TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Electromagnetic 

Fields and 

Electromagnetic 

Interference

Assessment

7.17

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.17-1

7.17 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE 

ASSESSMENT

7.17.1 Introduction

Rail infrastructure associated with electric propulsion systems—including substations and the 

overhead catenary system (OCS)—produce electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electromagnetic 

interference (EMI). Data monitoring systems and in-vehicle and wayside communication systems are 

also capable of producing EMF and EMI. This chapter identifies potential effects from EMF/EMI at 

sample locations where receptors sensitive to EMF/EMI are located within the Affected Environment 

of the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action Alternatives. This chapter 

also describes potential mitigation procedures to minimize EMF and EMI effects caused by the Action 

Alternatives.

7.17.1.1 Definition of Resources 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) defines EMF and EMI below: 

4 EMFs occur throughout the electromagnetic spectrum, are found in nature, and are generated 

both naturally and by human activity. Electric fields describe forces that electric charges exert on 

other electric charges. Magnetic fields describe forces that a magnetic object or moving electric 

charge exerts on other magnetic materials and electric charges.

4 EMI occurs when the EMFs produced by a source adversely affect operation of an electric, 

magnetic, or electromagnetic device such as a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine. EMI 

is a concern at medical and university research facilities that house sensitive imaging equipment 

that could be adversely affected by EMF from train operations along rail corridors. 

EMFs associated with electric conventional or high-speed train operations are typically 60 hertz (Hz)

alternating current (AC) magnetic fields that result from current flowing in the traction power 

distribution system through an OCS, electrified third rail, or the rails themselves. A variety of 

communications, data transmission, and monitoring systems—both on and off vehicles—produce 

radio frequency EMFs.

7.17.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology 

The FRA developed an effects-assessment methodology to evaluate potential EMF/EMI effects. The 

methodology defines EMF/EMI and data sources used in the analysis, and explains how the FRA 

defined and established the Affected Environment. Table 7.17-1 summarizes key factors associated 

with the EMF/EMI methodology. Appendix E, Section E.17, contains additional information, including 

the results of the full analysis and assumptions on electric traction, OCSs, and rolling stock.
7.17. Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference Assessment

Page | 7.17-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.17-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Electromagnetic Fields / 

Electromagnetic Interference

Resource

Affected 

Environment Type of Assessment Outcome

Electromagnetic 

Fields (EMF)/ 

Electromagnetic 

Interference 

(EMI)

2,000-foot-wide

swath centered on 

Representative 

Route for each 

Action Alternatives 

Different EMI scenarios (mainly 

steady state and short duration) 

resulting from different operational 

conditions across several 

construction types. The scenarios 

assume a “maximum draw” or 

“worst case” in which EMF/EMI 

would be produced. 

§ Identification of the 

potential effects of the 

Action Alternatives on 

sensitive receptors at 

sample (representative)

locations.

Source: NEC FUTURE EMI/EMF Effects-Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.17, 2014

Effects of EMF/EMI are based on the distance of a sensitive receptor to the EMF/EMI source. For NEC 

FUTURE Action Alternatives, the EMF/EMI source is related to train operations. Train operations 

contribute to EMF/EMI through electric traction, OCSs, and the type of rolling stock. The FRA 

conducted EMF/EMI simulations based on use of Tier III1 trainset equipment, which are trainsets that 

can operate at speeds exceeding 150 mph, with maximum passenger operation speeds of up to 220 

mph. The FRA also considered two simulation scenarios:

4 Maximum steady state interferences occur when the railroad is operating at capacity where 

there are a maximum number of trains accelerating or decelerating simultaneously. The FRA 

considered these EMF/EMI calculations as a baseline for systems that could be affected by EMF.

4 Maximum short-duration interferences result during a malfunction in the electric traction 

system, such as a short circuit between OCS and the negative return. Maximum short durations 

typically occur prior to the fault protection system being activated. Short-duration interferences 

may be critical for systems like safety, but are less important to other systems because of their 

short duration and infrequent occurrence.

To identify sample locations of sensitive receptors, FRA undertook the following steps:

4 Identify “developed” (medium or high density) land cover types within the Affected Environment 

that could include specific land uses sensitive to EMF/EMI: For this Tier 1 Draft EIS, the FRA 

identified land cover types based on the National Land Cover data base (see Chapter 7.2). The 

National Land Cover database provides general land cover types but does not specific land uses.

The FRA identified land cover types within the Affected Environment that could include specific 

land uses sensitive to EMF/EMI. The land cover types most likely to include these types of specific 

land uses is “developed” (medium or high density).

4 Identify areas of at-grade construction type for each Action Alternative: The FRA identified 

sensitive receptors only in close proximity to at-grade construction types. Potential effects on 

 

1 The equipment used in the EMF/EMI simulations is similar to the Tier III trainsets used to develop service plans, 

and represents equipment that would likely be used for Intercity-Express, Intercity-Corridor, and Metropolitan 

services. Decisions on rolling stock procurement, including the configuration and maximum speed of highperformance trainsets, would be decided as part of Tier 2 actions.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.17-3

sensitive receptors adjacent to other construction types (e.g., tunnel, aerial structure) are less 

likely because they shield EMF/EMI signals. The FRA then reviewed the Representative Routes for 

each Action Alternative to denote where at-grade construction type is proposed.

4 Identify receptors that are sensitive to EMF/EMI (universities, medical institutions, high-tech 

businesses, and governmental facilities that could be affected by new sources of EMFs) within 

500 feet of the Representative Route using aerial imagery (sample locations).

Sample locations are presented by state and county for each Action Alternative. No site-specific 

sensitive receptors are named, but rather are presented by land uses (that could contain similar 

sensitive receptors) that may exist along the Representative Routes of the Action Alternatives. 

The equipment used in the EMF/EMI simulations is similar to the Tier III trainsets used to develop 

service plans, and represents equipment that would likely be used for Intercity-Express, IntercityCorridor, and Metropolitan services. The FRA will decide on rolling stock procurement, including the 

configuration and maximum speed of high-performance trainsets, as part of Tier 2 actions after 

completion of the Tier 1 EIS. (Appendix E, Section E.17, contains additional information, including the 

results of the full analysis and assumptions on electric traction, OCSs, and rolling stock.)

7.17.2 Resource Overview 

Railroad infrastructure (e.g., substations, and communication and signal systems) and operations 

(e.g., electric locomotives, OCS) provide EMF/EMI; therefore, the presence of EMF/EMI would be 

wherever most railroad infrastructure is located and where trains operate. There was little value in 

identifying the “presence” of EMF/EMI in the Study Area similar to how natural resources like 

freshwater wetlands are evaluated. Instead, the FRA identified sample locations and potential 

sensitive receptors to EMF/EMI based on representative land cover and land uses, and proposed atgrade construction of the Action Alternatives.

The FRA identified two potential sources of EMF/EMI:

4 Electric traction systems: EMF/EMI produced by electric traction systems would result from the 

power required to operate the railroad, using the same frequency (60 Hz) as other systems on 

the power grid. EMF/EMI caused by electric traction systems affects limited areas because their 

frequencies are low and decrease rapidly over the distance from the source point.

4 Communications and signaling systems: Modern railway signaling systems,such as Positive Train 

Control, rely on wireless communication to transmit data to Operation Control Centers, trains, 

operators, maintenance crews, and even passengers. Communications and signaling systems are 

usually confined to an area along the track through directional antennas and limited power 

emissions.

EMF/EMI can affect sensitive equipment, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines or 

research equipment like electron microscopes. The fluctuation of EMF/EMI resulting from normal rail 

operations2 could disrupt the equipment or cause it to malfunction. EMF of 0.01 μT is a potentially 

 

2 Normal operation represents the maximum EMF that would be expected from normal rail operations. The 

threshold identified where EMF/EMI might affect potential sensitive receptors is 0.01 μT. The distance of 
7.17. Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference Assessment

Page | 7.17-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

harmful source of interference for research equipment on university campuses.3,4 Section 7.17.3 

identifies sensitive receptors that are representative of the types of sensitive receptors located along 

the Representative Routes (sample locations).

To date, research has not identified any potential health effects associated with EMF/EMI to 

passengers and employees on-board existing and proposed electric trainsets. The FRA’s document 

entitled EMF Monitoring on Amtrak's of Transportation Northeast Corridor: Post-Electrification 

Measurements and Analysis 5 determined that EMF/EMI exposure to the public inside passenger 

coaches does not exceed the occupational limits established by the Federal Communications 

Commission. 

7.17.3 Affected Environment

Using the process described in section 7.17.1.2 to identify sample locations of sensitive receptors, 

the FRA identified 20 counties and Washington, D.C., where the land cover is developed (medium or 

high density) and the proposed construction type is at-grade. Table 7.17-2 and Table 7.17-3 provide 

the counties with locations meeting these criteria, identified by state, county, and Action Alternative.

7.17.4 Environmental Consequences

The FRA further reviewed the 21 locations presented in Table 7.17-2 and Table 7.17-3 using aerial 

mapping to identify sample locations along the Representative Routes. Using a screening distance of 

500 feet, the FRA identified specific land uses within the Representative Route for each Action 

Alternative that might be sensitive and most vulnerable to EMF/EMI (hospitals, universities, research 

facilities, etc.) under normal rail operations. Within these land uses, FRA then identified sample 

locations of facilities that may use equipment sensitive to EMF/EMI. These sample locations are 

considered to be representative of the types of sensitive receptors occurring end-to-end along the 

Representative Routes. Table 7.17-4 and Table 7.17-5 identify the state and county where sample 

locations were identified for each Action Alternative. Table 7.17-4 also provides the approximate 

distance from the land use to the Representative Route.

Effects from EMF/EMI resulting from train operations could disrupt equipment sensitive to EMF/EMI 

or cause it to malfunction. The discussion below identifies those sample locations that could be 

affected by EMF/EMI. 

 

approximately 745 feet from the source indicates the range where normal operations might cause interference 

with sensitive equipment without proper protections in place. 3 Maryland Transit Administration. (2010). Electromagnetic Emissions and Mitigation Measures. 4 T. Dan Bracken, Inc. (2008). Survey of Ambient Magnetic Fields on the University of Maryland Campus. Prepared 

for John Brandon & Associates: http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/08-1006-umdfinal-text-r3.pdf 5 EMF Monitoring on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor: Post-Electrification Measurements and Analysis, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Office of Research and Development, DOT/FRA/RDV-06/01, Final Report, October 

2006
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.17-5

Table 7.17-2: Affected Environment: Locations Potentially Sensitive to Electromagnetic 

Fields/Electromagnetic Interference (Action Alternatives)

Geography County Developed Land Cover

Existing 

NEC Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

D.C. High Density X X X X

MD

Ann Arundel Medium Density

Baltimore City High Density

Cecil High and Medium Density X X X X

DE New Castle High and Medium Density X X X X

PA

Delaware High Density X X X X

Philadelphia X X X X

NJ

Union

High Density

X X X X

Essex X X X X

Hudson X X X X

NY

New York

High Density

X X X X

Brooklyn X X X

Bronx X X X

Suffolk Open Space X

CT

New Haven Medium Density X X X

Hartford High Density X X

New London Medium Density X X

RI

Kent Medium Density X X

Providence High Density X X X X

MA

Worcester High Density — — X

Suffolk X X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Representative locations are at-grade construction types only

X = Representative location within the affected environment of specified alternative; specific names and locations have not 

been identified for this analysis. Specific locations and effects determination would be subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank Cell = Representative location is not present within specified alternative.

— =Not applicable within that alternative/option.
7.17. Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference Assessment

Page | 7.17-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.17-3: Affected Environment: Locations Potentially Sensitive to Electromagnetic 

Fields/Electromagnetic Interference (Alternative 3 Route Options)

Geography County

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. X — — — —

MD

Ann Arundel X — — — —

Baltimore City X — — — —

Cecil X — — — —

DE New Castle X — — — —

PA

Delaware X — — — —

Philadelphia X — — — —

NJ

Union X — — — —

Essex X — — — —

Hudson X — — — —

NY

New York — X X — —

Brooklyn — X X — —

Bronx — X — — —

Suffolk — — X — —

CT

New Haven — — X — —

Hartford — — — X X

RI Kent — — — —

MA

Worcester — — — — X

Suffolk — — — X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Representative locations are at-grade construction types only

X = Representative location within the affected environment of specified alternative; specific names and locations have not 

been identified for this analysis. Specific locations and effects determination would be subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank Cell = Representative location is not present within specified alternative.

— =Not applicable within that alternative/option.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.17-7

Table 7.17-4: Environmental Consequences: Land Uses Potentially Sensitive to 

Electromagnetic Fields/Electromagnetic Interference (Action Alternatives)

ID State County

Existing 

NEC

Alt.

1

Alt.

2

Alt.

3 Land Cover

Representative 

Land Use

Observed

Distance to 

Representative 

Route (feet)

1 MD Cecil X X X X Barren Land Industrial, 

Transportation <500

2

DE New 

Castle

X Developed, High 

Density 

Industrial, 

University <500

3 X Developed, 

Medium Density Medical 

4

PA Delaware X X Developed, High 

Density 

Aviation, 

Manufacturing <500 5

6 NY Suffolk X Developed, 

Open Space Utility <100 7 X

8 MA Suffolk X Developed, High 

Density 

Government <500 9 X X University 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Representative land use present within Representative Route of Alternative.

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

Table 7.17-5: Environmental Consequences: Land Uses Potentially Sensitive to 

Electromagnetic Fields/Electromagnetic Interference (Alternative 3)

ID State County

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via

Long Island

via

Providence

via

Worcester

1 MD Cecil X — — — —

5 PA Delaware X — — — —

6

NY Suffolk — — X — —

7 — — X — —

8

MA Suffolk — — — X —

9 — — — — X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Records are applicable to Alternative 3 only; IDs are not sequential. Refer to Table 7.17-4 for detailed information on 

representative land cover, land use, and observed distance to Representative Route.

X = Representative land use present within Representative Route of Alternative.

— =Not applicable within that alternative/option.
7.17. Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference Assessment

Page | 7.17-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.17.4.1 Existing NEC

There is one potential sensitive location along the existing NEC in Cecil County, MD. The existing land 

use is industrial and associated with an existing transportation facility.

7.17.4.2 Alternative 1

There are two potentially sensitive locations near the Representative Route of Alternative 1. One is 

located in Cecil County, MD, near an industrial use. The other location is in New London County, CT, 

and is a medical facility.

7.17.4.3 Alternative 2

There are five potentially sensitive locations near the Representative Route of Alternative 2. Four are 

south of New York City—one of which is near aviation and manufacturing land uses in Delaware 

County, PA, near Philadelphia International Airport. The fifth location is near a government or civic 

use in Suffolk County, MA. 

7.17.4.4 Alternative 3

Washington, D.C., to New York City

There are two potentially sensitive locations near the Representative Route of this portion of 

Alternative 3—one of which is near aviation and manufacturing land uses in Delaware County, PA. 

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

There is one potentially sensitive location near the Representative Route of the Alternative 3 via 

Central Connecticut route option. The location—in Suffolk County, NY—is industrial.

Via Long Island

There are two potentially sensitive locations near the Representative Route of the Alternative 3 via 

Long Island route option. Both are located in Suffolk County, NY, and are utilities. 

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

There is one potentially sensitive location near the Representative Route of the Alternative 3 via 

Providence route option. The receptor, located in Suffolk County, MA, is a government or civic use.

Via Worcester

There is one potentially sensitive location near the Representative Route of the Alternative 3 via 

Worcester route option. The receptor, located in Suffolk County, MA, is a university.

7.17.4.5 Stations 

There are no potentially sensitive receptors near stations in any of the Action Alternatives.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.17-9

7.17.5 Context Area 

Within the Context Area, the areas of greatest concern are those with the greatest concentration of 

sensitive receptors such as universities and medical facilities. Should the Representative Route shift 

during future stages of the development process, more site-specific analysis and mitigation strategies 

would be conducted.

7.17.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies 

Electromagnetic compatibility ensures that systems function properly when in conflict with EMF/EMI. 

The FRA identified potentially sensitive receptors for each Action Alternative but did not identify 

specific effects on resources. The type of mitigation used to offset potentially adverse effects to 

sensitive receptors should be reviewed case by case, depending on the resource affected. However, 

typical mitigation strategies for EMF/EMI when dealing with rail infrastructure include the following:

4 Modification of the electrical feeding system

4 Consideration of voltage levels 

4 Positioning of OCS wires and traction power substations

4 Changes to operations

4 Incorporating electromagnetic interference transmission media through shields or filters

7.17.7 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

Subsequent Tier 2 actions should be reviewed for site-specific sensitive receptors to EMF/EMI. If 

sensitive receptors are identified, analysis to determine the extent of effects on these receptors 

should be undertaken. Subsequent Tier 2 analysis may include the development of a frequency 

management plan. The frequency management plan would more accurately analyze the strength and 

intensity of EMF/EMI emissions based on the service plan, equipment selection, and final design of 

the selected alternative.