# Future Gen TM

ALLIANCE

Clean Energy for a Secure Future



# November 19,2013

Rebecca Harvey Chief, Underground Injection Control Branch United States Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Blvd Chicago,IL 60604

- 3590 FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc. 73 Central Park Plaza East Jacksonville, ll 62650 www

. FutureGenAIIiance

. org 

### Kenneth Humphreys Chief Executive Officer 217-243-8215



# Subject: Request for Additional Information #1 Regarding, FutureGen Applications for UIC Permit nos. IL-137-6A-0001, -0002, -0003 & 

# -0004, dated October 31,2013
Dear Ms. Harvey,
Please find enclosed one printe d copy and one compact disc with an electronic copy of the Futw:eGen Alliance's responses to your Request for Additional Information (RAI #1) on the Futw:eGen Alliance's UIC applications dated October 31, 2013. Inquiries concerning the contents of the enclosure ma y be directed to Tyler Gilmore by telephone (509) 371-7171 or by email to tyler

. gilmore@pnnl

. go v
. Sincerely,

Mr

. 

# Kenneth Humphreys Chief Executive Office Futw:eGen Industrial Alliance, Inc.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 1 of 30

10
- 31
- 2013: Letter from Rebecca Harvey (EPA) to Kenneth K. Humphreys (Alliance), “Request for Additional Information Regarding four Futur eGen 2.0 Wells, United States Environmental Protection Agency Underground

Injection Control (UIC) Permit Applications for Four G eologic Sequestration Wells; United States Environmental Protection Agency UIC Permit Nos. IL
- 137
- 6A
- 0001,
- 0002,
- 0003, &
- 0004 RAI # Subject Page Doc. Sec. Par. EPA Comment / Question / Request FutureGen Response Footnote / Reference Citation 10

- 31

- 2013_001 Seismic

Reflection Survey
&
Vertical Seismic Profiling Data 2.26 2.3.1.1 1 “The Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) recently acquired a new 120

- mi long seismic reflection survey across central Illinois as part of a DOE

- sponsored research project to characterize reservoir rocks for geologic storage of carbon dioxide. The cont inuous east

- west line extends from Meredosia to southwestern Champaign County (Figure 2.14). This line, which is currently under re

- processing, will supply additional information about the structure of the sedimentary layers which will be correlated to th e observations made on both profiles L101 and L201.” “Future efforts at Morgan County will also include the acquisition of vertical seismic profiling data in the stratigraphic well to better evaluate the cause of the vertical disruptions in seismic reflec tions observed on the two existing seismic profiles.”



## EPA: Have these tests been completed? Please report the results. A discussion regarding these specific requests is presented in Appendix A . A summary of the response is as follows: (1) The current processed Knox line was reviewed by Dr. John McBride, Brigham Young University, and formerly of the ISGS. Dr. McBride is an expert in Illinois seismic data. Dr. McBride’s conclusion on the ISGS Knox line west of Ashland, Illinois, which is directly north of the proposed FutureGen storage site, is that there is no discernible faulting west of Ashland

. 1 

## Dr. McBride also suggested that current plans to reprocess the ISGS Knox line would not likely result in a greatly improved image

. 2 

## As a result, the technical team has cancelled plans to reprocess the ISGS Knox Line.
Dr. McBride ’s interpretation of flat

- lying, sedimentary layers with no major faults on the ISGS Knox Line west of Ashland correl ates well with the technical team’s interpretation of similar conditions on the Morgan County two

- dimensional (2D) profiles L101 and L201. (2) A three

- component vertical seismic profil ing ( VSP ) data set was acquired from the FutureGen stratigraphic well in M arch 2013 and processed by Schlumberger Carbon Services. Dr. Bob Hardage of the University of Texas concluded 3 

## that no faults are present in the 15 2D seismic lines formed by the 15 offset VSP locations. These lines represent a lateral interrogation exte nt of 800

− 1600 feet radially from the stratigraphic well

. The VSP data also do not contain the disruptions observed in the two original 2D seismic profiles (L101 and L201) of the proposed storage site. A second opinion evaluation of the vertical disruptions in the 2D Lines L101 and L201 was undertaken by Dr. John McBride, who concluded 1 

## that although the presence of small throw faults cannot completely be ruled out, the seismic anomalies in the 2D lines are most likely related to incompletely remo ved surface static noise, or due to the application of suboptimal filters during processing. 1 

## Phone Conference of Battelle Technical Team with John McBride, September 16, 2013.

2 

## John McBride. Personal Communication with Charlotte Sullivan, October 29, 2013.

3 

## Bob Hardage , Personal Communication with Charlotte Sullivan, August 1, 2013.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 2 of 30

10
- 31
- 2013: Letter from Rebecca Harvey (EPA) to Kenneth K. Humphreys (Alliance), “Request for Additional Information Regarding four Futur eGen 2.0 Wells, United States Environmental Protection Agency Underground

Injection Control (UIC) Permit Applications for Four G eologic Sequestration Wells; United States Environmental Protection Agency UIC Permit Nos. IL
- 137
- 6A
- 0001,
- 0002,
- 0003, &
- 0004 RAI # Subject Page Doc. Sec. Par. EPA Comment / Question / Request FutureGen Response Footnote / Reference Citation 10

- 31

- 2013_00 2 Mini

- frac Tests

Leak

- off Tests 2.30 2.4 3 “Various supportive geomechanical data were collected, but there are no available “mini

- frac” or leak

- off tests to directly measure fracture pressure in either the injection or confining zones. Mini

- frac or leak

- off data are required to definitively calculate site

- specific fracture gradients, and to produce high

confidence failure plots, fault slip tendency e stimates, and critical pore fluid pressure increase estimates. All of these tests will be realized in 2013 during the second phase of the project”


## EPA: Have these tests been completed? Please report the results. (1) Geomechanical characterization testing is currently being conducted (November 2013) with first analysis results expected late December 2013 or early January 2014
. Geomechanical testing of the reservoir and basement rock is currently being conducted in the FutureGen stratigraphic well ( November 2013). Testing involves a combination of Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) tests and Hydraulic Tests on Preexisting Fractures (HTPF s ) that will be conducted in the existing, open

- borehole section of the FutureGen stratigraphic well, to determin e the stat e - of

stress at depth. Given the present situation in which the stratigraphic well is cased down to the Mount Simon F ormation, the hydraulic testing in the Eau Claire F ormation is postponed until the drilling of the i njection pilot well. The testing program is designed to provide a more comprehensive characterization of the variation in magnitude for the minimum principal stress within the Mount Simon sandstone, as well as the required knowledge for the stress gradient in the Precambrian basement. Th is level of geomechanical characterization within both rock formations is necessary for determining the maximum acceptable reservoir pressure during future CO 2 

## injections. (2) Additional Geomechanical Characterization Tests at the Injection well site (se cond quarter, 2014)
Pending issuance of a Underground Injection Control ( UIC ) permit, an injection well will be drilled at the proposed injection site. Additional geo mechanical tests (HF tests and/or HTPF s ) will be conducted in this well in the primary confining zone and in the injection zone.

10

- 31

- 2013_00 3 Triaxial Core

Plug Tests 2.31 2.4.2 1 “ Uncalibrated geomechanical stress properties logs were calculated from the density log and the compressional and shear wave sonic log data. These geomechanical logs indicate there is strong stress anisotropy. These uncalibrated geomechanical logs will later have been calibrated over the cored interval with six triaxial core

- plug tests.”


## EPA: Has this analysis been completed? If so, please r eport the results. The triaxial core - plug tests ’ results were provided to Schlumberger, who used them to calibrate the geomechanical log data. The original triaxial test data are provided in the Supporting Documentation for the Alliance's Class VI UIC permit applications (Tables 2.10 and 2.11). The resulting calibrated Schlumberger geomechanical logs still indicate strong anisotropy. However, only geomechanical fie ld tests currently being conducted in the existing stratigraphic wellbore and planned in the Pilot Well will result in a quantification of the site stress regime.

10

- 31

- 2013_00 4 Horizontal

Components of Stress 2.32 2.4.2.2 2 “ Data are insufficient at this stage of analysis to be able to quantify the horizontal components of stress and thus distinguish between normal and strike

- slip regimes. ”


## EPA: How will you obtain and when will you have sufficient data? The data from the on - going borehole geomechanical tests (November 2013) include a combination of HF tests and of HTPF s , which are very well suited for identifying stress field s at depth (Cornet 1993; Haimson and Cornet 2003)

. The results will provide the data necessary to quantify the horiz ontal components of stress and be able to distinguish between extensional, compressional, and strike

- slip regimes. The results of this testing will be provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) soon after they have been analyzed , which is anticipated to be in late December 2013 or early January 2014.. Cornet F.H.; 1993; The HTPF and the Integrated stress determination methods; Comprehensive Rock Engineering (Hudson ed.); Vol 3, ch. 15, pp 413

- 432 Pergammon Press, Oxford.
Haimson B.C. and F.H. Cornet; 2003; ISRM Suggested Methods for rock stress estimation; Part III:Hydraulic fracturing methods ; Int. Jou. Rock. Mech. Min. Sc., vol. 40, 7/8, pp 1011

- 1020

. 10

- 31

- 2013_00 5 New Knowledge

About the Site 5.4 5.1.2 1 “As additional characterization data are collected, the site conceptual model will be revised and the modeling steps described above will be updated to incorporate new knowledge about the site”. i.e., they will add information to this section as it becomes available


## EP A: When will this be done? The site conceptual model will be updated after key data collection efforts are completed or when new information becomes available that could substantially modify the conceptual model. This will be an on

- going and iterative process over the life of the project. The next data collection effort, which may provide data that will update or modify the conceptual model, is the geomechanical testing in the s tratigraphic well. Therefore , the n ext conceptual model update could occur following interpretation of the geomech anical data . We anticipate making that determination in early January 2014

.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 3 of 30

10
- 31
- 2013: Letter from Rebecca Harvey (EPA) to Kenneth K. Humphreys (Alliance), “Request for Additional Information Regarding four Futur eGen 2.0 Wells, United States Environmental Protection Agency Underground

Injection Control (UIC) Permit Applications for Four G eologic Sequestration Wells; United States Environmental Protection Agency UIC Permit Nos. IL
- 137
- 6A
- 0001,
- 0002,
- 0003, &
- 0004 RAI # Subject Page Doc. Sec. Par. EPA Comment / Question / Request FutureGen Response Footnote / Reference Citation 10

- 31

- 2013_00 6 Indirect

Monitoring Approaches 5.8 5.1.4 1 “The location of any wells required to support implementation of indirect monitoring approaches will be determined once candidate technologies have been evaluated and the selection proces s completed.“ Future Gen has selected locations for the monitoring we lls based on the preliminary modeling. Once they begin on

- site activity, these locations may change. If the locations do change, the monitoring wells will retain the intent described in this plan.


## EPA: When will these technologies be evaluated and when will any changes be proposed ? The screening of the indirect monitoring approaches was conducted as part of the Front End Engineering Design process. The selected indirect technologies will include the following:

 pulsed n eutron capture logging or determination of reservoir CO 2 

## saturation

 integra ted deformation monitoring

 time

- lapse gravity

 microseismic monitoring. In addition, a baseline VSP survey in at least one of the “Above Caprock Zone” (ACZ) wells will be conducted after construction of the monitoring well network and if the EPA provides approval of the UIC permit application. The monitoring well locat ions have been identified; however land owner agreements still need to be finalized. We anticipate that we will have the final agreements before the end of January, 2014 and can map the locations at that time.

10

- 31

- 2013_00 7 EPA Form

7520

- 14 6 EPA Form 7520

- 14 (Plugging & Abandonment Plan) is missing

. 

## EPA: Please provide for each well. EPA Form 7520

- 14 ha s been completed for open

- hole and cased

- hole completions with laterals of 1,500 ft and 2,500 ft (4 forms , in A ppendix B ). These forms were unintentionally missing in the UIC Permit Application and are being submitted with this response.

10

- 31

- 2013_00 8 EverCrete

Cement Information 6 Information concerning the slurry volume and slurry weight of the EverCrete cement is needed (1) The slurry volume (yield) is 1.12 ft 3 

## /sack. (2) The slurry weight is 15.82 lb/gal. (3) Lab analyses o f the EverCRETE

- 5 cement blend and a technical report are also attached ( Appendix C )

. Note that the Alliance plans to use a Class H cement, and the product brand, EverCRETE

- 5, is an example of a class H cement.

10

- 31

- 2013_00 9 Casing &

Retainer in Figure 6.2 6.5 6 In Figure 6.2 , the 7” casing is set at 3400 feet, however a cement retainer will be at 3900 feet, which is below the cased hole

. 

## EPA: Please correct. The carbon

- steel casing will be run to a depth of 3,400 ft and stainless steel casing will be run from 3,400 ft to 3,950 ft. For clarity, an updated version of F igure 6.2 is attached in Appendix D . For consistency, Figures 4.4, 4.5 , and 6.1 have also been updated and are provided in Appendix D

.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 4 of 30

10
- 31
- 2013: Letter from Rebecca Harvey (EPA) to Kenneth K. Humphreys (Alliance), “Request for Additional Information Regarding four Futur eGen 2.0 Wells, United States Environmental Protection Agency Underground

Injection Control (UIC) Permit Applications for Four G eologic Sequestration Wells; United States Environmental Protection Agency UIC Permit Nos. IL
- 137
- 6A
- 0001,
- 0002,
- 0003, &
- 0004 RAI # Subject Page Doc. Sec. Par. EPA Comment / Question / Request FutureGen Response Footnote / Reference Citation 10

- 31

- 2013_010 Financial

Mechanisms 9.2 9 Table 9.1

. Approach to Meeting Financial Responsibility Requirements

– several financial mechanism s state that they are to be “Created prior to injection.” These must be established prior to drilling of the wells.


## EPA: Please provide the mechanism to EPA. As descri bed in Chapter 9 .0 of the Supporting Documentation for the Alliance's Class VI UIC permit applications, the Alliance intends to establish a CO 2 

## Storage Trust Fund for the payment of costs related to any needed corrective actions as well as costs related to injection well plugging and post

injection site care and site closure. The Alliance intends to obtain third

- party insurance for costs related to any required emergency and remedial response action.
The Alliance has selected a trustee for the CO 2 

## Storage Trust Fund (U.S. Bank) and is actively working with the trustee to complete a trust agreement that includes the terms recommended by the EPA. The Alliance will expedite these efforts and provide a schedule for completion of the trust agreement to the EPA at the earliest possible time. With respect to third

- party insurance, the Alliance is continuing to work with its insurance advisor to obtain the necessary insurance for the drilling, injection, and post

- injection phases of the FutureGen 2.0 Project. During the drilli ng phase of the project, the potential to incur emergency and remedial response costs will be even less than the potential for such costs during the later injection and post

injection phases. For this reason, the Alliance is planning to purchase a polluti on policy with a $10 million limit for the drilling phase

. This will contain coverage outlined in Appendix D to the Supporting Documentation (McGriff, Seibe ls & Williams, Inc., "Insurance Review to Support FutureGen Alliance's UIC Permit Application," September 2012). Prior to injection, the Alliance will increase the limits of this policy to at least $100 million. At that time, the Alliance will also purchase various other insurance policies including Control of Well and General Liability insurance and Umbrella/Excess coverage. The Alliance will provide updates to its insurance acquisition efforts as they become a vailable. The Alliance recognizes that, in accordance with 40 CFR 146.85(a)(5)(i), the EPA must approve financial responsibility demonstrations for all phases of the geologic sequestration project prior to the issuance of a Class VI permit. To this end, the Alliance will provide such demonstrations at the earliest opportunity. The Alliance may wish to discuss with the EPA representatives the documentation considered necessary to demonstrate financial responsibility for each phase of the project.

10

- 31

- 2013_011 Endangered

Species Act In accordance with 40 CFR 144.4 (c), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when issuing permit decisions. Therefore, when considering a permit a pplication, the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Branch must consider the potential impacts from the new or existing injection well to endangered species present in the area. In order to determine whether an injection well will adversely impact endange red and threatened species, the UIC branch must have location

- specific ecological information, such as the presence of certain vegetation, soils or surface water bodies. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the following in Morgan County : In siting the components of the FutureGen 2.0 Project, including the site for the four proposed injection wells, the Alliance has successfully avoided potential impacts on threatened or endangered s pecies that are listed for Morgan County, Illinois (Indiana bat, decurrent false aster, and eastern prairie fringed orchid) and the critical habitat s for these species. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has also considered the potential impacts on these species, and other environmental resources, and documented its findings in its FutureGen 2.0 Environmental Impact Statement issued final in October 2013 ( Final Environmental Impact Statement for the FutureGen 2.0 Project, http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/nepa/feis_1013.html ) ( The EPA rated the draft environmental impact statement as LO

- 1). With assistance from the Alliance, DOE submitted a Biological Assessment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in accordance with the Endangered Species Act that encompassed the entire project, power plant, pipeline, and injection wells. Recently, the USFWS concurred with DOE's conclusion that the FutureGen 2.0 Project as a whole, including the injection well site, could affect but is not likely to affect any of the threatened or endangered species in Morgan County. A copy of t h e USFWS letter is attached ( Appendix E )

. With respect to the EPA's specific requests:

a. The area proposed for the injection wells has been determined by the US FWS ( Appen dix E ) to not contain any critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species.. b. The 9.5 acres that are expected to be disturbed during the construction of the injection wells, including the approximately 5 acres that will contain the four proposed injection w ells, are primarily plowed fields. A small portion includes an unoccupied dwelling, which will be removed. A few trees

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 5 of 30

10
- 31
- 2013: Letter from Rebecca Harvey (EPA) to Kenneth K. Humphreys (Alliance), “Request for Additional Information Regarding four Futur eGen 2.0 Wells, United States Environmental Protection Agency Underground

Injection Control (UIC) Permit Applications for Four G eologic Sequestration Wells; United States Environmental Protection Agency UIC Permit Nos. IL
- 137
- 6A
- 0001,
- 0002,
- 0003, &
- 0004 RAI # Subject Page Doc. Sec. Par. EPA Comment / Question / Request FutureGen Response Footnote / Reference Citation

As a result, we are requiring the following information to be submitted in each permit application.

a. A summary of the critical habitat which, if present, may support one the above

- listed species. Detailed information on critical habitat can be found at the following web address: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7proce ss/lifehistory.html
b. A survey of the surface vegetation, soils, topography and hydrologic features in the action a rea in sufficient detail to address the presence or absence of critical habitat for any endangered, threatened, or candidate species. This will include descriptions such as “mature mixed forest”, plowed field” or “stabilized dunes”, and may also include specific trees or plants listed as critical to a species. and bushes are used as landscaping near the dwelling. As noted above, and in the attached USFWS consultation letter, the area has not been designated as critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species, and there will be no cutting of trees , which could provide summer habitat for listed bat species.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 6 of 30



# Appendix A RAI# 10
- 31
- 2013_00 1

Additional Information Regarding Seismic Reflection Survey

and Vertical Seismic Profiling Data

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 7 of 30 Th e following discussion address es the specific request for additional information regarding 2D -seismic profiles and vertical seismic profiling data (RAI# 10

- 31 -2013_001). We first present a review of the existing 2D seismic data, and a summary of the evaluation by outside seismic consultant, Dr. John McBride. Dr. McBride’s review includes both the Morgan County 2D data and of the western end the ISGS Knox line, which runs east-west through Cass County, about three miles north of our Line L201. We then review the status of new VSP data acquisition and a summary of the interpretation of the VSP data by outside seismic consultant, Dr. Bob Hardage.


# 1. Introduction Subsurface data relative to seismic characterization of the Morgan County site include the following:

 A total of fifteen miles of 2D-seismic data, acquired along line L101 and L201, processed and interpreted First Quarter, 2011; reprocessed Third Quarter, 2012.

 A suite of well logs, including density and dipole sonic (for construction of synthetic seismograms), acquired in the FutureGen2.0 characterization well, Fourth Quarter, 2011.

 15 offset VSP’s and a zero offset VSP, acquired in the characterization w ell, First Quarter, 2013. Figure 1 shows the locations where these data were acquired, relative to the stratigraphic well and the proposed injection well.

Figure 1
. Location of Seismic Data Acquired for Characterization of the Morgan County Site.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 8 of 30 2. Review of 2D-Seismic Profiles 2.1 FutureGen Site 2D Seismic Survey Two orthogonal seismic lines were acquired and processed across the FutureGen 2.0 sequestration site in MorganCounty, Illinois, during the period January to February, 2011. Surface seismic data were acquired as singlecomponent data, so only P-P images have been made along Line 101 and Line 201 ( Figure 1 ). The original data exhibit vertical discontinuities with little to no offset, and a severe loss of frequency and resolution below a two-way time (TWT) depth of about 0.3 seconds (S), approximately coincident with the top of the Galena limestone at a depth of 1,400 feet. The original data were evaluated by Dr. Hardage 1 

## , who concluded that the discontinuities could be acquisition/processing artifacts or could be very small offset faults. In August, 2012, these lines were reprocessed by Exploration Development, Inc., and re-evaluated by Dr. Hardage 2 

## . Although the reprocessed data had less seismic noise, vertical discontinuities remained ( Figure 2 ), especially at locations where the seismic lines crossed small streams. A second interpretation of the Morgan County 2D lines was provided by Dr. John McBride (geophysicist from Brigham Young University, formerly ISGS), “ There are no large scale features in the Morgan County site data that cut into the shallow section, however it cannot be definitively determined that there are no faults in the Morgan County data. Some anomalies coincide with streams; others may be related to binning issues. Better static corrections may be required in order to determine if offsets in the shallow (0-400 ms) section are actual small faults or are just distortions due to unaccounted-for lateral velocity changes (e.g., associated with small stream valleys). ” 3



## .

1 

# Bob Hardage. Personal Communication with Charlotte Sullivan, March 7, 2011.

2 

# Bob Hardage. Personal Communication with Charlotte Sullivan , January 22, 2013.

3 

## Phone Conference of

Battelle Technical Team with John McBride September 16, 2013.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 9 of 30 Figure 2
. Reprocessed Morgan County P-P seismic data. The data are presented in a gray-scale squash-plot format to emphasize vertical discontinuities. Line 101 is 8 miles long; Line 201 is approximately 7 miles long. The Mount Simon is at a two way time depth of about 0.6 seconds; Precambrian basement about 0.68S. Artifacts are especially pronounced at depth and on edges of images.

2.2 Knox Line 2D-Seismic Survey The Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) acquired a 120- mile -long 2D seismic survey across central Illinois as part of a U.S. Department of Energy-sponsored research project. The line extends from Meredosia to southern Champaign County ( Figure 3 ). The ISGS Knox 2D-seismic line runs east-west, through Cass County, about 3 miles north of the FutureGen 2.0 CO 2 

## storage site. Dr. McBride reviewed the data that are closest to the FutureGen 2.0 site: “ There do not appear to be any obvious, indisputable large faults in the western part of the ISGS line [west of Ashland]; however, seismic interpretations shown by ISGS personnel along the western part of the regional Knox Line 101 [east of Ashland] indicate down- to -the-east normal faults that affect the Mt. Simon Sandstone, although not necessarily the Eau Claire Shale (base of Knox). For example, such a fault has been tentatively interpreted below about CDP 9000. This

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 10 of 30 is located about 2.5 miles northwest of Pleasant Plains and almost 6 miles northeast of the northern end of Morgan Co. L101 ” 4



## .

Figure 3
. Location of the Knox seismic-reflection survey (ISGS, 2013)



# 3. Vertical Seismic profile (VSP) 3.1 Principle, objectives and data acquisitionVertical seismic profile (VSP) surveys are conducted by activating seismic sources (vibroseis trucks using vehiclemounted vibrator plates , in the case of the 2013 FutureGen 2.0 survey) at the Earth’s surface and recording the seismic signals with an array of receivers that are placed in a borehole. The use of three component geophones at the Morgan County site allowed both reflected compressional wave and shear wave data to be captured. If a single seismic energy source position is used within a few hundred feet of the borehole, the survey is referred to as being zero offset VSP ; at a longer seismic source-source distance, the borehole survey is an offset VSP ( Figure 4 ). The fundamental objective of the Morgan County VSP program was to determine if visible faults cut the Mount Simon or Eau Claire in any of the 12 azimuths imaged by 15 offset VSP’s ( Figure 5 ).

4 

## John McBride. Personal Communication with Charlotte Sullivan, October 29, 2013.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 11 of 30 Figure 4. Schematic Drawings of a A) Zero Offset and B) Offset VSP. The seismic source is at the Earth’s surface; geophones are in the wellbore.

The original VSP data-acquisition plan was to acquire data with 17 source stations encircling the FGA- 1 stratigraphic well ( Figure 5 ). Due to wet, thawed soil conditions in the fields, all source stations had to be positioned on local roads; and data were not acquired at source stations 4 and 6. The location and lateral widths of the 2D seismic images generated by each source station is indicated in Figure 5 by a spoke wheel pattern radiating away from the FGA-1 well. A separate P-P and P-SV (wave converted from P to S in the subsurface) seismic image was generated for the zero offset and for each offset VSP; the lateral length of each 2D image is listed in Table 1

.

Figure 5: Offset VSP Source Stations. The lateral lengths of good-quality VSP images (Table 1) are indicated by the lengths of the lines in the spoke wheel pattern centered on the FGA-1 well. Distance from the stratigraphic well to Station 15 is approximately 4000 ft.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 12 of 30

Table 1. Lateral lengths of VSP P-P and P-SV Images across the Mt. Simon Interval.

3.2 Data-interpretation The resulting P-P and P-SV data were interpreted by Dr. Bob Hardage, who determined that no discontinuities of the type observed in 2D Line L101 or L201 are present in the VSP images 5 

## and that there is no evidence of faults in any of the images 6 

## . Dr. Hardage point ed out that the areas imaged by the short 2D lines generated by the VSP surveys still represent a small part of the site.


# 4. Summary Neither the 2D-seismic profiles (Line L101 and L201) acquired at the FutureGen 2.0 site nor the Knox profile exhibit any large scale structural features near the Morgan County site. Reprocessing of the ISGS Knox line was postponed until after evaluation of all 2D lines by Dr. John McBride, who is a specialist on Illinois seismic data and subsurface structure, and who is familiar with the different generations (original plus two reprocessed versions) of the Knox line data. Dr. McBride’s conclusions are that there are no discernible faults in either the Knox line west of Ashville Illinois (about 5 miles NNE of the Morgan County site) or in the 15 miles of 2D data acquired along roads at the Morgan County site, although the presence of small-throw faults cannot be completely ruled out by 2D seismic data. As a result of Dr. McBride’s interpretation, it was determined that reprocessing the Knox line will not provide additional information.

5 

## Bob Hardage. Personal Communication with Charlotte Sullivan, October 18, 2013.

6 

## Bob Hardage, Personal Communication with Charlotte Sullivan, August 1, 2013.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 13 of 30 Discontinuities observed in the Morgan County 2D lines were not resolved by reprocessing the lines in 2012; two independent seismic specialists conclude that the remaining vertical discontinuities have a high probability of being artifacts due to acquisition and processing, specifically related to incomplete removal of surface seismic noise caused by offsets in acquisition lines (“crooked lines”) and streams, by the choice of filters used during processing, and other processing parameters.
A zero offset VS P and 15 offset VSP’s were acquired in March 2013 to better determine if faults or fracture zones are present at the site. The VSP images are good quality, and no vertical discontinuities were observed in any of the offsets. Interpretation by Dr. Bob Hardage 7 

## of the data indicates there is no evidence of faulting within the VSP image space.


# 5. Cited Reference ISGS, 2013. “Seismic Line Data Release to Spur Additional Oil Exploration”. http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/?q=seismicline-data-release-spur-additional-oil-exploration

. Last accessed on November 20, 2013.

7 

## Bob Hardage , Personal Communication with Charlotte Sullivan, August 1, 2013.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 14 of 30



# Appendix B RAI# 10- 31 -2013_007

Form 7520-14: Plugging and Abandonment Plan

for Cased Well Completion, 1,500 ft Lateral Cased Well Completion, 2,500 ft Lateral Uncased Well Completion, 1,500 ft Lateral Uncased Well Completion, 2,500 ft Lateral

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 15 of 30 OMB No. 2040·0042 Approva l E xpi r e s 11130/20 1 4
Un ited States Environmen t al Protection Agency

# ~EPA Washington, DC 20460 

## PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT PLAN
Name and Address of F aclll t Name and Address of Owner/Operator

1

## ~~organ County C l ass VI UIC Well 

# I FutureGen Alliance, I nc. 

# I

(cas ed well completion, 1,500 ft lateral) [address not yet available] 73 Central Park Plaza East, Jacksonville,lL 62650
Sta

te 

# I Count )r! Permit Nu mber Locat e Well and Outli ne Uni t on llll i nois 

# I jMorgan ll luot yet issued 

# I Section Plat · 640 Acres Surface Lo cation Descr i ption N

## ~ 1/4 of @ 114 of

## ~1/**4** of

## .~/**4** of Section

## Tow**nshi (@]**  Rangel9W 

# I 

# j_L_j_ j_L_j_ Locate we ll i n t wo directions f rom nea res t lines of quarter section and dr i lli ng un it 

## r- I I I 

# 1- I I I 

# r--t-1--t- 1--t-r--t- Surface Lo cati on 

# D ft

. f r m

## (N**~L in** **e** of quarter se ctio n 

# ,_J._L..l_ 1-J._LJ._
an d 

# D ft. f r om (E/W) Line of q uarte r section

. I I I I I 

# I TY P E OF AUTHOR I ZAT I ON WELL ACTIV IT Y 

# w E 

# 0 I n dividual Perm i t 

# D CLASS I



# _ ..l_L..l_ ,_J._LJ.

_ 0 Area Per mit 

# 0 CLASS II I 

# I I · 

# I I I 

# 0 Rule 

# 0 Bri ne Disposal 

# --t-r--t- --t-r--t-



# _ ..l_LJ._ _..l_LJ.

_ Numb er of Wells 

# II 

# J 0 Enhanced Recovery 

# 0 Hyd r oca r bon Sto rage 

# I I I I xl I 

# 0 CLASS Ill
Le ase N ame! 

# I s We ll N umber 

# I

CAS IN G AND TUBING RECORD AFTER PLUGGING METHOD OF EMPLACEMENT OF CEMENT P L UGS SIZE WT( L B /FT) TO BE PUT IN WELL (FT) T O BE LEFT IN WE L L (FT) HOL E S I ZE 

# IZJ The Balance Method

### ~ 

## U::4JI.Q I 1140 ' 11140' 

## I l3o" I 

## l:] T he Dump Bailer Method 

# I1E:J**IS~~** Jl570' 

## I [57o' 1120" 

# I 

# LJ Th e Tw o ·Pi ug Method lro 3/4") 

## I3Tll I 13,150' 113150' l l ll4 3/4" 

## I 

# 0 Oth er 

## [E:J**12:~** 

## !l 116, 004' 116,00 4' 

## I 19 ll2" 

# I
CEMENT I NG TO PLUG AND ABAND ON DATA : PL UG 111 P LUG 112 PLUG 113 PLUG #4 PLUG #5 PLUG 116 PLUG 117 Size of Hole or Pipe in which P l ug Wi ll Be P l aced (lnche' 17" 117" 117" 117" I II 

# II I Dep th t o Bottom of T ubing or Drill P i pe ( ft 13,950 113,900 111,80() 11700 

# I II II I Sacks of Cement To Be U sed (each plug) 1450 11150 

# II 53 11124 I 

# I 

# I I S l urry Volume To Be Pumped (cu

. ft

. ) 1504 1 1168 1162

. 5 

# 'It I I I 

# I C alcula te d Top of P l ug (ft.) 1 3,900 113 , 100 111,500 I II II I Measured To p of Plug (if tagged ft.) 13 ,9 00 113,100 111,500 

# I II II I S l urry Wt. (Lb./Gal .) Jl5.82 

# J 115.82 1115

. 6 1 11 5

. 6 I I I I I I Ty pe Cement or Other Material ( C la ss Ill) I EverCrcte I I EverCrefe I I Class A I I Class A I I 

# II I
LIST ALL O PEN H OLE AND/OR PER FOR ATED I NTERVALS AND INTERVALS WHERE C A SING W IL L BE VAR I ED ( if any) From 

### To 

### Fro m To 1 !7" l! erforated cas i ng}3,950 

# f!lJILJ 16,004 ftMD 

## I I 

# ==.!**~**

Es timate d Cost to P l ug Wells lilug #1 Set through a cement retainer se t at 3,900 

### ft !viD $600,000

. 00 

# I

Certification
I certify under the p ena lty o f law th a t I have per sonally examined and am f amiliar with the Information submitted I n this document and all attachments and that, b ase d on my Inq uiry of tho se I ndiv idua ls immediate ly resp ons i ble f or obtaining the in form ation , I believe t h at t h e informati on is true, accur ate, and co mpl e t e. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false I nformation, I ncluding t h e p oss ibility of fine and Im p r iso nmen t. (Ref

. 40 CFR 1 44 .3 2 )
Name and Officia l Title {Please typ e o r print) S i gna ture Da t e Signed IKeJmcth 

### K Humphreys, Chief Executive Officer I

# ~-"-~v

# ~ l11/t<6/J3 I

EPA F orm 7520·14 (Rev

. 12
· 11)

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 16 of 30 OMB No

. 2040-0042 

### Approval Expires 11/30/2014 

### United S t ates Environmental P r otection Agency

# ~EPA Washington, DC 20 4 60 

## PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT PLAN
Name and Address of Faclllt" Name and Address of O w ner/Operator

## ~~organ County Class VI UJC Well (cased well completion, 2,500 ft lateral) [addres s not yet available] 

# I FulurcGen Alliance, Inc. 

# I 73 Centra l Park Plaza East, Jacksonville, IL 62650
State 

# I**Count~** 

## Ji Permit Number L ocate Well and Outline Unit on jminois 

# I jMorgan 

# . I not 

### yet issued 

# I Section Pl at • 640 

### Acre s N Surface Location Description 

# j_L_j_ j_L_j_ @IJ114 

### of @01 14 

### of JiE]11 4 

### of

## J~J/4 of Section

## E/**Townshlp~** Rangei9W 

# I
Locate well In two directions from nearest lines of quarter section and drilli n g unit t- 

### I I I 

# c- I I I 

# t--t-t--t- r--t-t--t- Surface L ocation 

# 0 ft. frm (NIS} .OLtne of quarter section 

# t-J._LJ._ r-.1-LJ._ and 

# D ft. 

### from (EIW ) oL
· I

- nc of quarter section. I I I I I I lYPE OF AUTHORIZATION WELL ACTIV I TY 

## w E 

# 0 Individual Permit 

# 0 CLASS I



# r-J._LJ._

_ _l_LJ._ 0 Area Permit 

# D CLASS II I I I I I

. I 

# 0 Ru l e 

# 0 Brine Disposal 

# r--t-t--t- --t-t--t-

_ _l_LJ.

_ _ _l_LJ._ Number of Wells U 

# 0 Enhanced Recove r y 

# 0 Hydroca r bon Sto r age

. I I I I 

# xl I 

# D CLASS Ill
L ease Namet 

## s 

# I Well Number 

# I I

CAS I NG AND T UBING RECORD AFTER PLUGGING METHOD O F EMP L ACE M EN T OF CEME N T P L UGS S I

ZE WT(LBIFT) TO BE PUT IN WELL (FT) TO BE LEFT IN W ELL (FT) HOLE S I ZE

### ~ The Ba l ance Method 

# IMCJ IITQ:o:==J ll4 Q ' 11140' 

# I l3o" I 

# LJ The Dump Bailer Method

### ~ 

### [&J!:j 11570' 11570' 1 ! 1 20" 

### I 

## [j The Two

- P l ug Method 

# Do 3 /£:] 

## I3I] I 13 , 150' 111:150 ' I 1 14 314" 

## I 

# 0 O t her 

## u::=::i f"W"o----1 17,004 117,004 I

### [~ ll2" 

# J CEMENT I NG TO PLUG AND ABANDON DATA: PLUG #1 

### PLUG #2 

### PLUG #3 

### PLUG # 4 

### PLUG #5 

### PLUG #6 

### P L UG #7 

### Size of Hole or Pipe In which Plug Wil l Be Placed (lnche ' 

## [7" 1 1 7 " 1 1 7" 117" 

## II I II I Depth to Bottom of Tubing or Drill Pipe (ft 

### 13,950 113,900 ILLsoo 11700 I I I I I Sacks of Cement To Be Us e d (each plug} 

# 1666 I [150 1153 11124 

# II I 

# I I S l urry Volume To Be Pumped (cu. ft.} 

### [746 I 1168 

## I 162.5 I 046.3 II 

## II 

# II I Ca l cula t ed Top of Plug ( ft .} 

### 13,900 1[3,100 1 11,500 IIO(GL) II I I II I Mea s ured Top of Plug (If t agged ft.) 

### Q,900 II3100 J 11,500 IJO(GL) 

### _j 

## I I I I I I Slur r y Wt. (Lb./Ga l. } I 15.82 1[15.8 2 1115

. 6 1115.6 I 

# I I II I Type Cement or O t her Materia l (C l ass I ll ) IEverCrete I [ EvcrCrclc I [ Class A II class A

### L_~**I** 

# II I LIST ALL OPEN HOLE A N D/OR PERFORATED INTERVALS A N D INTERVALS WHERE CASING WIL L B E VARIED (If any) From T o From To 

## IC7" Qerforatcd casing) 

### 3 , 950 Jl MD I 17,004 flMD I I I 

# c=::: Estimated Cos t t o P l ug Wells 

# If

lug #1 Set through a cement retainer set at3,900 

### ft MD $600 , 000.00 

# I

Ce rt i fic a tion
I certi f y under the penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information subm i tted i n t hi s doc u ment and all attachments and t hat, based on my Inquiry of thos e Individuals Immediately responsible for obtain i ng the Information, I believe that the In formation Is true, accura t e, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties fo r submitting false Information, Incl u ding the possibili t y of fine and Imp r isonment

. (Ref. 40 

### CFR 14 4 .3 2)



## .. Name and Officia l Title (Please type or 

### print)

_ 

### Signature Date Signed IKea mcth 

### K Humphreys , Chief Executive Officer I

# ~"'il-~~ 

# LiilLfl/flJ

E P A Form 7 520 1 4 

### (Rev

. 12 1 1 ) 

# '

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 17 of 30 OMB N o

. 2040-0042 Approval Exp i res 1 1/30/2014 Un it ed States En v ironmen t a l P r otectio n Agency 

# &EPA Washing t o n , D C 2046 0 

## PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT PLAN
Name and Address of**Fac ili** **t~** Name and Address of Owner/Oee r ator

## ~~organ County Class VI UIC Well 

# I FutureGcn Alliance, Inc

. 

# I (opeo1 well completion, 1,500 ft lateral) (addre s s not yet available) 73 Central Park Plaza East, Jacksonville , rL 62650
State 

# I= I Permit N umber L ocate We ll and Outline Unit on !Illinois 

# II l oot yet issued 

# =.J Section Plat

- 640 Acres 

# I Morga ; , N S u rface L ocati o n Desc r iption I I I I I I !ill 114 of al 11 4 o f

## ~1/4 o f

## .[**]11 4**  of Section IE:] Townsh i pll4!iJ Rangei9W 

# l 

# _J.

_ LJ._ r-J._LJ._ Locate well In two directio n s from nearest lin es of quarter section and drilling unit 

# I I I I I I 

# --r-t--t- r- -t-t--t- Surface Location 

# 0 fl. f r m (N/S) D une of qua r ter section 

# _J._LJ._ r-.l_L.l_ and 

# D ft

. f rom (E/W) o · Ci'

nc of qua r ter section. 

# I I I I I I TYPE OF AUTHOR I ZAT I ON WE L L ACTIVITY 

## w E 

# I ?.J Individual Permit 

# D CLASS I



# _ J._LJ._ ,_.l_L.l

_ 0 Area Permit 

# 0 CLASS II 

# I I I I I I 

# 0 Ru l e 

# 0 Brine Disposal 

# t--t--t--t-- --r-t--t-- t-.1-LJ.

_ _ .l_LJ._ N umber o f Wells I 1 I 

# 0 Enhanced Recovery 

# 0 Hydrocar b on Storage I 

# I I I x l I 

# 0 CLASS Ill
L ease N ame 

# I 

# I s Well Number 

# l I CAS I NG AND TUBING RECORD AFTER P L UGG IN G ME T HOD OF E MPLACEME NT OF CEMENT P L UGS SIZE WT(LB/FT) TO BE PUT IN WE L L (FT) TO BE L EFT I N W ELL (F T ) HOLE SIZE 

# 0 T he Ba l ance Method 

# I1E:J trnl: o=::l 140' 1140' I 130" 

# I 

# LJ The Dump Baller Method 

# IILJ I& H l 1 1570' 1570' 

# I 20" 

## [J T h e Two

- Pl u g Method IJ03 t 4" l 

# 1!1

. 0 113 , 150' 113 , 150' 

# I 114 314" 

# 0 Other 

# rz:=J**:l~!l** 113,950 113 : 950 119 112" CEMENT I NG TO PLUG AND ABANDON DATA: PLUG 111 PLUG 112 PLUG 113 PLUG 114 PLUG 115 PLUG 116 PLUG 117 Size of Hole o r P ipe In which P l ug Will Be Place d (l n che ' 17" 117" 117" 117" 

# II II II 

# . J Depth t o Bo tt om o f Tubing or Drill Pipe (f! 

# 13.9s :c=J 13,900 111,800 11700 

# II II 

# II I Sacks of Cement To Be Used (each plug) 11 , 200 

## I P so 1153 11124 II 

# II II I Slurry Volume To Be Pumped (cu

. fl

. ) 11 , 344

## 62.s 

# I 0.:46

. 3 

## I I 

# II II I Ca l culated Top of P l ug (ft.) 13 , 900 l1 , 5oo 

# I jo ( GLl I I

- 

# ]I I I I Mea s ured Top of P l ug (If t agged ft.) 13,900 

# I 3 1oo rt:Soo 

## I 

# IO{GL} II 

# II II I Slurry WI. (Lb./Ga l .) 115.82 1 115.82 1115

. 6 1 115.6 II I I 

# I Type Cement or Other Materia l ( C l ass Ill) IEverCr etel I E verC r ctc I 

# I c l ass A II class A 

# II I 

# l I LIST ALL OPEN H OLE AND/OR PERFORATED INTERVALS AND INTERVALS WHERE CASING WILL BE VARIED (i f any) From To From To 

### 1(9 1 / 2" o p en hole) 3,950 

### ft MD I 16,004 

### ft MD I 

# J 

# t=

Estimated Cost to Plug Wells l;lug #I Set through a cement retainer set at 3,900 

### ft MD $600,000.00 

# I

C ert ification
I certify under the pena l ty of law that I have personally examined and am f am ili a r with the i nfo r mation sub mitt ed in this document and all attachments and that , based on my Inquiry of those individ u als Immedia t ely responsible for obtain i ng t he I n formation, I believe that the information Is true, accurate, a n d comp l ete. I am aware t hat t here are significant p enalties for submitting false Information, Including the possibility of f ine and Impriso n ment. (Ref. 40 C F R 1 44.32) Name and Official Tit l e (Please type or print) Signat u re Date Signed IKcomcth 

### K. Humphrey s , C hief Executive Officer 

# I**~** 

# '"tt-

. .

# ~~ u 

# / 1 

# e

/ 13 

# I

EPA Form 7520- 1 4 (Rev

. 12

- 1 1 )

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 18 of 30 OMB N o 2040

- 0042 Approva l Expires 11/30/2014 United S t ates Environmenta l P r otection Agency 

# oEPA Washlngtoo , DC 20460 

## P L UGG I NG AND ABANDONMENT PLAN
Name and Address of Fac ill t)! Name and Add r '!.,SS of Owner/Ooerator 

# I I

Morgan County Class VI UIC Well 

# I FuturcGen Alliance, li\C. 

# I (open well completion, 2,500 ft lateral) (addr ess not y et available] 73 CenlTal Park Plaza East, Jacksonville, IL 62650
State ,,

### Count~ Permit Number locate Well and Outline Un it on 

# I Illinois !!Morgan 

# II**~~yet** issued 

# I Section P l at • 640 Acres N Surface Location Description I I I I I I

## ~ 1/4 of §] 114 of Jili]114 of 

# §1 4 of Section IE] Townshtp (ijji) Rangei'9WJ 

# r-_l_L_L_ 1-J._L_l

_ Locate well In two directions from nearest lines of quarter sect i on and drilling unit 

# I I I I I I 

# 1---t-t--t- 1--t-t--t- Surface location 

# 0 ft. fr m (N [52Line of quar t er section 

# r-_l

_ LJ.

_ 1-_l_L_l_ and 

# 0 ft

. from (E/W) Li n e of quarter section. 

# I I 

# I I I I TYPE O F AUTHORIZAT I ON WE L L ACTIVITY 

## w E 

# 0 I ndividua l Permit 

# D CLASS I



# r-_l_L_l_ 1-_l_L_l_ 0 Are a Permit 

# 0 CLASS II I 

# I I I I I 

# 0 Rule 

# CJ Br ine Disposal 

# r--t-t--t- r--t-t--tr-_l_L_l_ r-.l_L_l

_ Nu m ber of We ll s 

# iLJ 0 Enhance d Recovery 

# 0 Hydrocarbon Sto r age I I I I 

# xi I 

# 0 CLASS Ill
lease Name 

# I 

# I s Well Number 

# I

CASING A N D TUBING RECORD AFTER PLUGG I NG ME T HOD OF EMPLACEMENT OF CEMENT PLUGS SIZE WT(LB/FT) T O BE PUT IN WELL (FT) TO BE LEFT IN WE L L (FT) HOLE S I ZE 

## 1!:) T he Balance Method 

## I1E::J 

# OJM 11140' 11!40' I l3o" I 

## 1:] The D u mp Bailer Method 

## liE:] 

## rn41! I 1570' 11570' 11120" 

# J 

# LJ The Two

- Plug Method [10374"1 

## [il.:O I 

## [I. ISO' IIJ...!2l' 1114 3/4" 

# J 

# 0 Other 

# rz:::=J !Z2:.0 I 13 ,950 113,950 1191/2" I CEMENTING TO PLUG AND ABANDON DATA : PLUG #1 PLUG #2 PLUG #3 PL U G #4 PLUG #S PL U G #6 PLUG #7 Sl%e of H ole or Pipe In which Plug Will Be P la ced (inche• 17 " 

# J 17" I 7" 17' ' 

# II II II 

# I Depth to Bottom of Tubing or Dril l Pipe (ft 13 ,950 113,90() I 1700 II 

# II II I Sac k s of Ceme n t T o Be Used (each plug) 11,500 lit so I s3 1124 I 

# I I I Slurry Volume To Be Pumped (cu

. ft.) 11 , 680 11168 lim 

## I 1146

. 3 I 

# II II I Ca l culated Top of P l ug (fl .) 13 ,9 00 113,100 llt,SOO IIQ

_ (GL) I II II I Measured Top of Plug (If tagged ft.) 13,900 113,100 llt ,SOO IIO(GL) I I I 

# II I Slurry WI. (Lb./Ga l .) ps .s2 

# I 1 15 .82 llt5.6 1115.6 I 

# II 

# II I Type Cemen t or Other Materia l (Class Il l) EverCrete

### IEyerC~ !class A 

# II class A 

# I I l L 

## .J I 

# I
LIS

T ALL OPEN HO L E AN D /OR PERFORATED I N T ERVALS AND INTERVALS WHERE CASING WILL BE VARIED (If any) From T o F rom To [{9 1/2" OQen hole) 3,950 

### ft MD I 17,004 ft MD I 

## I I I I. I 

# - II Estima t ed Cost to PIUQ We ll s 

# II Plug #I Set through a cement retainer set at3,900 

### ft MD 

# I

$600,000

. 00

. 

## Ce rt if i ca ti o n I cert i fy u nder the penalty of l aw t hat I have personally examined and am familiar with th e In f or m at i on submitted I n t his documen t and all attachments and that, based on my Inq u iry of those Ind i viduals I mmediate l y responsib l e f or ob t aining t he I nfo r mation, I believe that the Information I s true, accurate, and comp l ete. I am aware that t he r e are s i gn i f i can t penalties for submitti n g f alse Informa ti on, I nc l uding the possibility of li ne and Impr i sonmen t

. (Ref. 40 CFR 144

. 32)
Name and Official Title (Please type or print) S i gnature

# ~ D a t e Signed JJ Ketmeth 

### K. Humph re ys, Chief Executive Officer 

# I**~** Y{_, 

# lllilJ<6**~~** I

EPA Form 7520

- 14 (Rev. 12-11) 

### v

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 19 of 30



# Appendix C RAI# 10- 31
- 2013

_ 008

EverCrete Cement Information

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 20 of 30 

# Schlumberger

Laboratory Cement Test Report-CAR1 0-384 EverCRETE-5

F luid No : Date : Oct-17-2010 Job 

### Type BHST Client Well Name Location 

### I Rig F i eld Depth 7200

. 0 

### ft BHCT 1 07 degF T im e to Temp. 00:37 hr:mn S l natures :Wildcat 

# I**~** Mark Meade

TVD 7200.0 

### ft BHP 4340psi Heating Rat e ( degF / min ) Starting Temp

. Startina Pressure Production 123 degF 80 degF 510 osi nme to Pressure 00:37 hr:mn Schedule 9.6-1 

### Composit i on

S lurry Density 15

. 82 lblgal S olid Vol. F r action 58.0 % Yield Porosity 

### Blend ADM

# Eve**!.frtal!i~~ ~f.~** **~:fir.l~;~; ·~**  r EverCRETE 100 l b / sk



# .. . . - -- ADM EverCRET 1 00 lb of BLE N D Fresh water 2

. 946 qaVsk D174 10.000 % B WO C D206 0

. 050 gaVsk D145A 0

. 100 gaVsk D500 0.400 gaVsk D177 0.020 gaVsk 

### Rheology (Average r eadings )



# . . .. . . 300 128.5 115.0 200 102.5 95

. 0 100 73.0 73.0 

### 60 61.0 64.0 30 51

. 0 56

. 0 6 37.0 40 .0 

### 3 31

. 0 32

. 0 1 10 sec Ge l 27 33 

# I Temperature 

### 80 degF 107 degF 

### Pv: 1 93 .092 cP 

### Pv: 144

. 553cP 

### Tr: 44 .841 bf / 100ft2 Ty: 52.631bf/100ft2 

### Thickening Time



# . 100Bc 07:53 hr : mn 70 B e 07:05 hr : mn 

### SO 

## Be 05:36 hr:mn Remark : Thickening time 

### do not include 2 hour batch time 

### Free FlUid 0.0 mU250mL At 107 degF and 0 deg incl. Sedimentation i n 2 hrs None 1

. 12 ft3/sk 42.0 %



# . .. Blen d Base Fluid Expanding ce An!Hoam Dispersant GASBLOKLT Retarder



### Fluid Loss A PI Fluid L oss 14 mL i n Mix Flu id Slurry 

### type

: 

# - 

# . . - 1 57.63 lblft3 3 .516 ga Vsk Con ve ntional



# . 

# ..

TUOJ0241AO S08 1 8 1 01 09402023 CY 1 02203 1 6 2009248AP

28 mL 30min at 107 degF and 1000 osi 

### UCA**Com~essive** 

### Streng_ th
15 :04 hr:mn 50_25 1 15:35 hr: mn 100 psi 18:37 hr.mn 500 ps i 24:00 hr:mn 1463 _p_

sl 72:00hr:mn 4607 psi 105:00 hr:mn**5223~si**



### Paget 

## I 

## 1

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 21 of 30 Client 

### Formation Country 

### Thickinging Time Graph 

# ,_,l

·- 1 '""" '"""

UCA Grap h 100



# ..



# ..

70 Well District



# .. 

# -

...

Page2 12:00



# ,,.

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 22 of 30

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 23 of 30



# Appendix D RAI# 10- 31 -2013_009

Fi gures 4.4, 4.5, 6.1, and 6.2

of UIC Permit Supporting Documentation

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 24 of 30 Figure 4.4 

# Injection Well Schematic

– Cased-Hole Completion (geology and depths shown in this diagram are based on site-specific characterization data obtained from the FutureGen 2.0 stratigraphic well) FutureGen (Morgan County , IL)

D e pth

( ft )



### Sys tem N a m e Lith o lo gy D e pth ( ft 

### b gs ) H o ri zo nt a l Inj ect i o n We ll ( Cemented a nd P e rforated )**Pleist I--F=F==:** **:;; =:** **ai =:** **:' po** **';;' ===t=====r-T.**  

## I·· -:

•• JT"

: -=- ·

### T'TTIIIT"'T~**-:- T.**  

## J: · -: •• 

## :r**--** Cond u c t o r C a s ing

## '----**ll l•e** **~st 13~0** **ft[!ltl** __

## =::.~;::=:::**=rt' 30**  .__: ' · • ----.J_ 1 40 ft. o f 24 ", 1 40 # / ft G rade B , :

.. sam :l stQne( :'

. · P EB (or K

- 55 , MTC) set in 3 0 " h o l e Spoon-Carbondale (1 97ft )

. :::- c::s nale .:: .,-0 · ."

. : •

. L ead: 400 sks Class A with 2 %

# u~~7;::~~~**r. ~~:;~d** **i==~ t.** **~L~ ui~s** **(4 ft** **) =~~** **Fr.~•li ~m~e~s** **~to~n~ j:**  

# m**,~ ;:and**  0

. 25#/ sk cell flake, 15

. 6**-~** Sa l em ( 1 34 It ) 506 • • •

. • • Fill

- up : 0

- 140ft

# -~**~~- W~V~a** **~rrr s** **~alw~78~~,.:~ ftl** **=-:-:- ~-s~** **h~a !E** **f~ t**  584 Orill ·• ' "

.. 

# l_

;:: Keokuk-Burlington ( 227ft ) l=rli m e st o ne Surface Casi ng ;:: , 570ft o f 1 6 " , 84

. 0 # / ft , K

- 55 , B T C 

### ::E Hann i ba l (125 tt) -:..""s h a l e- - - 811 ' set i n 20 " hole L ead: 225 sks 65 / 35 / 1 0 Poz mix 1

_

000 _ 

### f-- Ne w A l ban y ( 9 1 ft ) .s tiale

-- 936 ·." , w ith 0.25 #/ s k c ell flak e, 1 1 .2 # / ga l.

## Devon**J":'"-t--_; :::.** **:.! :::** **ia !!.** **41 f.!** **)_~~ ~~** **~~ 8~~**  Fil l- u p: 0-420 ft

## -~**~I---+--- S:::,i** **lu ::,** **::: ::,:** **.l .:.** **11 ft::,)** **"---!i'i ~ioilhi;i;m);ie;;i;sti;iio;i;:n;;ioe** **~** . . Tail: 200 sks Class A with 2 % CaCI**Silurian ~**  1 ,1 86 .• and 0

. 25 # /sk cell fla k e, 1 5

. 6 # /gal.

c 

## "' 'ij Maquoketa (197 It ) Gal ena (141 ft ) P lattevile (1 24ft ) J oachi m - Gienwood ( 92 It ) St. P eter ( 202 ft ) 

## ------**=~s .hi!!** **<L ~-**  

## - - ---- f!; lim esto n · e =

# ~;rc;~~~~ P':'iloloni it e "r

# ;,ii**i!~~~** 1 , 383 1 , 5 2 4 1 , 848 1 , 740 F i ll-up : 420

- 570 ft**+~+-----** 9

. 5 # /g al. co rrosi o n -i nh i b i ted KCI b r ine or similar annula r fl u id

1 , 942
2 , 000

-

# ~**~-===~=~- ~~~** **~** Shak ope e ( 390 It ) (;::zdolo mit e = I n t ermediate Casj ng r-- 3 , 150 It of 1 0

- 3 / 4 ", 51

. 0 # I tt , K

- 55 , B TC set in 14-3/4 " hole.

3 , 000

-

4 , 000

-

5 , 000

- c

. !1 

### .0 E 

# "' u

# L~::=:~~:--**~~~~ t**  2 , 332 N ew R ic hm on d (1 02ft ) , sa n d s ton e ,

## 1.;.;.:.-:**~~ :...;.;:...._** **~~~ t**  2,434 O neota ( 200 ft) (;::zdolomite:;: Gu nt e r f2 tt E mine n ce ( 90 It ) . . d

. . . 2 , 634 ' sa n s ton e · 2 70 6 

# ' "' T o be cemented in two stages

. Multiple s t age ceme n t ing collar set a t 2, 750 tt Stage I 250 sks C l ass A E SC w i th 10 #/sk Ca l Seal an d 1 0% s l a t , 1 6 .6 #/gal. Fill

- u p: 2 , 750- 3 , 150 It**~**

P o t osi (276 ft)
• dolom'te = 2 : 796 Lost Circu l ation Zone

# r---::---:::-:-:-::-:-**-1 ~~~** **~** 3

. 072 Le ad: 755 sks 6 5 / 35 / 1 0 Po zmix, 12

. 5 #/ga l. F i ll

- up : 0

- 2,250 It Tai l : 215 sks 50 / 50 / 10 Poz mix, 1 4 .8 #/ga l. F ranconia ( 214 It ) j':zdo lomit e:;= -ij ol : silt st one 3

· 244 Iront on- Ga lesvi lle (139ft )

## ;'**s'~~ Cl** **sto~{** 3
' 286**1----------1 '"""';.,.,;;,,.;;,.~** **+- 425** 

E au Cl a ir e ( 479 It)



### E x pl a nat ion D a sh 1 n d 1

ca t es 

### U n ce rt ai n ty 3 , 58 1

::-

.'dole mit E£ -_



# ------
--- ---

4 , 812 

# · · - F ill- u p: 2 , 250

- 2 , 750 It

nsit i on from 7 " diameter Ca r bon Steel ing t o 7" diame t er co rr osi on - resistant 

### y Stainless Steel casing at M D = 3,400 ft

Injection Tubing 

# '-.. -.... ,..'111!••••••••••••••• • 3,900 It (3,81 9 ft TV D ) o f 3.5 ", 9.3 #/ft, N -80 8 Rd. , E U E , set on injec t ion packer.
P r oductio n Casi ng 3 ,4 00 tt of 7" , 2 9 .0 # 1 ft , N

- 80 or P

- 1 10, BTC an d 2 , 604 tt or 3 , 604 tt o f 7" , 29

. 0 #Itt , 13Cr S-110 V AM T OP o r similar premium connection set i n 9 -1/ 2 " hole L ea d: 380 sks 65 /35 P ozm i x w ith 2% gel, 1 2.5 #/gal. Fi ll -up: 0- 2 , 900 It Tail: 1 , 080 sks " E ver CR ETE " 

### cp - resistant cement (or s imi l ar blend), 15.82 # / gal. Fi ll -up: 2,900

- 6 ,00 4 or 7,004 ft 

# I

. 4 , 0 30 ft TVD

# 500**or 500ft** **=4** TVD = 4 , 030 It TV D = 4 , 030 It M D = 4 , 504 ft M D = 6 , 004 ft or7 , 004 It

M D = M e as ur ed D ept h TVD = T ot a l Vertical D ept h



### Not to S c ale 1 1/2 1 / 2013 FUTU R EGEN_HOZ_INJA02.COR

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 25 of 30 Figure 4.5 

# Injection Well Schematic

– Open-Hole Completion (geology and depths shown in this diagram are based on site-specific characterization data obtained from the FutureGen 2.0 stratigraphic well) FutureGen (Morgan County , IL)

Depth

( ft )



## Syste m N a me Litholo gy Depth ( ft 

## bgs) H or i zonta l Inj ec tion We ll ( Open Hole C o mpl e tion )**Pleist~ ---F=F==;** **:; ac** **=; ;o:** **l** D =- e = po = s

o:; i t s ===t=====r-1. 

## I·· -::

•• r 

## I : -:

·**"'T'"T"'TIIrT"'T.,.~ -:** **-r.** 

## l ·

- ..

:r

### -- Conduc t or C a s ing

## i----**.(! loe** **!_!!sLt.11~30 ft[!J~** **'-----4 =::.:T.::=:::** **=:t' 130** **~** ' · • 

### ,:...-J- 1 40ft. o f 24 ", 1 40 # / ft G rade B , :

..

### si1.0\:lstQ~!1**:'** . · P EB ( or K

- 55 , MT C ) set in 3 0 ' ho l e

## Penn**yl va** **:~no~an~ l=** **po n~** **rb o~n** **le 1**  = 97 = ft

= )

## :-**~**

..

## :....**·""' ~sfi~** **a~le~ .:.** **""c.. ~**  .. - f

. 327 · ."

. .. •

. L ead: 400 sks Class A w ith 2%

### Undifferen**at~** S t. L ouis (4 5 It)

### p:.lim!)sjon**~** 372

### ,~**;:.and** 0

. 25#/sk cell flake

. 15

. 6 .!ll

### ~-~**~a!!;l e!!m** **!J ~1~** **4~ft ~-~** **~§~~**

## 506 . • • F i ll

- u p: 0-140ft

# .~**~~ W~a** **or~or s** **~a· ~78~~ol~** **ftl =-:-:-** **~~ -s~** **h~a e~** **t** 584 

### C..

. . : '

.. 

## Ill.
;:: Keokuk-Burlington (2 27ft ) t=IIi m esto ne 

# L Surface Casing ;:: , 570ft o f 16 ", 84

. 0 # / ft , K

- 55 , BTC 

### ::E Hann ib al (125ft) -:..."" shale-

- - 8 11 · set i n 20 " hole**r--r- ;t~~;=;::-;c;~** **'\--- F-~~** **g_** 936 • L ead: 225 sks 65 / 35 / 1 0 Po zmix 1 000 , _ Ne w A l ban y ( 9 1 ft )

. slia l e -- ·• , w ith 0.25 #/ sk cell flak e , 1 1 .2 # / ga l.
De •von, i a - ' n

### ~~**'l~** 11 •• 006278 ,;. Devonian (41 

### f! )_**~~ ~~~** **~~** F i ll

- u p: 0-42 0 ft

. ;;' S ilu rian ( 118ft)

### ~limestone**=** . . Tail: 200 sks Class A with 2 % CaCI Sil urian

_ _ ____ 1 ,186

.. and 0

. 25# /s kcellfla k e, 15

. 6# /g al.

c 

## "' ' ij ·:; 2 ,00 0

- 

# -E

3 , 000

-

4 , 000

-

5 , 000

- 0

c

. !1 

### .0 E 

# "' u Maquoketa ( 197ft )

### r---===::-::----1**#~~ ~**  1 , 383 Ga lena ( 141 ft )**f!; lim** **es ton** **= 1------------** **.g,:e,~~** 1 , 524 P lattevile ( 124ft )

### ~;rc;~~~~**ac -.** **"" "'** **ooo =-::** **:-:: ft~)** **-f' "'** **ca'f .** **o"=l?'om '"** **¥.ite~ "r** **'l-** 1

· 848 1 , 740 St. P eter ( 202 ft)

# r~===~~~-**iii 942**  Shakopee ( 390ft ) ;:z dolomite =

# L~:===**~~ ~~~** **332** Ne w R ichmon d (1 02ft ) , sa nd stone ,

## l,;.;.:.::**~~~~ ::..;,;:l** **~~~~ t2** **434** Oneota ( 200 ft) ;:z dolomite :;:: Gu nt er 12 nJ Em ine n ce ( 90 It) . . d t'

. . 2 , 634 ' sa n s one · 2 706 F ill-up : 420

- 570 ft



## .J-+-;j----- 9

. 5 # /g al. co rr osio n -i nhib it ed KCI brine or similar annular flu id



# ' "' I ntermediate Casi ng

- 3 , 150 ftof 10-3/4 " , 51

. 0# / ft , K

- 55 , BT C set i n 14

- 3/4 ' h ole. To be cemented in two stages. Multiple stage ceme n t ing collar set a t 2 , 75 0 ft S t age I 250 sks C l ass A E SC w i th 10 #/sk Cal Seal and 1 0% s l a t , 1 6

. 6 #/gal. Fill-up : 2 , 750-3 , 15 0 ft**~**

Po t osi (276 ft)
• dolom ' te = 2 : 79 6 Los t Circu l ation L ead: 755 sks 65 / 35 / 1 0 P ozmix , 12

. 5 #/ga l. F ill- u p: 0

- 2 , 250 ft

# '----=------:=-:-:-::-:--**~~~ ~**  Zone 

## I 3,072 F ranconia (21 4 ft) ;:z dolomit e:;=

. ijol : silts t one 3

- 244 Iront on - Ga lesv ille ( 139 ft )

# s~~iisio~~ 3
' 28 6**1--------- e..,:.,.;;,..,.,~** **+-** 3 , 425

E au Cl a ir e ( 4 79ft)



### E xp l anation Dash 1 n d 1

ca t es 

### U n certai n t y 3 , 581

::-

:dole mit<£ -_



# ------
--- ---

4 , 812 

# · · - Tai l : 215 sks 50/50 / 10 Pozmix , 14

. 8 #/ gal. F ill -u p: 2 , 250

- 2 , 750 ft

- T ransit i on fro m 7" diameter Carb o n Steel casing to T' d iame te r corrosion-resis ta nt a ll oy Stainle s s Steel casi ng at MD = 3,400 ft lnje c tjon Tubjnq**~;__...!>.,,...---** 3 , 900 ft. of 3.5", 9.3 # / ft. , N-80 8

### ~R**d. ,**  E UE , se t on i nj ect i on packer.

Prod ucti on Cas i n g 3,400 ft

. of 7' , 29.0 # / ft

. , N

- 80 or P

- 1 1 0 , BTC and 550 ft

. of 7" , 29.0 #/ft. , 13Cr S

- 110 V A M TOP or s i milar prem i um co nn ec t ion se t in 9

- 11 2 ' hole Lead: 3 8 0 sks 65 / 35 Pozmix w i t h 2 % ge l , 12

. 5 # /ga l. Fill

- up : 0

- 2 , 900 ft

. Tail: 285 sks " E verC RETE ' CO , - resostan t ceme nt (or som il a r b l end) , 1 5

. 82 #/gal. Fill

- up : 2 , 9 00

- 3,9 50 ft 

# I

. 4 , 0 30 ft TVD

# ,50**or 500ft** **=4** TVD = 4 , 030 ft TV D = 4 , 030 ft M D = 4 , 504 ft M D= 6 , 004 ft or7 , 004 ft

MD = Meas ur ed Depth TVD = T ot al Vertical D ept h



### Not to S ca le 1 1/

21 / 2013 FUTUREGE N_HOZ_ INJB0 2

. COR

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 26 of 30

Figure 6.1. Diagram of Cased Injection Well After Plugging and Abandonment Depth

( ft )



### Syste m

c .!!1 

### .0 E 

# "' u

c

. !!1 

### li E 

# "' u**~** Cl. 

## FutureGen (Morgan County, IL)

Name

Ea u C la ir e ( 479 It)

Mt. Simon

( 499 It )

Precambria n



### E xp l anation 

### Litholo gy

Dash i n d i ca t es U n certai n ty 

### Depth ( ft 

### bgs) H or i zo nt a l Inje ct i o n We ll ( Cement e d and Perforated )
Conductor Casing 140f t. of 24 ", 1 40 # / It Grad e B , P EB (or K

- 55 , MTC) set in 30 " hole Lead: 400 sks Class A w ith 2% CaCI and 0

. 25#/sk cell flake , 15

. 6 # /ga l. Fill-up : 0- 140 ft

Surface Casing 570ft of 16 ", 84

. 0 # / It , K

- 55 , BTC set i n 20 " hole L ead: 225 sks 65 / 35 / 1 0 Pozmi x w ith 0.25 #/sk cell flak e , 11 .2 # / gal. Fil l- up : 0-420 ft Ta il : 200 sks Class A w ith 2 % CaCI and 0.25 # /sk cell flak e, 15

. 6 # /g al. Fill-up : 420

- 570 It

I ntermed i ate Casi ng 3 , 150 ft of 10

- 3/4 " , 51

. 0 # / It , K

- 55 , BTC set i n 14 -3 / 4 " h ole. T o be cemented in two stages. Multiple stage ceme nt ing collar set a t 2 , 750 ft Stage I 250 sks Class A E SC w ith 10 #/sk Cal Seal and 1 0% s l a t , 16 .6 # /ga l. Fill

- up : 2 , 750

- 3 , 150 ft**~** Le ad: 755 sks 65 / 35 / 1 0 Pozmix , 12

. 5 #/gal. F ill-up : 0

- 2,250 ft Ta il : 215 sks 50 / 50 / 10 Pozmix , 14.8 #/gal. F ill-up: 2 , 250

- 2 , 750 ft

---- T ransition from 7" diamete r Carbon Steel cas in g to 

## r d i ame t er corrosion -r esis t ant alloy Stainless Steel casi ng at MD = 3,400 It

Production Casing 3 ,4 00 It of 7" , 29

. 0 # / It , N -80 or P

- 1 10, BTC and 2 , 604 It or 3 , 604 ft o f 7", 29

. 0 # / It , 13Cr S

- 1 1 0 VAM TOP or similar prem iu m co nne c t ion set in 9 -1/ 2 " h ole L ea d: 380 sks 65 / 35 P ozmix w ith 2% gel , 12 .5 #/gal. Fi ll

- up: 0- 2 , 900 ft T a i l: 1 , 080 sks " E ver CRET E " 

### cp - resistan t ceme nt ( or similar blend), 15.82 #/gal. Fi ll -u p: 2 , 900

- 6,004 or 7,004 It 

# I

. 4 , 030 It TVD

# 500**or 500ft** **=4** TVD = 4 , 030 ft TVD = 4 , 030 ft MD = 4 , 504 It M D= 6 , 004 It o r7 , 004 ft

MD = Meas ur ed Depth TVD = T ota l Vertical D ept h



### Not to Scale 1 1 / 21 / 2013 FUTURE GE N_HOZ _I N JA0 2 _PL U G02.CD R

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 27 of 30

Figure 6.2. Diagram of Non-Cased Injection Well After Plugging and Abandonment D ep th

( ft )



## Sys tem

c .!!1 

### .0 E 

# "' u

c

. !!1 

### li E 

# "' u**~** Cl. 

## N a m e 

## FutureGen (Morgan County, IL)

Lith o lo gy D e pth ( ft 

## b gs) H or i zo nt a l Inj ec ti o n W e ll ( Open H o le Complet i on )
Conductor Casing 1 40ft. of 24 ", 1 40 # / It Grad e B , P EB (or K

- 55 , MTC) set in 30 " hole Lead: 4 00 sks Class A w ith 2% 

### CaCI and 0

. 25#/sk cell flake , 15

. 6 # /ga l. Fill-up : 0- 140 ft

Surface Casing 570ft of 1 6 ", 84

. 0 # / It , K

- 55 , B T C set i n 20 " hole L ead: 225 sks 65 / 35 / 1 0 Pozmi x w ith 0.25 #/sk cell fl ake , 1 1 .2 # / gal. Fil l- up : 0-420 ft Ta il : 200 sks Class A w ith 2 % CaCI and 0.25 # /s k cell fla k e, 1 5

. 6 # /g al. Fill-up : 420

- 570 It

I n t ermediate Casi ng 3 , 150 It of 10

- 3 / 4 ", 51

. 0 # / It , K

- 55 , B T C set i n 14

- 3 / 4 ' hole. T o be ce ment ed in two stages

. Multiple stage ce me nt ing collar set a t 2 , 7 50 ft S t age I 250 sks C l ass A E SC w ith 10 #/sk Cal Seal and 1 0 % s l a t , 1 6

. 6 #/gal. Fill-up : 2 , 750 -3, 150 ft**~** L ead: 755 sks 65 / 35/1 0 P ozmix , 1 2

. 5 #/ga l. Fill-up : 0

- 2 , 250 ft Ta il : 215 sks 50 / 50 / 10 Po zmix, 1 4

. 8 #/gal. Fill -u p : 2 , 250

- 2 , 750 ft

- T ransit i on from 7" diameter C a rbon Steel

E au Cla ir e ( 479 It)

Mt. Simon

( 499 It )

Precambria n



### E x pl a na tio n D a sh i n d i ca t es U n ce rt ai n ty P r oduction Casing 3 , 400 ft

. of 7" , 29

. 0 # / ft. , N

- 80 o r P

110 , B T C and 550ft. of 7" , 29.0 #/ft ., 13Cr S

- 11 0 V AM T O P or s i milar premium connection set in 9

- 112 " h ole Le ad: 380 sks 65 / 35 Po z mi x w ith 2% ge l , 12.5 # / gal. Fi ll- up : 0

- 2 , 900 ft. Tail: 285 sks " E verC RETE " CO ,- re sistan t ce me n t (or similar b l end ), 15

. 82 # / gal. Fi ll- up : 2 , 900

- 3 , 950 It cas i ng to 7" d i amete r corrosion-resistant alloy Stainle s s Steel casing at M D = 3,400 ft



# I

. 4 , 030 It TVD

# 500**or 500ft** **=4** TVD = 4 , 030 ft TV D = 4 , 030 ft MD = 4 , 504 It M D = 6 , 004 It o r7 , 004 ft

M D = M e as ur e d D ept h TVD = T ot al Vert ica l D ept h



### Not to Scale 1 1/2 1 / 2013 FUTUREGE N_ HOZ_INJB0 2_ PLUG02.COR

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 28 of 30



# Appendix E RAI# 10- 31
- 2013 _0 11

Endangered Species Act Information From USFWS

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 29 of 30 

# United States Department of the Interior

Mr. Cliff Whyte U.S. Department of Energy U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Marion Illinois Sub-Office (ES) 8588 Route 148 Marion, Illinois 62959 (618) 997-3344


# November 8 , 2013

National Energy Technology Laboratory 3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880 Morgantown, WV 26507
Dear Mr. Whyte:
Thank you for your October 28, 2013, letter requesting concurrence on the proposed FutureGen 2.0 Project. The proposed project would be located in Morgan County, Illinois, and involves the construction and operation of a 168-megawatt gross output coal

- fueled electric generation plant using advanced oxy
- combustion technology and construction of a new underground pipeline approximately 30 miles long and 12 inches in diameter to transport captured C0 2 

# from the generation plant to a geologic storage area in eastern Morgan County, approximately 4,000 feet below the ground surface. These comments are provided under the authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.); and , the National Environmental Policy Act (83 Stat. 852 , as amended P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
To facilitate compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended , Federal agencies are required to obtain from the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) information concerning any species, listed or proposed to be listed, which may be present in the area of a proposed action. The list for the proposed project area includes the endangered Indiana bat 

# (Myotis soda/is), threatened decurrent false aster 

# (Boltonia decurrens), threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid 

# (P/atanthera /eucophaea), and 

# northern long

- eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis, proposed as endangered). There is no designated critical habitat in the project area at this time.
Information in the October 2013 Biological Assessment (BA) indicates that the eastern prairie fringed orchid was not observed during surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 and suitable habitat for the eastern prairie fringed orchid does not exist with the project area, thus DOE has determined the proposed project wo uld have no effect on t he eastern prairie fringed orchid. This precludes the need for further action on this project as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 19 73, as amended for the eastern prairie fringed orchid.
Information provided in the BA indicates that proposed project will impact approximately 15.2 acres of potential Indiana bat habitat. In order to minimize and avoid impacts, wooded areas

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Request for Additional Information #1, Regarding: FG -RPT-017, Revision 1, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Underground Injection Control Class VI Injection Well Permit Applications For FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4



# 11/21/2013 Page 30 of 30 Mr. Cliff Whyte

collocated with streams and wetlands would be bored under and any necessary tree clearing would occur during the winter months when Indiana bats would not be present. Based on this information and information provided in the Indiana bat habitat assessment datasheets the Service concurs that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. According to the BA, the decurrent false aster was not observed during multiple vegetation surveys completed in 2011 and 2012 and additional surveys will be conducted in appropriate habitats prior to construction, because decurrent false aster can remain viable in the seed bank. Based on this information the Service concurs the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the decurrent false aster. Should this project be modified or new information indicate listed or proposed species may be affected, consultation or additional coordination with this office, as appropriate, should be initiated. 

# 2

The northern long-eared bat was proposed as endangered on October 2, 2013 and thus was not considered in the BA. A final decision on listing the species will be made prior to the proposed construction start date; therefore, we are providing additional information regarding this species. The northern long-eared bat hibernates in caves and roosts and forages in upland forests and woods. Potential habitat for this species occurs statewide, therefore, they are considered to potentially occur in any area with forested habitat. Minimization and avoidance measures for the northern long-eared bat are similar to the Indiana bat; therefore, the Service concurs that with implementation of the proposed minimization and avoidance measures for the Indiana bat the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat. Although the bald eagle has been removed from the threatened and endangered species list, it continues to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The Service developed the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide landowners, land managers, and others with information and recommendations regarding how to minimize potential project impacts to bald eagles, particularly where such impacts may constitute "disturbance," which is prohibited by the BGEP A. The Service is unaware of any bald eagle nests in the proposed project area and none were found during a survey of the project area. If a bald eagle nest is found in the project area or vicinity of the project area in the future then our office should be contacted and the guidelines implemented. A copy of the guidelines is available at: http: // www.fws

. gov / migratorybirds / CurrentBirdlssues / Management / BaldEagle/NationalBaldEag leManagementGuidelines.pdf
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information concerning threatened and endangered species. For additional coordination, please contact me at (618) 997-3344, ext. 345.

Sincerely,

Matthew T. Mangan Biologist in Charge