As a result, any increm ental impact would not be expected to be sufficient to exceed the significance threshold and would most likely be experienced evenly across all populations.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 72 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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, 2009b). 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 proj ect 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 and extent of pollution. A common material used in construction and operation that can be spilled is gasoline. Ga soline irritates the lungs and is a skin irritant. Enough gasoline exposure can cause death or nervous system damage (ATSDR, 2008). Similarly, waste management also is a source of possible human health and safety risks from exposure to contaminants (See Section 4.11).

CO 2 leaks are a concern to human health a nd safety within th e project area. CO 2 is heavier than ambient air, colorless, and odorless, which make s it an invisible hazard (DOE, 2007a). Since it is denser than ambient air, leaked CO 2 will typically pool in hollows and confined spaces until dispersed by wind or other ventilatio n methods (DOE, 2007a; IPCC, 2005). CO 2 under pressure or at high concentration levels can cause suffocation and permanent brain injury from lack of air (DOE, 2007a). Headache, impaired vision, labored breathing, and mental confusion also can

occur from CO 2 exposure. The pressure drop from CO 2 leaks from vessels (pipes) creates a cold hazard, and even the vapor can cause frostbite (IPCC, 2005). Generally, the pooling and large, rapid releases of the CO 2 are the situations of concern for human health and safety instead of small gradual leaks due to concentration le vel differences (IPCC, 2005; DOE, 2007a).

No general CO 2 exposure standards exist yet for the public (DOE, 2007a). The immediately dangerous level of exposure for CO 2 to life and health 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 health (such as cerebr al disease), children, and people involved in complex tasks are more susceptible to the effects of CO 2 exposure. CO 2 exposure impedes people’s performance of complex ta sks by causing labored breathing, headache, and mental confusion. The occupational 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).

Leaked CO 2 can cause human health issues in the water and in air. CO 2 underground injection can contaminate groundwater if the CO 2 migrates to underground aqui fers (See Section 4.3).

This contamination can occur when CO 2 causes mobilization of chemi cals 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 undergroundIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 73 April 2011

& Environmental Effects injection. Similar to air emissions of CO 2 , gradual releases of CO 2 into water sources typically

do not cause substantial harm to human health, but rapid releases could (DOE, 2007a).

Between 1994 and 2006, there were 31 CO 2 pipeline accidents reported in the United States, but no injuries or fatalities (DOE, 2007c). Some historical causes of CO 2 pipeline incidences are relief valve failure (4 failures), weld/gasket/va lve packing failure (3 failures), corrosion (2 failures), and outside force (1 failure). The incident rate from 1990 to 2002 for CO 2 pipelines in

the U.S. was 0.0002 mile -1 year -1 (0.00032 km -1 year -1 ) (IPCC, 2005). This rate of failure is comparatively 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 0

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). Th e most fatalities of any industry in the private

sector in 2008 occurred in the construction industry with 404 d eaths in 2008 (BLS, 2009a). The

construction incident rate of to tal recordable cases of non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses in 2008 was 4.7 per 100 full-time workers (BLS, 2009b).

4.9.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

ADM’s proposed project would include pipe in stallation; constructi on and operation of a compression-dehydration facility; constructi on and operation of an education center; construction and operation of an electrical substation; coll ection 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 an d safety. The materials and equipment used for construction and operation would meet prescribed standards (DOE, 2008).

The equipment that would be used for the impl ementation of the proposed project 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 procedures will be updated as necessary for the new project components (ADM, 2010d).

Since almost all of the constr uction and operation of the proposed project is on ADM property, the increase in traffic from workers and delivery of equipment and materials should be partiallyIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 74 April 2011

& Environmental Effects limited to onsite, which reduces risk to pedest rians and the public. However, the proposed project would still represent an in crease in traffic, which increases the potential for accidents.

The current truck traffic in and out of the D ecatur ADM Complex is approximately 1,750 trucks per day (DOE, 2008). The expected increase in the number of trips due to the proposed project from the current level of vehicle activity is minor . Thus, the impact to human health and safety from the increase in transportation is not expect ed to exceed the level of significance threshold (See Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.3).

Air emissions from the proposed project are not anticipated 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 human health. The natural gas burning from the dehydration reboiler would produce limited ai r pollutants (ADM, 2010d). However, the proposed project only produces a very small amo unt of these air polluta nts, and these are the same types and quantities as with any burning of natural gas. Thus, there would be a minimal risk to human health and safety. All necessary risk assessments would be conducted as part of the planning process and would be built on ex isting MGSC documentation as appropriate.

The soils are not highly erodibl e (See Section 4.2); therefore, 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 f acility will soon begin the construction permit process for the construction storm water discharges (ADM, 2010d). Water collected during the dehydration of

the CO 2 will be used for cooling tower make up wate r or send to the process water pretreatment plant. The pretreated water is subsequently sent to the City of Decatur Publicly Owned Treatment Works (DOE, 2008). Therefore, the overall effect of the proposed project to surface water quality is expected to not exceed the significance threshold.

The only hazardous or toxic material used in the proposed project is CO 2 (ADM, 2009a). Thus, if safety procedures and BMPs were followed, spills 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 safet y. All necessary risk assessments would be conducted as part of the planning process a nd would be built on exis ting MGSC documentation as appropriate. All personnel w ould wear safety gear appropria te to the materials handled (ADM, 2010d).

The design of the proposed proj ect’s MVA plan would be to avoid, detect, and correct any

unintended CO 2 emissions (ADM, 2009a). The Eau Clai re Formation, the Mt. Simon Sandstone, and the thick shale units presen t at the proposed injection site make groundwater contamination highly unlikely (DOE, 2008). However, groundwate r monitoring would stil l occur to detect problems and initiate corrective action, if necessary. The groundwater monitoring would include testing for metals, ammonia, CO 2 , pH, dissolved oxygen, and other possible contaminants (ADM, 2010d) (See Section 4.3). This would allow for early detection and appropriate measuresIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 75 April 2011

& Environmental Effects to be initiated if there were any problems. This would reduce the risk to human health and safety. The final injection pressure would be below any fracture pressure for the formation,

which will be estimated once the reservoir moni toring study and other information is completed (ADM, 2010d). Remaining below the fracture pressu re reduces the possibili ty of air and water contamination by CO 2 from fractures (See Section 4.2). The probability of hazardous leaks from the storage is small (NETL, 2008; Heinrich et al ., 2004). With proper monitoring and mitigation, the risk from induced seismicity and fractures would be expected to be below the significance

threshold.

Public education/outreach about potential thre ats and processes coul d reduce the risks and consequences of health and safety issues like accidents. A local emergency response plan would help reduce the risk of impact to the workers and the public (DOE, 2007a). The primary human health risk from the proposed project to th e public would be pipe line leaks releasing CO 2 (DOE, 2007a). A rapid release of CO 2 has a very low probability due to monitoring, proper siting, and BMPs (DOE, 2007a). The risks could be minimi zed by having appropriate safety and operating procedures currently in place for gas processing facilities and pipeline s including monitoring and inspections (DOE, 2007a). In general, CO 2 injection has occurred safely for over twenty years with oil and gas activitie s (NETL, 2008). Moreover, CO 2 comprises the dominant (sometimes more than 90%) of many acid gas injections (hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), CO 2 , and other constituents). Acid gas injections have occurr ed for years without causi ng any substantial harm from known incidents. Operational error rather th an mechanical error has been the cause of most acid gas incidents (Heinrich et al., 2004). Thus, adherence to BMPs and following industry standards will be important to prevent incidents. Finally, there have been no fatalities or injuries among the public from an acid gas incident in th e last 50 years (AERCB, 2008). Therefore, with proper safety procedures and plans, the risk to the public should not exceed the significance

threshold.

The wet, uncompressed CO 2 would be transported in a 24-inch pipeline. Leaks from this wet, uncompressed CO 2 would not be a substant ial concern for human health and safety as it is currently discharged to the atmosphere (DOE, 2008).

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 CO 2 pipeline would be mostly aboveground, but w ill be installed underground as it enters a perpetual easement on approximately 200 feet on the Richland Community College property. Line markers would be used to locate the pipelin e, and the location would be entered into the ADM database of plant facili ties and information (ADM, 2010d). 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 would reduce the risk for

CO 2 leaks, and the mitigation measures would reduce the consequences of any incidents. Current monitoring systems will be used (ambient CO 2 monitoring and alarm system). AnyIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 76 April 2011

& Environmental Effects additional necessary monitoring identified in the planning and design proce ss would be initiated (ADM, 2010d).

Too much pressure would cause automatic venting of the compre ssor and injection system to reduce the safety risks from equipment malfunc tion. Pipeline inspecti on and monitoring would

reduce the risks of failures and thus to huma n health. A common mitigation measure for a leaking casing is venting the CO 2 under appropriate controlled conditions (DOE, 2008). One of the major concerns regarding pipeline safety is water and other contaminants causing corrosion leading to pipe failure (DOE, 2007a). However, the CO 2 would be dried and removed of contaminants, which reduces the risk fr om pipeline failure (ADM, 2009a).

In the event that atmospheric CO 2 concentrations increase to a prescribed concentration, alarms

would be sounded to alert workers of a potential CO 2 release. In the event of a substantial CO 2 release, employees would have been informed and trained regarding appropriate evacuation procedures following ADM safety plans. Furthe r, modeling of atmospheric dispersion and CO 2 concentration distribution around th e project site and vicinity fr om worst case scenario(s) of atmospheric CO 2 releases would be conducted in order to develop and implement additional emergency response plans that 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 safe ty glasses would be worn (ADM, 2010d). 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 project 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 (H einrich 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 and has experience with CO 2 at supercritical conditions through the MGSC project (DOE, 2008). ADM’s safety procedures will be updated as necessary for the new projectIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 77 April 2011

& Environmental Effects components (ADM, 2010d). Workers would also be updated on safety procedures, especially ones related to handling of high pressure CO 2 (DOE, 2008). Additionally, the proposed project 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 standards 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 safety should be minimal. While a risk assessment for MSGS has been completed, further risk assessments are likely to occur as part of the planning and designed phases as needed. With the

low failure rate of CO 2 pipelines, proper siting, and the m onitoring involved, th e 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 project site. Thus, none of the ri sks listed in the prev ious section would occur, which would mean no impacts to human h ealth and safety. The exception would be the fact that the proposed project’s pur pose is to further the research for options in preventing global climate change. Possible deaths from sea levels rising, 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 project in combination with any existing projects in the area (IPCC, 2005). There are no planned projects in or near the project area (ADM, 2010d). The cumulative impacts of ex isting activities in and around the project area, including the related MGSC project, 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 project are 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 sect ion, the exception is that not im plementing the proposed project (thus, implementing the No-Action alternative) would have an adverse impact on the progress toward solutions for global climate change. Howe ver, since this is a si ngle 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 theIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 78 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 (DOE, 2008). The clos est National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) property is approximately 3 miles (5 km ) away to the northeast from the project site boundary (HAARGIS, 2002; NPS, 2008a). Within the project area, the majority of the land is already disturbed (Figure 2.1.1-2). No archeological or historical resources have been found so far at the project site. Further, the project area is outside the "hi gh archaeological resource potential area." This is defined as the presence of certain soil types, such as Parkland Sand and Mackinaw Member, and within a buffe r 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 (NPS, 2008b). As part of the EA pr ocess, DOE will send 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 closest cemetery to th e project area is St. John cemetery, which is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) sout h from the project site boundary.

ADM has not performed a cultural resources survey in the project area (ADM, 2010b).

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 ADM’s Proposed Project

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 project 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, constructionIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 79 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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.

During the EA process, the SHPO would make a de termination on what level, if any, the project would have on cultural resources. However, the project area is pr eviously disturbed. Consequently, since no cultural resources have been found yet, there would be less of a possibility for discovering cultural resources during th e proposed project.

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 miles or 5 km), there shou ld be no substantial impa cts to visual resources to any known eligible or existing NRHP site s. During the EA process, DOE would send

consultation letters to the near by 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. A ll issues these groups raise would be resolved.

The cemetery is not in the location of the cons truction and operation. Thus, the proposed project should not have any direct impacts to the cemetery. The cemetery is in an industrial site, so the impacts from the proposed project should be no gr eater than what the ce metery has experienced in the past (See Sections 4.8.5 and 4.8.6).

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 historic properties or human remain s, then the constructi on component would need to be relocated elsewhere or other acceptable mitigation performed as per consultation with the SHPO and any relevant Tribes or agencies.

Based on the information above, the impacts from implementing the proposed project are not expected to exceed the impact significance threshold.

4.10.3 Effects of No-Action

Under the No-Action alternative, ADM would not c onstruct and operate the ICCS project. Thus, there would be no construction, operation, or de commissioning activities. Therefore, there would be no impacts to cultural resources. 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 (ADM, 2010d). Since th ere are no substantial impacts to cultural resources, the proposed project and the No-Ac tion alternative do not substantially contribute to the cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the vicinity of theIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 80 April 2011

& Environmental Effects project area or in the project ar ea, considering also the finding of no substantial impacts to

cultural resources for the related MGSC project. As impacts to cultural resources are generally local (heavy machinery crushing resources, etc. ), the proposed project and the No-Action alternative both are unlikely to contribute to impa cts to cultural resources outside the vicinity of the project area, and those local impacts would not be expected to exceed the threshold of significance.

4.11 Waste Management

4.11.1 Description

During the drilling stage of the proposed project, which would include the dr illing of an injection well and verification well, differe nt types of wastes would 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.

All drilling waste disposal methods will be in accordance with existing ADM conditions for the Decatur ADM Complex as well as any and all app licable local/federal or state regulations as indicated from any permit requirements for the pr oject. An earthen pit wo uld be constructed and properly lined to contain and prevent ground wa ter migration of drill cuttings, water-based drilling fluids, rig wash water and to a certain degree, rain water.

As cuttings are produced by the dril ling operation, they will be dive rted to a lined earthen pit. After drilling operations are completed, the pit will be returned to as close to its original state as possible, keeping in mind future operations for each of the wells to be drilled in the area. All used engine oils and any other ch emical-related items that need to be changed/rolled out as part of the drilling 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 (DOE, 2008). The permit application also indicated shallow gr oundwater monitoring wells would be drilled using appr opriate coring tools, which woul d require the use of bentonite based drilling mud, or the use of hollow stem augers.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 81 April 2011

& Environmental Effects All wastewater would be directed to the wastewater treatment facili ty or the water re-use system that exists for the Decatur ADM Complex. Wast ewater from the drilling would be evaluated, then treated, and discharged into the City syst em. If that cannot be the case, then ADM will dispose of it with its wastewater contract; it will be disposed of pr operly. Additionally, 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 were select ed for use, approximately 48 waste glycol particulate filters (half rich, ha lf lean) would be generated per year. Glycol carbon filters are changed as needed. The glycol particulate filters and the spen t carbon would be disposed of offsite in accordance applicable regulations. Th e exact disposal protocol would follow that established by ADM to dispose of their other wastes.

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 would have weight enough to be in excess of formation pressure, thus no flow back is expected. Only during ti mes when sampling is occurring would fluids be brought to surface in contained jugs and/or sa mple chambers, likely using MDT. If large amounts of fluids are required, a DST would be us ed and there may be some fluid spillage on the rig floor, which will be washed to the reserve pit (DOE, 2008).

4.11.2 Effects of ADM’s Proposed Project

Based on the volumes of drill waste generated, it is not anticipated that there will be any drilling wastes that exceed the significance threshold ( DOE, 2008). All drilling wa ste disposal methods would be in accordance with existing local, state, or regulations.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Description of the Affected Environment 82 April 2011

& Environmental Effects 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 volumes that a suitable disposal option would be available. Therefore, impacts from waste management are not expected to exc eed 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 capture, conditioning, 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, related to the drilling re quirements of the proposed project, w ould not be expected to exceed the threshold of significance. Si nce drilling of the MGSC well has already occurred, the impact from that drilling activity is not consider ed cumulative to the proposed ADM project.

Potential cumulative impacts related to th e waste products from the compression and transportation of CO 2 for the proposed project are not e xpected 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 th e Decatur ADM Complex. The effects of the related MGSC project are additive to t hose of the proposed projects, but the combined tota l is still not expected to be substantial.

There would likely be negligible cumulative im pacts regarding wastes related to sampling and monitoring of the wells from both the MGC pr oject and this proposed project due to the relatively small volumes of waste that w ould be generated from these activities.

Overall, the proposed project woul d not cause air, water, or soil to be contaminated with waste (assuming appropriate drilling waste management and compressor waste containment strategies are in place) to a degree that would pose a thr eat to human or ecologi cal health and safety.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Consultation and Coordination 83 April 2011 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 Preparation for Development of this Environmental Assessment

A kick-off teleconference occurred on August 23, 2010 by members of the team charged with the development of this EA. Subsequent to th at meeting, a review was made of available information necessary for the completion of the EA and data gaps were submitted to NETL.

5.2 Agency Coordination

The Council on Environmental Quality’s regula tions for implementing NEPA allows federal agencies to invite comment from tribal, state, and local agencies, as well as other federal agencies in the preparation of EAs. The pur pose of this coordinati on is to obtain special expertise with respect to environmental and cultura l issues in order to enhance interdisciplinary capabilities, and otherwise en sure successful, effective cons ultation in decision-making.

5.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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.

See Appendix C for letter sent to agency.

5.2.2 State Historic Preserva tion Office (SHPO)

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) re quires DOE to consult with the SHPO prior to any construction to ensure that no historical properties woul d be adversely affected by a proposed project. DOE must also afford th e Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comme nt on the proposed project.

See Appendix D for letter sent to and received from the SHPO.

5.2.3 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 religions. The law en sures the protection of s acred 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.

See Appendix E for letters sent to the Bur eau of Indian Affairs and Tribal Councils.

5.2.4 State AgenciesIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Consultation and Coordination 84 April 2011 Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency were consulted, and correspondences with th ese agencies are in Appendix F.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

List of Preparers 85 April 2011 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

6.1 Mangi Environmental Group

James Mangi; Contract Management Dave Henney; EA Project Ma nager, Proposed Action; No -Action, Project Location; Alternatives, Land Use, Visual Resources Randy Williams; Water Resources, Waste Management Erica Earhart; Geology and Soils Meghan Morse; Associate Project Manager, Do cument/Administrative Record Management, Human Health and Safety, Cultural Resources Eveline Martin; Wetlands, Wildlife, Terrestrial Plants Tim Lavallee; Air Quality, Noise Rick Heffner; SocioeconomicsIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

References 86 April 2011 7.0 REFERENCES

(ADM, 2010a). Rhea Sammons, Post Doc Resear ch Engineer. Archer Daniels Midland Company. Personal Communication. Edits for EIV for ICCS project . March 17, 2010.

(ADM, 2010b). April Hoffart, Research Assistant; Scott McDonald, Project Manager; and Rhea Sammons, Post-doc Researcher. Archer Dani els Midland Company. Personal Communication. Kick-off Meeting . January 14, 2010.

(ADM, 2010c). Dean Frommelt. Archer Dani els Midland Company. Personal Communication.

Final EIV . September 23, 2010.

(ADM, 2010d). April Hoffart, Research Assistan t; and Rhea Sammons, Post-doc Researcher.

Archer Daniels Midland Co mpany. Personal Communication. Data gaps for the EIV . January 28,

2010.

(ADM, 2010e). Scott McDonald. Archer Dani els Midland Company. Personal Communication. Subject: Transportation Estimate for Switch Yard . September 28, 2010.

(ADM, 2009a). Archer Dani els Midland Company. 2009. CO 2 Capture Using Novel Amine Technology and Sequestration by Inj ection into the Mt Simon Sandstone . Application for Project Funding to U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. 31 pp.

(ADM, 2009b). Archer Daniels Midland Company. 2009. Site Plan – Flue Gas Scrubbing –

Prelim. Created December 17, 2009. 1 pp.

(ADM, 2008). Archer Daniels Midland. 2008. Application for Underg round Injection Control

Permit . 199 pp.

(AERCB, 2008). Alberta Energy Re sources Conservation Board. 2008. The Public Interest: Health Effects of Sour Gas . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.ercb.ca/portal/server.pt/gat eway/PTARGS_0_0_315_247_0_43/http%3B/ercbConten t/publishedcontent/publish/ercb_home/public_zone/s our_gas/the_public_inter est/HealthEffects.a

spx

.

(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, 2008). Agency for Toxic Subs tances and Disease Registry. 2008. ToxFAQs TM : Automotive Gasoline. Accessed February 2010 at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts72.html

.

(Bailey, 1995). Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoreg ions of the United States . Accessed February 2010 at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris /emrishelp2/bailey_s_ecoregions_map.htm

.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

References 87 April 2011 (BLS, 2010). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. Local Area Unemployment Statistics Information and Analysis . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm#data

.

(BLS, 2009a). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2008 . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.bls.gov/news.r elease/cfoi.nr0.htm

.

(BLS, 2009b). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Incidence Rates of Total Recordable Cases of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesse s by Quartile Distributio n and Employment Size, Private Industry, 2008 . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.bls.gov/iif/os hwc/osh/os/ostb2075.txt

.

(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 February 2010 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 February 2010 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/mse i/onroad/latest_version.htm

.

( Census, 2009a). U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. 2009 American Community Survey, 1 Year Estimates, Demographic and Housing Estim ates, 2009. Decatur City, Illinois. Accessed

November 2010 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPGe oSearchByListServlet?ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G 00_&_lang=en&_ts=307643253299

(Census, 2009b). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2009. Table 1 Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (CBSA-EST2009-01). Accessed November 2010 at http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSAest2009-annual.html

.

(Census, 2009c). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2009. Table 4: Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places in Illinoi s, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-17) . Accessed November 2010 at http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009-4.html

.

(Census, 2009d). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2009. Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (CO-EST2009-01-17) . Accessed November2010 at http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2009-01.html

( Census, 2009e). U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. 2009 American Community Survey, 1 Year Estimates, Demographic and Housing Estim ates, 2009. Macon County, Illinois. Accessed

November 2010 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPGe oSearchByListServlet?ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G 00_&_lang=en&_ts=307643253299

.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

References 88 April 2011 (Census, 2008a). Census Bureau, American FactFinder. 2008. Population Finder-Decatur city,

IL . Accessed February 2010 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

.

(Census, 2008b). U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. American Community Survey Decatur, IL

. Selected

Economic Characteristics: 2008 . Accessed February 2010 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servle t/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US1718823&- qr_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_DP3&-context= adp&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&- tree_id=306&-_lang= en&-redoLog=false

.

(Census, 2008c). U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. American Community Survey Macon County, IL.

Selected Economic Characteristics: 2008. Accessed February 2010 at http://factfinder.census.gov/serv let/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&- qr_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_DP3&-ds_name =ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-tree_id=308&- redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-g eo_id=05000US17115&-format=&-_lang=en

.

(Census, 2006). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2006. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights Decatur and Macon County, Illinois . Accessed February 2010 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 February 2010 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 February 2010 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

.

(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.

(Decatur, 2009). The City of Decatur and Macon County. 2009. Macon County & Decatur Comprehensive Plan . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.ci.decatur.il.us/publ icinformation/compplandraftfina l.pdf

.

(Decatur, 2008a). The City of Decatur, IL. 2008. 2008 Annual Water Quality Report: PWS ID

1150150 . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.ci.decatur.il.us /watermanagement/2008%20Water%20Quality%20Report.pdf

.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

References 89 April 2011 (Decatur, 2008b). The City of Decatur. 2008. Land Development Code. Accessed February 2010

at www.ci.decatur.il.us/publicinformation/Zoning%20Ordinance.pdf

.

(DOE, 2008). U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. Final Environmental Assessment: Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGS C) Phase III Large-Scale Field Test. 160 pp.

(DOE, 2007a). U.S. Department of Ener gy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2007. Carbon Sequestration Program Environmental Reference Document . Accessed February 2010 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 February 2010 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ archive/ieo07/index.html

.

(DOE, 2007c). U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. FutureGen Environmental Impact Statement

. Accessed on February 2010 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies /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 February 2010 at http://gc.energy.gov/NEPA/nepa_documents/ea/ea1482/EA1482.pdf

.

(HAARGIS, 2002). Historic Architect ural/Archeologica l Resources. 2002. HAARGIS: Main

. Accessed February 2010 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 February 2010 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 February 2010 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 February 2010 at http://dnr.state.il.us/educa tion/CLASSRM/aquatic/CL_A.PDF

.

(IEPA, 2008). Illinois Environm ental Protection Agency. 2008. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List-2008 . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.epa.state.il.us/ water/tmdl/303d-list.html

.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

References 90 April 2011 (IEPA, 2006). Illinois Environm ental Protection Agency. 2006. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List-2006. Accessed February 2010 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. Preservation Services. Accessed February 2010 at http://www.illinoishis tory.gov/ps/index.htm

.

(IL, 2008). The State of Illinois. 2008. Environmental Regulations for the State of Illinois. Accessed February 2010 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 February 2010 at http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/ns dihome/webdocs/st-hydro.html

.

(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 Research and Development Programme Technical Study. Report Number: 2007/3.

(IPCB, 2002). Illinois Pollution Control Board. 2002. Environmental Regulations . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IP CBandIEPAEnvironmentalRegulationsTitle35.asp

.

(IPCC, 2005). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage . Accessed on February 2010 at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/pub lications_and_data_reports_carbon_dioxide.htm

.

(ISGS, 1996). Illinois State Geological Survey. 1996. Quaternary Deposits of Illinois . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/maps-data-pub/ publications/pdf-files/quaternarydeposits-8x11.pdf

.

(ISM, 1994). Illinois State Museum. 1994. Archaeological Resource Potential in Illinois by County: ISM GIS Database archmod. Accessed February 2010 at http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/outmeta/IL_Arch_Resource_Potential_Py.html

.

(Miller, 2003). Miller, G. Tyler. 2003. Environmental Science

. 9 th edition . Pacific Grove,

California: Brooks/Col e-Thomson Learning.

(National Atlas, 2008). National Atlas. 2008. Map Layers . Accessed February 2010 at http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html?openChapters=chpbio#chpbio

.

(NETL, 2008). National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Lake Nyos and Mammoth Mountain: What Do They Tell Us about the Security of Engineered Storage of CO 2Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

References 91 April 2011 Underground? Accessed February 2010 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publicatio ns/factsheets/program/Prog064.pdf

.

(NPS, 2008a). National Park Service. 2008. National Register Listed Pr operties in Google Earth

. Accessed February 2010 at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html

.

(NPS, 2008b). National Park Service. 2008. Native American Consultation Database Search (NACD). Accessed February 2010 at http://home.nps.gov/nacd/

.

(NRCS, 2009). Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture. 2009. Official Soil Series Data . Accessed September 2010 at http://soils.usda .gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html

.

(NRCS, 2008). Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Official Soil Series Descriptions . Accessed September 2010 at http://soils.usda .gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html

.

(NRCS, 2007). Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture. 2007. Official Soil Series Image . Accessed September 2010 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 February 2010 at www.sws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/CR/ISWSCR2001- 11.pdf

.

(Schlumberger, 2008). 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, 2008). United Nations Framewor k Convention on Climate Change. 2008. Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accoun ting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts . Accessed February 2010 at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/p ublications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf

.

(USEPA, 2009a). U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency. 2009 . Climate Change . Accessed February 2010 at www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html#emissions

.

(USEPA, 2009b). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 2009. Basic Information: Air and

Radiation . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.html

.

(USEPA, 2008). U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 2008. USEPA AirDATA Website

. Accessed February 2010 at http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/

.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

References 92 April 2011 (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 February 2010 at http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels 74/levels74.htm#table%20of%20contents

.

(USFWS, 2009a). United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 2009. Wetland Codes . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/wetland s/Data/wetlandcodes.html

.

(USFWS, 2009b). United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered Species in Illinois County Distribution of Federally Threatene d, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species - By County . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/s ection7/sppranges/illinois-cty.html

.

(USFWS, 2009c). United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered Species Section 7(a)(2) Consultation . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endanger ed/section7/s7process/index.html

.

(USFWS, 1987). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 1987. Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Conterminous United States - Illinois . Accessed February 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/wetland s/Data/DataDownload.html

.

(USGS, 2007). United States Geological Survey. 2007. Water-Data Report 2007 05573540 Sangamon River at Route 48 at Decatur, IL . Accessed February 2010 at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2007/pdfs/05573540.2007.pdf

.

(Weibel, 2010). C. Pius Weibel, Senior Geologist. Illinois State Geological Survey. Personal

Communication. Data gaps for EIV . February 3, 2010.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Glossary 93 April 2011 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.

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.

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 e nvironmentally 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.

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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Glossary 94 April 2011 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 stat ement 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 longterm 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Glossary 95 April 2011 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.

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.

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 humanIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Glossary 96 April 2011 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 partic ipation in the planning and imp lementation 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.

Particulate 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.

pH – The measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution.

Porosity – A measure of the void spaces in a material.

Quaternary

–The period after the Neogene 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.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Glossary 97 April 2011 Supercritical CO 2 –Carbon dioxide that is in a fluid stat e while also being at or above both its critical temperature and pressure.

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.Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS)Area 1 ProjectFinal Environmental AssessmentAppendix A 98 April 2011APPENDICESAppendix A Air Emission CalculationsTable A-1. Drilling EmissionsHeavyEquipment UseEquipment TypeNumber of Units Dayson Site Hours Per Day Operating HoursBore/Drill Rigs1 90 24 2160Generator Sets4 90 24 8640Other Construction Equipment3 90 24 6480DrillingEquipment Emission Factors (pounds (lbs)/hour)Equipment CO NOxVOCSOxPM10PM2.5Bore/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)DrillingEquipment Emissions (tons)Equipment CO NOxVOCSOxPM10PM2.5Bore/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 0.99780.0090 0.4127 0.4127DrillingWorker CommutesNumber of Workers30Number of Trips2Miles Per Trip30Days of Drilling90Total Miles162000Pollutant CO NOxVOCSOxPM10PM2.5Emission 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 0.08740.0009 0.0069 0.0043Source: (CARB, 2007b)Total Drilling Emissions (tons)Activity/Source CO NOxVOCSOxPM10PM2.5Heavy 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 Emissions per well4.3791 8.3040 1.0852 0.0099 0.4195 0.4169Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS)Area 1 ProjectFinal Environmental AssessmentAppendix A 99 April 2011Table 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 CONOxVOC 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)Construction Equipment Emissions (tons)Equipment CONOxVOC 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 ft2/gallonEmission Factor0.003125 lbs/ft2Building/FacilityWallSurface VOC [lbs]VOC[tons]Compressor Housing1000 3.125 0.0015625Support Facilities5000 15.625 0.0078125Total 600018.750.009375Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS)Area 1 ProjectFinal Environmental AssessmentAppendix A 100 April 2011Table A-2. ConstructionEmissions (Continued)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 Workers20Number 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 CONOxVOC 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 0.0240Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS)Area 1 ProjectFinal Environmental AssessmentAppendix A 101 April 2011Table A-3. CO2Emission CalculationsDrilling and ConstructionDiesel Fuel Usage500 Gallons Per DayDrilling Period90 DaysTotal Fuel45000 GallonsTotal Fuel170343 LitersEmission Factor2.6304 kg CO2per literTotal Emissions448070.2 kgTotal Emissions494 TonsElectricity UsageElectricity Usage12000 kWHours21900 HoursPower262800000Emission Factor0.6510 kg CO2/KwhTotal Emissions171082800 kgTotal Emissions188587 TonsWorker CommutesNumber of Workers20 WorkersNumber of Trips2 TripsMiles Per Trip30 MilesDays of Operation913 DaysTotal Miles1095000 MilesEmission Factor1.1 lbs/mileTotal Emissions1204500 lbsTotal Emissions (tons)602.0 tonsSource: (CARB, 2007b)Total CO2Emissions (tons)Activity/SourceEmissions (tons)Drilling and Construction988Electricity Usage188587Worker Commutes602Sequestration (2500000)Total Emissions Reduction (2309823)Note: kWh is kilowatt hour, kW iskilowatt, and kg is kilogram.Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS)Area 1 ProjectFinal Environmental AssessmentAppendix B 102 April 2011Appendix B Noise CalculationsTable B-1. Drilling NoiseFeetMetersNSA 1 - Community College 860 262Octave Band Center Frequency, HzSource31.5631252505001000200040008000dBDrill Rig (at 25 Feet)9397 94 91 92 9188 81 76Power Level (PWL)121 125 123 120 121 120 116 109 105Transmission Loss (TL)Enclosure (1/2 inch 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 (Shaker andPump) (at 25 Feet) 89 90 88 81 79 78 75 74 68PWL118 119 117 110 108 107 104 103 97Generators (Light Plant)325 435.5CF5 9 3 7 15 19 25 35 43Exhaust Noise Lw 145.1140.1 136.1 142.1 138.1 130.1 126.1 120.1 110.1 102.1 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 Noise Lw 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 Noise Lw 118.1PWL96 104 111 111 110 112 111 105 98 117Excavator (at 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 PWL124120120116114115113109101128Hemispherical Spreading-62 -62 -62 -62 -62 -62 -62 -62 -62Atmospheric Absorption0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -6 -11Flat Sound Level62 58 58 53 51 51 49 40 28Octave Band A-WeightedCorrection -39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 1 -1A-Weighted Sound Level23 32 42 44 48 51 50 41 2756Ldn 62Notes:Calculations based on available data fromtypical equipment set-ups, actual equipment would vary dependenton results of geotechnical evaluation andsite-specific design.Calculations do not account for effect of topographic features, reflection, and naturalbarriersLw is sound power levels, and Ldn is EquivalentDay Night Level. CF is center frequencyIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS)Area 1 ProjectFinal Environmental AssessmentAppendix B 103 April 2011Table B-2. Compressor NoiseFeetMetersNSA 1 - Community College2500 762Octave Band Center Frequency, HzSource31.5631252505001000200040008000dBReciprocating Compressor12000.0CF11 15 10 11 13 10 5 8 15Lw 129.5PWL119 115 120 119 117 120 125 122 115 128Total Sound Intensity 0.7108 0.2830 0.8949 0.7108 0.4485 0.8949 2.8298 1.4182 0.2830Total PWL119115120119117120125122115129Hemispherical Spreading-72 -72 -72 -72 -72 -72 -72 -72 -72Atmospheric Absorption0 0 0 -1 -2 -4 -7 -18 -32Octave Band A-Weighted Correction-39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 1 -1A-Weighted Sound Level (withoutbarrier) 8 17 32 37 40 44 47 33 1050Ldn 56FeetMetersCritical Distance Calculation1300 396Octave Band Center Frequency, HzSource31.5631252505001000200040008000dBReciprocating Compressor12000.0CF11 15 10 11 13 10 5 8 15Lw 129.5PWL119 115 120 119 117 120 125 122 115 128Total Sound Intensity 0.7108 0.2830 0.8949 0.7108 0.4485 0.8949 2.8298 1.4182 0.2830Total PWL119115120119117120125122115129Hemispherical Spreading-66 -66 -66 -66 -66 -66 -66 -66 -66Atmospheric Absorption0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -4 -9 -17Octave Band A-Weighted Correction-39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 1 -1A-Weighted Sound Level (withoutbarrier) 14 23 38 43 47 52 56 48 3158Ldn 65Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix C 104 April 2011 Appendix C USFWS ConsultationIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix C 105 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 106 April 2011 Appendix D SHPO ConsultationIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 107 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 108 April 2011 Figure 1. ADM Project MapIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 109 April 2011 Figure 2. ADM Topographic Map with NRHP siteIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 110 April 2011 Figure 3. ADM Site PlanIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 111 April 2011 Figure 4. Side Exterior View of Blower Building

Figure 5. Rear Exterior View of Blower BuildingIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 112 April 2011 Figure 6. First Interior View of Blower Building

Figure 7. Second Interior View of Blower BuildingIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 113 April 2011 Figure 8. Third Interior View of Blower BuildingIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix D 114 April 2011 SHPO ResponseIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix E 115 April 2011 Appendix E Consultation with Tribes

The enclosures are at the section’s end.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix E 116 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix E 117 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix E 118 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix E 119 April 2011 ADM Project MapIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix E 120 April 2011 No responses receivedIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix F 121 April 2011 Appendix F State Agencies

The enclosure is at the section’s end.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix F 122 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix F 123 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix F 124 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix F 125 April 2011 ADM Project MapIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix F 126 April 2011 Illinois DNR ResponseIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix F 127 April 2011 Illinois EPA ResponseIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 128 April 2011 Appendix G Environmental SynopsisIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 129 April 2011 

## ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS Industrial Carbon Capture & Sequestration (ICCS) Technology Area I

DE-FOA-0000015

January 2011

National Energy Tech nology Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy Morgantown, West VirginiaIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 130 April 2011 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 131 April 2011 

### CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

BACKGROUND 1

PURPOSE AND NEED 134

ALTERNATIVES 3

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 3

CONCLUSION 6Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 132 April 2011 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 133 April 2011 

## INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Depart ment) prepared this Environmental Synopsis pursuant to the Department’s responsibilities under section 216 of DOE’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Procedures set forth in 10 CF R Part 1021. This synopsis summarizes the consideration given to envi ronmental factors and records that the relevant environmental consequences of reasonable alternatives were evaluated in the process of selecting awardees seeking financial assistance under Technology Area 1 of the Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) program In addition to financial and technical elements, DOE considered relevant environmental factors and consequences of the projects proposed to DOE in response to the funding opportunity announcement (FOA). DOE initially selected 12 applicants seeking financial assistance under Technology Area 1 and provided cost-shared funding for project definition activ ities; DOE then selected three of the initial twelve awardees for continued funding beyond project definiti on, pending completion of project-specific NEPA reviews. As required by section 216, this synopsis do es not contain business, confidential, trade secret or other information that statutes or regulations would prohibit DOE from disclosing. It also does not contain data or other information that may in any way reveal the identity of the offerors. 2



## BACKGROUND

The ICCS program is a cost-shared collaboration between the government and industry to increase investment in clean industrial technologies and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects. In contrast to other federally funded activities, these projects are not federal projects; instead, they are private projects seeking federal financial assistan ce. Under the ICCS funding opportunity, industry proposes projects that meet their needs and those of their customers while furthering the national goals and objectives of DOE. The successful development of advanced technologies and innovative concepts that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a key objective of the nation’s effort to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

Awardees under this FOA would receive assistance us ing funds appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, (Rec overy Act). The Recovery Act’s purposes are to stimulate the economy and to create and retain jobs. Accordingly, special consideration was given to projects that promote and enhance job creation, pr eservation and economic recove ry, in an expeditious manner. In accordance with the Recovery Act, a nd Section 703 of Public Law 110-140, DOE’s two specific objectives were identified in the FOA as (1) Technology Area 1 – Large-Scale Industrial CCS Projects from Industrial Sources ; and (2) Technology Area 2 – Innovative Concepts for Beneficial CO 2 Use . This synopsis specifically deals with the review process conducted for applications under Technology Area 1.

The applications reviewed under this FOA were in itially selected for a first phase funding in October 2009 as the first of a two phase process for final awards of financial assistance. Under Phase I of the review process for Technology Area 1, DOE select ed 12 projects related to the capture of CO 2 from industrial sources for geological storage or enhanced oil recovery (EOR). During Phase I, DOE provided cost shared funding for applican ts to conduct project definition ac tivities (e.g. preliminary design and permitting) and to prepare information that would assi st the Department in performing its obligations pursuant to NEPA. Near the end of Phase I, awar dees were given an opportunity to submit renewal applications for Phase II awards that would provide financial assistance for detailed design, construction and demonstration of the proposed technologies. DOE received eight renewal applications from the 12 projects selected under Phase I.

2 The three awardees selected for continued financial assi stance are identified in this synopsis and information on these proposed projects will be available on the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory web site at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/iccs/index.html.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 134 April 2011 Applications under the ICCS program were eval uated against specific programmatic criteria:

• Technology merit, technical plan, and site suitability;

• Project organization and project management plan;

• Commercial potential;

• Funding plan;

• Financial condition and capacity of proposed funding sources;

• Financial commitment to meet cost-sharing requirements.

These criteria represented the total evaluation scoring. However, the selection official also considered the results of the environmental evaluation and the applicant’s budget information and financial management system, as well as program policy factors, in making selections.

As a federal agency, DOE must comply with NEPA (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq .) by considering potential environmental issues associated with its actions prio r to deciding whether to undertake these actions. The environmental review of applications received in response to the ICCS FOA was conducted pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regula tions (CFR) Parts 1500 - 1508) and DOE’s NEPA Impl ementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021), which provide directions specific to NEPA in the context of procurement and financial assistance actions.



## PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose and need for DOE’s selections of awardees under the ICCS Program are to satisfy the responsibility Congress imposed on the Department to carry out a program to demonstrate technologies for the large-scale capture of CO 2 from industrial sources. Technology Area 1 under the FOA focused on the demonstration of advanced technologies that ca pture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions from industrial sources into undergrou nd formations or put the CO 2 to beneficial use in a manner that permanently prevents the CO 2 from entering the atmosphere, including the expansion of CO 2 use in EOR, while providing information on the cost and feasibility of deployment of sequestration technologies. Therefore, under the FOA, DOE sought projects with technologies that have progressed beyond the research and development stage to a point of readiness for operation at a scale that, if successful, could be readily replicated and deployed into commercial practice within the industry.

The industrial technologies proposed could produce heat, fuels, chemicals, hydrogen or other useful products with or without production of electricity. Thus, industrial sources could include cement plants, chemical plants, refineries, steel and aluminum pl ants, manufacturing facilities, and power plants using opportunity fuels (petroleum coke, municipal waste, etc. ). DOE sought projects at a sufficient scale to show the potential for market penetration upon successful demonstration of the technology, and be integrated with commercial plant operation. DOE also allowed for leading-edge technologies not currently deployed in the utility marketplace or CO 2 injection industry, as opposed to new applications of commercial technologies or incremental improveme nts of commercial technologies or previously demonstrated technologies. DOE’s specific technical objectives included demonstrating:

 Projects that capture and sequester amounts of CO 2 approaching or exceeding a target of one million tons per plant per year ;

 Projects with large-scale CCS that include integration of CO 2 capture, transportation and sequestration with comprehensive MVA;

 Geological sequestration in multiple geological setti ngs as a means to evaluate costs, operational processes, and technical performance;

 CO 2 capture technologies that are integrated within existing or new industrial facilities;Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 135 April 2011  Projects capable of operating technologies th at make progress toward the capture and sequestration of seventy-five percent of CO 2 from the treated stream, comprising at least ten percent of CO 2 by volume that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere; and

 Projects at a sufficient scale to show the potential for market penetration;



## ALTERNATIVES

DOE received eight Phase II renewal applications out of the twelve projects selected for Phase I in ICCS Technology Area 1, all of which were determined to have met the mandatory eligibility requirements listed in the FOA. The applications proposed projects lo cated in eight states: California, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Texas, and W ashington. The criteria for evaluating Phase II applications under ICCS Technology Area 1 were pub lished in the FOA. Technical and financial evaluations represented the total evaluation scoring; however, the environmental evaluation, which was not point-scored, entered into the evaluation and selection process. Each applicant was required to complete and submit a standard environmental information volume fo r each site or alternative site included in its application.

The evaluations of the applications focused on the technical description of the proposed project, financial plans and budgets, potential environmental impacts, a nd other information that the applicants submitted. Following reviews by technical, environmental, and fi nancial panels and a comprehensive assessment by a merit review board, a DOE official selected those applications that best met DOE’s purpose and need. By broadly soliciting proposals to meet the progr ammatic purpose and need for DOE action and by evaluating the potential environmental impacts associat ed with each proposal before selecting applicants, DOE considered a reasonable range of alte rnatives for meeting its purpose and need.

Applications were divided into two broad categories:

 Group 1: Addition of Carbon Capture Equipment at an Existing and Operating Facility; and

 Group 2: Addition of Carbon Capture Equipment at a Planned or Yet-to-Be Constructed Facility.

DOE received five applications for existing and ope rating facilities (Group 1) and three applications for planned or yet-to-be constructed facilities (Group 2).



## ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

DOE assembled environmental review teams to ass ess all applications that met the mandatory requirements. The review teams considered 20 resource areas that could potentially be impacted by the technologies and sites proposed under ICCS Technol ogy Area 1. These resource areas consisted of:

 Aesthetics

 Air Quality

 Biological Resources

 Climate

 Community Services

 Cultural Resources

 Environmental Justice  Floodplains

 Geology

 Ground Water

 Human Health and Safety

 Land Use

 Noise

 Socioeconomics  Soils

 Surface Water

 Transportation and Traffic

 Utilities

 Wastes and Materials

 Wetlands

The review teams were composed of environmental professionals with experience evaluating the impacts of industrial facilities, power plants, and energy-rela ted projects in the resource areas considered by DOE.Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 136 April 2011 The review teams considered the information provi ded as part of each application, which included narrative text, worksheets, and the environmental in formation volumes for the sites proposed by the applicant. In addition, reviewers independently verifi ed the information provided to the extent practicable using available sources commonly consulted in the preparation of NEPA documents, and conducted preliminary analyses to identify the potential range of impacts that would be associated with each application. Reviewers identified both direct and indirect potential impacts to the resource areas mentioned above, as well as short-term impacts that might occur during constr uction and start-up, and long-term impacts that might occur over the expected operational life of the proposed project and beyond. The reviewers also considered any mitigation measu res proposed by the applicant and any reasonably available mitigation measures that may not have been proposed.

Reviewers assessed the potential for environmental issues and impacts using the following

characterizations:

 Beneficial – Expected to have a net beneficial effect on the resource in comparison to baseline

conditions.

 None (negligible) – Immeasurable or negligible in conse quence (not expected to change baseline conditions).

 Low – Measurable or noticeable but of minimal con sequence (barely discernable change in baseline conditions).

 Moderate – Adverse and considerable in consequence but moderate and not expected to reach a level of significance (discernable, but not drastic, alteration of baseline conditions).

 High – Adverse and potentially significant in severity (anticipated substantial changes or effects on baseline conditions that might not be mitigable).

For cases in which an application failed to provide sufficient information to support a determination among the above characterizations, the reviewers assigned one of the following characterizations:

 Limited Concern – The potential for substantial adverse im pacts would be negligible to low based on background information about the resource area with respect to the geographic location of the project.

 Elevated Concern – The potential for substantial adverse impacts would be moderate to high based on background information about the resource area with respect to the geographic location of the project.



### Applications in Response to the FOA

Based on the technologies and sites proposed, none of the applications were deemed to have a high potential for adverse impacts in eighteen of the twenty resource areas. However, one application was considered to have potential for high adverse impa cts to floodplains, with another having high potential for health and safety concerns. The following impact s by resource area were considered in the selection

of candidates for award:

Aesthetics –Low to moderate impacts would be expected for one facility. This site would be located within view of a residential area; however, it would be located where a previous facility stood that posed similar aesthetic issues, leading to little relative chan ge. Low impacts were projected for all remaining sites. Temporary impacts could result at one site due to construction of a CO 2 pipeline near a National

Historic Trail.

Air Quality – Moderate impacts would be expected for five projects, with three of them having elevated concerns due to new sources of criteria pollutants from planned or yet-to-be constructed plants. The other two facilities with expected moderate impacts would a dd new energy-generating systems to their plants asIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 137 April 2011 part of the project. Low impacts were anticipated for the remaining three projects. Concerns included increases in emissions of volatile organic compounds from four sites, increases in NO

x emissions from two sites, and increase in PM 2.5 and SO 2 emissions at one site. Temporary impacts from fugitive dust and combustion equipment were expected from all sites as a result of construction activities.

Biological Resources – Moderate impacts would be expected fo r four projects due to plant construction and land clearing activities. Impacts to aquatic species and habitat would be a concern for two projects as a result of process water intake, water discharge, a nd potential for accidental chemical release. Low impacts would be expected for the remaining sites.

Climate – Beneficial impacts would be expected for all projects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions

reductions.

Community Services – Low impacts would be expected for a ll but one project, which would involve a new power plant. Generally, projects anticipating a larger temporary workforce during construction would be expected to place a higher demand on community services – particularly in smaller, more rural communities where currently existing community services are more limited.

Cultural Resources – Moderate impacts would be expected for two projects due to their proximity to multiple sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and other cultural resources. Low impacts would be expected for the remaining six projects. Potential impacts would include tribal concerns over pipeline routes. Impacts would vary w ith the extent of known tribal claims and their proximity to the proposed project or pipeline route.

Environmental Justice – Moderate impacts would be expected for one project due to the potential for disproportionate effects on minorities if an accidental release of hazardous chemical were to occur. Low impacts would be expected for the remaining projects, typically a function of lesser concentrations of low income and minority populations in surrounding areas.

Floodplains – Moderate to high impacts would be expect ed for three projects due to siting of the CO 2 capture facilities partially or totally within floodplai ns, and there would be limited concern for one site for which the floodplains are not delineated. Low to no impacts would be expected for the remaining proposed facilities. Low to moderate potential impa cts during pipeline construction or pipeline routing would be expected for all but one project for which there are no floodplains within the proposed route. Floodplains would be impacted by any activity that modifies the available flood storage within the designated area; however, long-term potential impact s on the corridors would be minimal provided the surface contours are returned to preconstruction conditions.

Geology –Moderate impacts would be expected at one project due to sequestration within a rock formation largely untested for storag e effectiveness. One project altern ative presents elevated concern as it has potential for caprock fracture combined with abnormally high levels of hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) in the formation water. The potential for low to modera te impacts exists for all applications, either from

CO 2 injection into saline aquifers or use for enhanced oil recovery.

Ground Water – Low impacts would be expected for all projects. Impacts could include displacement of saline waters in reservoirs targeted for CO 2 injection or loss of CO 2 containment should injection pressures exceed appropriate thresholds.

Human Health and Safety – Low to moderate impacts would be expected for all projects due to hazards

associated with construction. The level of risk is generally related to the size and complexity of the planned construction. There could also be a risk to human health and safety from loss of containment of

CO 2 during transport and injection. This risk is pres ent for all applications and generally varies from low

to moderate with distance and is infl uenced by population density along the CO 2 transport route. Shorter routes through sparsely populated areas were considered to have a lower risk than longer routes through regions of higher population. Low to moderate pot ential impacts could also be expected resulting fromIndustrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 138 April 2011 hazards associated with use, storage, and transport of ammonia for the CO 2 capture process. One project has a high potential impact due to the proximity of CO 2 pipelines to seismic faults and potential fracturing.

Land Use – Low impacts would be expected for all projects.

Noise – Moderate temporary impacts would be expect ed during construction of the pipeline routes for two projects that would pass near sensitive receptors . Long-term impacts during operations would be expected to be low for all projects.

Socioeconomics – Beneficial impacts would be expected for all projects. All projects would provide some additional employment as a result of constr uction, operations, and multiplier effects. Most employment opportunities would be in the local area.

Soils – Low impacts would be expected for projects lo cated on previously disturbed land or within proximity to other industrial faciliti es. Moderate impacts would be expected for those projects with disturbances to prime farmland soils. One project would be located on a brownfield site, requiring

additional remediation.

Surface Water – Moderate impacts would be expected fo r four projects due to proposed pipeline crossings of numerous streams and other water bodies, including one project where the pipeline crosses a major river. Moderate impacts would also be exp ected for two of the projects due to increased water demand. Low impacts would be expected for the remaining four projects. Increased sediment and nutrient loadings associated with increased stormwat er runoff would be a concern for all projects.

Transportation and Traffic – Low impacts would be expected for all projects. Temporary impacts from construction are likely; however, operations would not be expected to result in any long-term traffic problems.

Utilities – Moderate impacts would be expected for five projects, associated with the supply of electricity

for the CO 2 capture and compression systems. Low impact s would be expected for the remaining three projects.

W

astes and Materials – Low to moderate impacts would be e xpected for all projects due to required materials used and waste genera ted during operations of the CO 2 capture facilities, and wastes generated during construction, typically proportional to the size of the project.

Wetlands –Low impacts would be expected for all project s but one, which would have moderate impacts from more extensive wetland clearing as a result of CO 2 pipeline construction and ROW clearing.



## CONCLUSION

The alternatives available to DOE from applicat ions received in response to the FOA for ICCS Technology Area I provided reasonable alternatives for accomplishing the Department’s purpose and need to satisfy the responsibility Congress imposed on the Department to carry out a program to demonstrate technologies for th e large-scale capture of CO 2 from industrial sources. The alternatives available to DOE would also meet the Department’s goal of demonstrating advanced technologies that capture CO 2 emissions from industrial sources and either sequester the CO 2 in underground formations or put the CO 2 to beneficial use that permanently pr events it from entering the atmosphere. An environmental review was part of the evaluation pr ocess of these applications. DOE prepared a critique containing information from this environmental re view. That critique, summarized here, contained summary as well as project-specific environmental information. The critique was made available to, and considered by, the selection official before selections for financial assistance were made.

DOE determined that selecting three applications in response to the FOA Technology Area 1 would meet the Department’s purpose and need. DOE selected three projects for awards of financial assistance:Industrial Carbon Capture a nd Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix G 139 April 2011  Archer Daniels Midland Company (Decatur, IL) – project location in Decatur, IL. CO 2 capture from biofuels production and sequestration in the Mt. Simon sandstone formation; DOE

determined that an environmental assessment is th e appropriate level of e nvironmental review for the proposed project.

 Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. (Allentown, PA) – project location in Port Arthur, TX. CO 2 capture from steam methane reform ing process and transport to the Denbury Green Pipeline for use in EOR; DOE determined that an environm ental assessment is the appropriate level of environmental review for the proposed project.

 Leucadia Energy, LLC (New York, NY) – project location in Lake Charles, LA. CO 2 capture from flue gas from yet-to-be constructed petroleu m coke gasification plant and transport to the Denbury Green Pipeline for use in EOR; DOE de termined that an environmental impact statement is the appropriate level of envi ronmental review for the proposed project.Industrial Carbon Captureand Sequestration (ICCS)Area 1 Project Final Environmental AssessmentAppendix H 140 April 2011Appendix H NWI Online Wetlands MapperScreen shot taken 14 April 2011 from http://137.227.242.85/wetland/wetland.htmlIndustrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix I 141 April 2011 Appendix I Correspondence with USEPA Region 5Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix I 142 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix I 143 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix I 144 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix I 145 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix I 146 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix I 147 April 2011Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Area 1 Project Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix I 148 April 2011