TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Hazardous 

Waste and 

Contaminated 

Material

7.8

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-1

7.8 HAZARDOUS WASTE AND CONTAMINATED MATERIAL

7.8.1 Introduction

Hazardous waste and contaminated material (HWCM) include substances that are dangerous or 

potentially harmful to public health or the environment. This chapter briefly describes the types and 

quantities of HWCM sites in the Study Area and includes the evaluation of Environmental 

Consequences of the No Action and Action Alternatives on these HWCM sites as well as HWCM

effects that could affect implementation of the Action Alternatives.

Consistent with a Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) level of analysis, 

information regarding the HWCM sites was based solely on readily available database information.

The analysis did not entail fieldwork, site inspections or sampling to determine the actual presence 

and/or level of contamination. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compiled HWCM 

information in 2012; as such, information is subject to change. Further investigations would be 

completed, including a review of updated database searches, and fieldwork to confirm the type and 

extent of contamination of affected HWCM sites, as part of Tier 2 planning and compliance efforts.

7.8.1.1 Definition of Resource 

HWCM are further defined below:

4 Hazardous Wastes – These are wastes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

determined to be hazardous by the properties they exhibit (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, 

toxicity); or if it is acutely hazardous (i.e., can cause death, disabling injury, or serious illness at 

low doses); or if it contains listed toxic constituents capable of posing a potential hazard to public 

health or the environment.

4 Contaminated Materials – Though not specifically defined as hazardous by the EPA,

contaminated materials are substances that may cause pollution of the soils and groundwater,

requiring remedial actions for the protection of public health and the environment.

4 HWCM Sites – These sites are properties that have been affected by HWCMs, which may be 

manifested in the soil, groundwater, or soil gas because of past or present uses on the site or 

from adjacent properties.

4 High-Probability Sites1 – For purposes of this Tier 1 Draft EIS analysis, these sites are defined as 

properties located within a 300-foot-wide swath centered on the Representative Route for each 

Action Alternative and that are considered most likely to be affected by future construction 

activities.

4 National Priority List (NPL) Superfund – This is the list of the hazardous waste sites in the United 

States eligible for long-term remedial action (cleanup) financed under the federal Superfund 

program. EPA regulations outline a formal process for assessing hazardous waste sites and placing 

them on the NPL. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites 

warrant further investigation. The NPL is maintained by the EPA.

 

1 “High-Probability Sites” are defined in Appendix E, Section E.08, Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials 

Methodology as “High Risk Sites”
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Actions (CORRACTS) – This is a list 

of hazardous waste handlers with RCRA Corrective Action Activity. The RCRA CORRACTS list is 

maintained by the EPA.

4 Brownfield Sites – These sites are considered contaminated because they were previously used 

for industrial or certain commercial uses but could be reused or redeveloped once they are 

appropriately remediated. The Brownfields list is maintained by the EPA.

4 RCRA Information Systems (Info) – This system includes information on Large Quantity Generator 

and Small Quantity Generator facilities that generate hazardous waste. The RCRA Info list is 

maintained by the EPA.

4 RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) – This list includes facilities that are 

involved with the treatment of hazardous waste, the temporary storage of hazardous waste prior 

to treatment or disposal, or the disposal of wastes. The RCRA TSDF list is maintained by the EPA.

4 State Databases – State databases vary but include sites that are perceived to be contaminated 

by hazardous substances; have contamination caused by previous industrial or commercial uses; 

have land use restrictions due to known site contamination; have been identified as Hazardous 

Waste Corrective Action sites, Site Investigation & Restoration Branch sites, Solid Waste Landfills, 

Solid Waste Resource Recovery sites, and Unpermitted Landfills-Dumps; and are inventoried as 

abandoned landfills and pose potential environmental hazards. State databases are maintained 

by the individual states.

Appendix E, Section E.08, provides more detailed definitions of HWCMs.

7.8.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology 

The FRA developed an effects-assessment methodology for the evaluation of HWCM sites. The 

methodology provides a detailed definition of HWCM, data sources, and an explanation about how 

the Affected Environment was defined and established. The methodology also explains how the 

effects on HWCM sites were evaluated and reported. Table 7.8-1 summarizes key factors associated 

with the effects-assessment methodology for HWCMs. For this Tier 1 Draft EIS, the analysis was 

limited to the HWCM sites identified on the NPL Superfund, RCRA CORRACTS, RCRA Info, RCRA TSDFs, 

Brownfields, and various state databases as defined in Section 7.8.1.1. The FRA identified the NPL 

sites and RCRA CORRACTS sites as sites of particular concern with the potential to have the most 

impact.

Appendix E, Section E.08, provides the methodology for evaluating HWCM sites and includes the 

supporting data that were used in the analyses. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, provides the general 

locations of HWCM sites in relationship to each of the Action Alternatives. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-3

Table 7.8-1: Effects-Assessment Methodological Summary: Hazardous Waste and 

Contaminated Material 

Resource Affected Environment

Type of 

Assessment Outcome

HWCM Sites 2-mile-wide swath

centered along the 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative

Quantitative: 

Number of 

Sites

Identification of HWCM sites identified on the 

NPL Superfund, RCRA CORRACTS, Brownfield, 

RCRA Info, RCRA TSDFs, and state databases that 

could be affected by the Representative Routes 

of the Action Alternatives

Resource High-Probability Area

Type of 

Assessment Outcome

HWCM HighProbability

Sites 

300-foot-wide swath

centered along the 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative

Quantitative: 

Number of 

Sites

Identification of HWCM sites identified on the 

NPL Superfund, RCRA CORRACTS, Brownfield, 

RCRA Info, RCRA TSDFs, and state databases that 

are located within the High-Probability Area of 

the Action Alternatives. HWCM sites identified in 

the High-Probability Area are not necessarily 

more dangerous than the HWCM sites identified 

outside the High-Probability Area, but are more 

likely to be encountered during construction due 

to their closer proximately to the Representative 

Routes.

Source: NEC FUTURE Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.08, 2014 

7.8.2 Resource Overview 

HWCM sites within the Study Area tend to be more densely located in urban areas including

Philadelphia, PA; Camden, Trenton, Elizabeth, and Newark, NJ; Stanford, Waterbury, and Hartford, 

CT; and Boston, MA. The FRA did not identify the type and extent of contamination at these sites.

7.8.3 Affected Environment 

Table 7.8-2 identifies the number of HWCM sites within the Affected Environment for the existing 

NEC and Action Alternatives. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, provides the general locations of HWCM.

New Jersey and Connecticut rank as having the highest quantities of total HWCM within the Affected 

Environment for the existing NEC and Action Alternatives. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut 

rank highest among the existing NEC and Action Alternatives for RCRA CORRACTS sites. 

More developed, industrial areas along the NEC, such as Philadelphia County, PA; Essex County, NJ; 

and Fairfield, New Haven, and Hartford Counties, CT, generally have the largest number of HWCM 

sites within the Affected Environment for the existing NEC and the Action Alternatives. The FRA did 

not identify any HWCM sites within the Affected Environment of the existing NEC or any of the Action 

Alternatives in the following counties: Montgomery County, PA; Salem, Gloucester, Camden, and 

Bergen Counties, NJ; Richmond County, NY; and Middlesex County, MA.
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.8-2: Affected Environment: Total Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material 

Sites 

Geography Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C. 35 35 35 35

MD 385 390 400 670

DE 440 440 475 450

PA 980 980 890 1,430

NJ 2,850 2,875 2,880 3,010

NY 345 345 365 455–715

CT 3,045 3,205 4,240 3,395–4,440

RI 545 545 580 545–580

MA 415 415 415 415–945

TOTAL 9,040 9,230 10,280 10,405–12,275

Sources: NEC FUTURE team, 2015; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Envirofacts; EPA’s Cleanup in My Community, 

District Department of the Environment; Maryland Department of the Environment (MDDE); Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control (DEDNREC); Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP); New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP); New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC); New York 

City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP); New York City Office of Environmental Remediation (NYCOER); 

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Connecticut Department of Economic and 

Community Development (CTDECD) Brownfield Opportunity list; Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

(RIDEM); Mass.gov; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP).

The Affected Environment of Alternative 3 has the highest total number of HWCM sites, and NPL 

Superfund and RCRA CORRACTS sites, while the existing NEC and Alternative 1 contain the fewest.

Similar to the existing NEC, the most frequent type of HWCM sites in all Action Alternative’s HighProbability Areas are state database sites in Connecticut. Table 7.8-3 identifies NPL Superfund and 

RCRA CORRACTS sites within the Affected Environment of the existing NEC and Action Alternatives.

All Alternative 3 route options share the same improvements south of New York City, with the most 

frequent type of HWCM sites in the High-Probability Area being state database sites in New Jersey.

The Alternative 3 route option to Hartford, CT, via the Long Island Sound contains the highest number 

of HWCM sites within the Affected Environment of any of the Alternative 3 route options north of 

Washington, D.C. The majority of these sites are located within Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY.

Table 7.8-4 identifies the total number of HWCM sites by type within the Affected Environment of 

the Alternative 3 route options.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-5

Table 7.8-3: Affected Environment: National Priority List Superfund and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Actions Sites 

Geography Resource of Interest Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C. NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

MD NPL Superfund 5 5 5 10

RCRA CORRACTS 10 10 10 10

DE NPL Superfund 2 2 3 2

RCRA CORRACTS 4 4 4 4

PA NPL Superfund 5 5 5 5

RCRA CORRACTS 30 30 30 35

NJ NPL Superfund 5 5 5 5

RCRA CORRACTS 30 30 30 30

NY NPL Superfund 1 1 1 2–15

RCRA CORRACTS 5 5 5 5–15

CT NPL Superfund 1 1 1 1–3

RCRA CORRACTS 45 45 60 50–60

RI NPL Superfund 2 2 2 2*

RCRA CORRACTS 10 10 15 10–15

MA NPL Superfund 1 1 1 1–3

RCRA CORRACTS 3 3 3 3–5

TOTAL 160** 160** 180 175–220

Sources: NEC FUTURE 2015, EPA’s Envirofacts; EPA’s Cleanup in My Community, District Department of the Environment; 

MDDE; DEDNREC; PADEP; NJDEP; NYDEC; NYCDEP; NYCOER; CTDEEP; CT CTDECD Brownfield Opportunity list; RIDEM; Mass.gov; 

and MADEP.

Blank cell = No sites were identified within the Affected Environment.

* = Number represents both the minimum and maximum number of sites.

** = Totals were rounded to the nearest five.
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.8-4: Affected Environment: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material Sites of 

Alternative 3 Route Options

Geography

Resource of 

Interest

Existing 

NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via Long 

Island

via 

Providence

via 

Worcester

D.C.

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 30 30 — — — —

RCRA Info 5 5 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 0 0 — — — —

MD

NPL Superfund 5 10 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 10 10 — — — —

Brownfields 205 350 — — — —

RCRA Info 45 65 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 3 4 — — — —

State 120 230 — — — —

DE

NPL Superfund 2 2 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 4 4 — — — —

Brownfields 165 170 — — — —

RCRA Info 15 15 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 1 1 — — — —

State 250 255 — — — —

PA

NPL Superfund 5 5 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 30 35 — — — —

Brownfields 90 310 — — — —

RCRA Info 95 110 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 5 5 — — — —

State 755 965 — — — —

NJ

NPL Superfund 5 5 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 30 30 — — — —

Brownfields 1,220 1,275 — — — —

RCRA Info 165 165 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 10 10 — — — —

State 1,415 1,520 — — — —

NY

NPL Superfund 1 — 2 15 — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 5 — 5 15 — —

Brownfields 65 — 70 85 — —

RCRA Info 185 — 255 405 — —

RCRA TSDF 2 — 2 5 — —

State 90 — 125 190 — —
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-7

Table 7.8-4: Affected Environment: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material Sites of 

Alternative 3 Route Options (continued)

Geography

Resource of 

Interest

Existing 

NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via Long 

Island

via 

Providence

via 

Worcester

CT

NPL Superfund 1 — 2 1 0 1

RCRA 

CORRACTS 45 — 55 50 5 4

Brownfields 240 — 290 295 75 70

RCRA Info 65 — 85 80 20 20

RCRA TSDF 25 — 25 20 5 5

State 2,675 — 2,760 2,680 615 510

RI

NPL Superfund 2 — — — 2 2

RCRA 

CORRACTS 10 — — — 15 10

Brownfields 420 — — — 435 420

RCRA Info 25 — — — 30 25

RCRA TSDF 1 — — — 1 1

State 85 — — — 100 85

MA

NPL Superfund 1 — — — 1 3

RCRA 

CORRACTS 3 — — — 3 5

Brownfields 55 — — — 55 95

RCRA Info 35 — — — 35 85

RCRA TSDF 2 — — — 2 3

State 315 — — — 320 750

TOTAL 9,040* 5,550* 3,675* 3,840* 1,720* 2,095*

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015.

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.

* = Totals were rounded to the nearest five.

Table 7.8-5 identifies the total number of HWCM sites by type within the High-Probability Areas of 

the existing NEC and the Action Alternatives. For purposes of this Tier 1 Draft EIS analysis, a HighProbability Area includes properties located within the 300-foot-wide swath around the 

Representative Route for each Action Alternative and which are considered most likely to be affected 

by construction activities. Similar to the Affected Environment, the FRA identified the fewest HWCM 

sites in the High-Probability Area of the existing NEC, while the most HWCM sites were identified in 

the High-Probability Area of Alternative 3. Table 7.8-6 identifies the total number of HWCM sites by 

type within the High-Probability Areas of the Alternative 3 route options. 
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.8-5: High-Probability Areas: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials Sites 

Geography Resource of Interest Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C.

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields

RCRA Info

RCRA TSDF

State

MD

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 5 5 5 5

RCRA Info 1

RCRA TSDF

State 2 2 2 3

DE

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 5 5 10 15

RCRA Info 1 1 1 3

RCRA TSDF

State 15 15 20 30

PA

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 1

RCRA Info 3 3 5 5

RCRA TSDF

State 10 10 10 15

NJ

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 25 25 35 40

RCRA Info 3 3 4 4

RCRA TSDF 1 1

State 30 35 45 50

NY

NPL Superfund 1 1–2

RCRA CORRACTS 0–1

Brownfields 1 1*

RCRA Info 10 10 15 15–20

RCRA TSDF

State 5 5 10 10–15

CT

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS 3 3 3 3–4

Brownfields 15 15 20 20*

RCRA Info 5 5 10 10*

RCRA TSDF 3 3 3 3*

State 55 70 100 105–120
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-9

Table 7.8-5: High-Probability Areas: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials Sites 

(continued)

Geography Resource of Interest Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

RI

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 5 5 10 5–10

RCRA Info

RCRA TSDF

State 4 4 4 4*

MA

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 0–2

RCRA Info 0–1

RCRA TSDF

State 10 10 10 15-20

TOTAL 215** 225** 325 365–405**

Sources: NEC FUTURE 2015, EPA’s Envirofacts; EPA’s Cleanup in My Community, District Department of the Environment; 

MDDE; DEDNREC; PADEP; NJDEP; NYDEC; NYCDEP; NYCOER; CTDEEP; CT CTDECD Brownfield Opportunity list; RIDEM; Mass.gov; 

MADEP.

Blank cell = No sites were identified within the High-Probability Area.

* = Number represents both the minimum and maximum number of sites.

** = Totals were rounded to the nearest five.
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.8-6: High-Probability Areas: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material Sites of 

Alternative 3 Route Options

Geography

Resource of 

Interest

Existing 

NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via Long 

Island

via 

Providence

via 

Worcester

D.C.

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 0 0 — — — —

RCRA Info 0 0 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 0 0 — — — —

MD

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 5 5 — — — —

RCRA Info 0 1 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 2 3 — — — —

DE

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 5 15 — — — —

RCRA Info 1 3 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 15 30 — — — —

PA

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 0 1 — — — —

RCRA Info 3 5 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 10 15 — — — —

NJ

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 25 40 — — — —

RCRA Info 3 4 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 1 — — — —

State 30 50 — — — —

NY

NPL Superfund 0 — 1 2 — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 — 1 0 — —

Brownfields 0 — 1 1 — —

RCRA Info 10 — 15 20 — —

RCRA TSDF 0 — 0 0 — —

State 5 — 10 15 — —
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-11

Table 7.8-6: High-Probability Areas: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material Sites of 

Alternative 3 Route Options (continued)

Geography

Resource of 

Interest

Existing 

NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via Long 

Island

via 

Providence

via 

Worcester

CT

NPL Superfund 0 — 0 0 0 0

RCRA 

CORRACTS 3 — 4 3 0 0

Brownfields 15 — 15 15 3 2

RCRA Info 5 — 10 5 2 2

RCRA TSDF 3 — 2 2 1 1

State 55 — 85 90 20 25

RI

NPL Superfund 0 — — — 0 0

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 — — — 0 0

Brownfields 5 — — — 10 5

RCRA Info 0 — — — 0 0

RCRA TSDF 0 — — — 0 0

State 4 — — — 4 4

MA

NPL Superfund 0 — — — 0 0

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 — — — 0 0

Brownfields 0 — — — 0 2

RCRA Info 0 — — — 0 1

RCRA TSDF 0 — — — 0 0

State 10 — — — 15 20

TOTAL 215* 175* 145* 155* 55* 55*

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015.

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.

* = Totals were rounded to the nearest five.

7.8.4 Environmental Consequences 

Table 7.8-7 identifies the total number of HWCM sites by type within the Representative Routes of 

the existing NEC and Action Alternatives. The FRA identified NPL and RCRA CORRACTS sites as sites 

of particular concern with the potential to have the most significant impact.

7.8.4.1 No Action Alternative 

Most activities included as part of the No Action Alternative occur within or adjacent to the existing 

NEC right-of-way. HWCM sites exist within the existing NEC; therefore, it is likely that activities 

proposed under the No Action Alternative will encounter HWCM sites and contaminated soil or

groundwater associated with HWCM sites. Project sponsors will be responsible for identifying HWCM 

within their project limits, coordinating with local, state, and federal agencies managing HWCM, and 

implementing any remedial actions and measures for removing, handling, or transporting HWCMs. 
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.8.4.2 Alternative 1

The majority of HWCM sites associated with Alternative 1 occur in Connecticut. Through Connecticut, 

Alternative 1 includes the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment, which is off the existing NEC. This offcorridor improvement increases the number of HWCM that would be encountered in Connecticut.

There are no known NPL Superfund sites that intersect Alternative 1.

7.8.4.3 Alternative 2

The addition of the New Haven-Hartford-Providence route option occurs outside the existing NEC;

therefore, Alternative 2 would have a higher potential to encounter HWCM sites. Similar to 

Alternative 1, the majority of new HWCM sites are in Connecticut. There are no known NPL Superfund 

sites that Alternative 2 intersects.

7.8.4.4 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 includes more route options off the existing NEC than the other Action Alternatives, and 

has the highest potential to encounter HWCM sites.

Washington, D.C., to New York City

New Jersey contains the highest number of HWCM sites, which would be affected by the 

Representative Route of this portion of Alternative 3. There are no NPL and RCRA CORRACTS sites 

located within this portion of Alternative 3. 

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

Within the New York City to Hartford via Central Connecticut route option, which is mostly off the 

existing NEC, additional HWCM sites would be affected by the Representative Route. The largest 

number of HWCM sites in this route option are RCRA Info sites in New York City and state database 

sites in Connecticut. There are no NPL and RCRA CORRACTS sites located within this Alternative 3

route option. 

Via Long Island

This Alternative 3 route option also goes off the existing NEC via the Long Island Sound and includes 

Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, which have additional HWCM sites. The largest number of HWCM 

sites in this route option are state database sites in Connecticut. Additionally, one NPL Superfund site 

was identified in Nassau County, NY, for this route option. 

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

The largest number of HWCM sites in this route option, which is off the existing NEC generally from 

Hartford, CT, to northeast Providence, RI, are state database sites in Massachusetts. There are no 

NPL and RCRA CORRACTS sites located within this route option of Alternative 3. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-13

Via Worcester

This route option, which travels from Hartford to Boston via Worcester, has the largest number of 

HWCM sites from state database sites in Connecticut. There are no NPL and RCRA CORRACTS sites 

located within this Alternative 3 route option.

Table 7.8-7: Environmental Consequences: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Sites within the Representative Routes of Action Alternatives 

Geography

Resource of 

Interest Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C.

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields

RCRA Info

RCRA TSDF

State

MD

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 3 3 3 10

RCRA Info 1

RCRA TSDF

State 1

DE

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 3 3 5 10

RCRA Info 3

RCRA TSDF

State 5 5 10 25

PA

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 1

RCRA Info 1 1 3 5

RCRA TSDF

State 5 5 10 15

NJ

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 10 10 20 40

RCRA Info 1 1 1 3

RCRA TSDF 1

State 10 10 20 45

NY

NPL Superfund 0–1

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 1 1*

RCRA Info 2 2 5 10*

RCRA TSDF

State 4 4 5 5–10
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.8-7: Environmental Consequences: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material 

Sites within the Representative Routes of Action Alternatives (continued)

Geography

Resource of 

Interest Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

CT

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS 1 1 1 1

Brownfields 4 5 10 5–10

RCRA Info 4 4 5 6*

RCRA TSDF 3 3 3 3*

State 25 30 45 40–50

RI

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields

RCRA Info

RCRA TSDF

State 1 1 1 1*

MA

NPL Superfund

RCRA CORRACTS

Brownfields 0–2

RCRA Info

RCRA TSDF

State 4-10

TOTAL 80** 90** 150** 240–365**

Sources: NEC FUTURE 2015, EPA’s Envirofacts; EPA’s Cleanup in My Community, District Department of the Environment; 

MDDE; DEDNREC; PADEP; NJDEP; NYDEC; NYCDEP; NYCOER; CTDEEP; CT CTDECD Brownfield Opportunity list; RIDEM; Mass.gov; 

MADEP.

Blank Cell = No sites were identified within the Representative Route.

* = Number represents both the minimum and maximum number of sites.

** = Totals were rounded to the nearest five.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-15

Table 7.8-8: Environmental Consequences: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material 

Sites within the Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route Options

Geography

Resource of 

Interest

Existing 

NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via Long 

Island

via 

Providence

via 

Worcester

D.C.

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 0 0 — — — —

RCRA Info 0 0 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 0 0 — — — —

MD

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 3 10 — — — —

RCRA Info 0 1 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 0 1 — — — —

DE

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 3 10 — — — —

RCRA Info 0 3 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 5 25 — — — —

PA

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 0 1 — — — —

RCRA Info 1 5 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 0 — — — —

State 5 15 — — — —

NJ

NPL Superfund 0 0 — — — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 0 — — — —

Brownfields 10 40 — — — —

RCRA Info 1 3 — — — —

RCRA TSDF 0 1 — — — —

State 10 45 — — — —

NY

NPL Superfund 0 — 0 1 — —

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 — 0 0 — —

Brownfields 0 — 1 1 — —

RCRA Info 2 — 10 10 — —

RCRA TSDF 0 — 0 0 — —

State 4 — 5 10 — —
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.8-8: Environmental Consequences: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material 

Sites within the Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route Options

(continued)

Geography

Resource of 

Interest

Existing 

NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via Long 

Island

via 

Providence

via 

Worcester

CT

NPL Superfund 0 — 0 0 0 0

RCRA 

CORRACTS 1 — 1 1 0 0

Brownfields 4 — 5 10 1 0

RCRA Info 4 — 5 5 1 1

RCRA TSDF 3 — 2 2 1 1

State 25 — 30 40 10 10

RI

NPL Superfund 0 — — — 0 0

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 — — — 0 0

Brownfields 0 — — — 0 0

RCRA Info 0 — — — 0 0

RCRA TSDF 0 — — — 0 0

State 1 — — — 1 1

MA

NPL Superfund 0 — — — 0 0

RCRA 

CORRACTS 0 — — — 0 0

Brownfields 0 — — — 0 2

RCRA Info 0 — — — 0 0

RCRA TSDF 0 — — — 0 0

State 0 — — — 10 4

TOTAL 80* 160 60* 80 25* 20*

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015.

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.

* = Totals were rounded to the nearest five.

7.8.4.5 Stations 

The Action Alternatives include continued service to existing stations along the NEC, modifications to 

existing stations (which may require an increase in the station footprint), and new stations. Effects to 

HWCM sites would not occur at existing stations where there are no proposed modifications. Effects

to HWCM sites may occur at stations where modifications are proposed and an increase in the station 

footprint overlaps with HWCM sites. Greater effects would be associated in areas where new stations 

are proposed and overlap with HWCM sites. Table 7.8-9 identifies stations that are new or will be 

modified and that overlap with HWCM sites.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.8-17

Table 7.8-9: Environmental Consequences: Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials 

Sites – Stations

State County

Station 

ID/type Station Name

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

MD Baltimore 

City

8/Modified West Baltimore X X X

11/New Baltimore Downtown X

14/New Bayview H.S. X

DE New Castle 26/New Newport X X X

PA

Delaware 34/New Baldwin X X X

Philadelphia 46/Modified Philadelphia Market 

East X

47/Modified North Philadelphia X X X

NJ Middlesex 64/Modified New Brunswick X X X

68/New Metropark H.S. X

NY

Queens 144/Modified Jamaica X

145/New Jamaica H.S. X

Nassau 146/New Nassau Hub X

Suffolk 148/New Suffolk Hub X

CT

Fairfield 94/New Stamford H.S. X

101/Modified Greens Farms X X X

Middlesex 120/New Old Saybrook H.S. X

New London 122/Modified Mystic X X X

Hartford 160/New West Hartford X

164/New Hartford X X

RI Kent 127/Modified TF Green X X X

MA

Suffolk 142/New Back Bay H.S. X

Middlesex 176/New Southborough/Ashland X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Presence of resource within the new station footprint; effects would be subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank Cell = No effects identified for subject resource for listed station for specified alternative.

H.S. = high speed

7.8.5 Context Area 

There is no notable difference between the types, quantities, and distribution of HWCM sites within 

the Affected Environment and the Context Area. A shift in the Representative Route of any of the 

Action Alternatives may avoid encroaching upon some HWCM sites, but would most likely result in 

encroaching upon other HWCM sites.

7.8.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies 

Examples of programmatic mitigation measures for handling and transporting HWCMs would include 

contaminant management to prevent any existing contamination from migrating to adjacent sites, 

and providing a safe working environment to protect both the workers and the public. Typical best 

management practices used to mitigate the release of contaminants during construction include the 

use of dust control technologies, the proper management of soils and groundwater, ensuring that 

contaminated material is transported to licensed disposal facilities and containment and 

management of contaminated materials generated during construction activities. Furthermore, the 

protection of workers who participate in these activities is typically managed by ensuring that 
7.8. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Material

Page | 7.8-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

workers wear proper personnel protection equipment such as gloves, boots, safety glasses, Tyvek 

suits, or respirators as appropriate. During HWCM analyses conducted as part of Tier 2 projects, and 

after completion of additional review and investigations of site conditions, these issues would be 

further analyzed and more-specific information related to public health effects can be addressed.

7.8.7 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

The Tier 2 analysis would provide a more detailed review of the HWCM sites. Tier 2 analysis would 

include an updated database review of each Action Alternative. Additionally, site and adjacent 

property inspections would also be conducted along the Representative Routes. Based on current 

information, the database review, site inspections, file reviews, etc., would be conducted for HWCM 

sites that are identified within the Representative Route. Environmental site investigations, including 

sampling of soil and/or groundwater, would be completed as necessary, which would confirm the 

type and extent of contamination.