12-1 June 2021

Chapter 12: Contaminated Materials

12.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the analysis the FRA conducted to assess the potential impacts from 

hazardous materials and contaminants present in the soil, groundwater, or existing structures 

affected by construction for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project, and the likelihood of such 

contaminants to persist (and present a concern) after development. This chapter also assesses 

the potential environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative and the Preferred 

Alternative relative to contaminated materials during disturbance associated with construction. In 

addition, the chapter assesses and summarizes specific measures that would be implemented or 

employed by the Project Sponsor for the Preferred Alternative to minimize the potential for 

exposure to or adverse effects from such materials and contaminants during construction. 

Potential impacts related to hazardous materials can occur when an action causes disturbance of 

on-site contaminants present at concentrations above regulatory standards or guidance values, 

or introduces a new activity or industrial process that increases the risk of human exposure or 

poses a threat to the surrounding environment. The potential for the presence of hazardous 

materials or contamination at the Project Site was examined as part of the following previous 

studies: the No. 7 Subway Extension-Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program Final 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“Hudson Yards FGEIS”) in 2004 (Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority/ City Planning Commission [MTA/CPC]); the Western Rail Yard Final 

Environmental Impact Statement in 2009 (MTA/CPC); the EA/FONSI for Construction of a 

Concrete Casing in the Hudson Yards in 2013 (FRA/Amtrak); and the SEA/FONSI for Construction 

of a Concrete Casing Extension in the Hudson Yards in 2014 (FRA/Amtrak). These analyses 

included Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) in 2004 and 2009, and a Phase II 

Environmental Site Investigation (ESI) in 2004 (i.e., soil and groundwater testing). FRA has

updated the previous findings of the Hudson Yards FGEIS for the Project Site in this chapter by 

summarizing the actions undertaken to achieve closure of petroleum Spill 04-07411 in March 

2013. Since evidence of coal tar was observed in the spill area, the Project Site was listed as a 

Class P site (potential Registry site) in the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) State Hazardous Waste Site (SHWS) program (the State Superfund 

program) as Site No. 231083. 

The Project Site has a long history of rail use. It contains an active commuter train storage yard 

and ancillary facilities operated by the LIRR. Construction of the Platform within the northern twothirds of the Project Site would entail limited targeted excavation, disturbance, and removal of fill, 

soil, and rock for the installation of caissons. On the southern third, or “terra firma,” portion of the 

Project Site, more extensive excavation, disturbance, and fill/soil/rock removal would be required

for the construction of the Tunnel Encasement, which would require a larger and deeper 

continuous area of excavation into bedrock. 
June 2021 12-2 

Review of the prior contaminated materials studies prepared for the Project Site indicate that 

contamination was either known to be present or could potentially be present within the various 

portions of the rail yard. In addition to excavation of soil and rock, the Project Sponsor expects 

that groundwater (which could also potentially be contaminated) would need to be pumped from 

the site during excavation for the Preferred Alternative because of the shallow depth to 

groundwater; therefore, FRA included assessment of groundwater in this analysis. Chapter 3, 

“Alternatives,” provides more details on the expected areas of disturbance and the methods and

sequencing that the Project Sponsor expects to use for construction of the Preferred Alternative. 

12.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

FRA conducted the environmental evaluation process pursuant to the Federal and State laws and 

regulations, where applicable to Phase I ESAs and Phase II ESIs. For additional details on the 

regulatory context for this resource category, please refer to Chapter 9 of Appendix B, 

“Methodology Report.”

Parcels within the Hudson Yards area are subject to institutional controls placed by the New York 

NYCDCP as a result of prior CEQR reviews. Sites with an (E) Designation (as shown on the New 

York City zoning map) cannot undergo a change of use or development requiring a NYCDOB 

permit without first obtaining approval from New York City Office of Environmental Remediation 

(NYCOER). NYCOER review and approval is required for investigation and remediation activities 

associated with hazardous materials at any affected (E) Designated sites or RD sites, such as the 

Project Site. 

12.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

12.3.1 STUDY AREA

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-13 defines the distance 

to which various environmental categories pertaining to the historic and current use of nearby 

properties must also be evaluated. Therefore, the Study Area for this analysis includes the entire 

Project Site and extends to the known environmental record sources in accordance with ASTM 

E1527-13. 

12.3.2 DATA SOURCES

The data sources FRA used in this analysis and the Phase I ESA are described in detail in 

Appendix B. Data sources include Regulatory databases, and available prior studies and 

published literature on environmental and contaminated materials studies for the Study Area from 

Federal and New York government sources for the analysis. 

12.3.3 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

FRA’s Independent Third Party Consultant, AKRF, Inc., conducted a Phase I ESA on behalf of 

FRA, in December 2020 (included in Appendix I) to identify potential environmental concerns 

associated with the Project Site resulting from past or current site usage or usage of neighboring 

properties (i.e., areas adjacent to the Tunnel Encasement and Platform) pursuant to ASTM 

Standard E1527-13 (the “ASTM Standard”), including the associated search radii which various 

environmental categories pertaining to the historic and current use of nearby properties must also 

be evaluated. 
Chapter 12: Contaminated Materials

12-3 June 2021

The Phase I ESA is intended to satisfy the federal “All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI)” criteria to obtain 

protection from potential liability under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA), defined in 42 USC 9601(35)(B). The Phase I ESA includes: a review 

of available records and historical maps and/or aerial photos to determine previous on-site and 

adjacent land uses; a site inspection and general area characterization; interviews with past and/or 

present site managers, operators, and occupants of the property (if applicable); an evaluation of 

regulatory database listings for the subject and neighboring properties; a determination of the need 

for further investigations. Records maintained by USEPA and the NYSDEC were obtained and 

reviewed to assess the potential for contamination, due to the presence of identified problem sites 

and activities on or adjacent to the property. The database search areas were at least as extensive 

as those recommended in the ASTM Standard. The list of databases AKRF, Inc. used to complete 

the Phase I ESA are listed in the December 2020 Phase I ESA, see Appendix I. The ASTM 

Standard is widely used as a framework for environmental reviews and property transactions to 

identify the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historic RECs (HRECs), 

Controlled RECs (CRECs), and Business Environmental Risk. The term “Recognized 

Environmental Condition” (REC) means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous 

substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the 

environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under 

conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The Standard also 

includes definitions of HREC, CREC, and De Minimis Condition. A De Minimis Condition is defined 

as an environmental concern that is not a threat to human health or the environment and would 

not be subject to enforcement action. 

The previous Phase I ESA for the Western Rail Yard was conducted in accordance with the 

previous ASTM standard (ASTM E1527-00); the updated Phase I ESA AKRF, Inc. conducted for 

the Preferred Alternative was prepared in accordance with the current ASTM guidance (ASTM 

E1527-13) and focused on areas of potential disturbance associated with the Preferred Alternative

(i.e., the Project Site). The analysis techniques include the following: a visual inspection of the 

property; a review of available regulatory records, historical land use maps and aerial photographs 

to determine previous on-site and adjacent land uses; and an evaluation of regulatory databases 

for the Project Site and neighboring properties. Records relating to past and current site uses, 

spills, and other relevant information (including available prior environmental reports) were

reviewed for properties located within the Study Area and adjacent areas. A more detailed 

description of the analysis techniques FRA directed AKRF, Inc. to use to prepare the Phase I ESA 

and the analysis presented in the chapter is included in Appendix B. 

In this EIS, FRA has summarized the Phase I ESA findings; evaluated remedial options; and 

identified the appropriate health and safety measures to be employed during construction to 

protect workers and the public during intrusive construction activities (e.g., soil excavation and 

disturbance).
June 2021 12-4 

12.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Both portions of the Project Site (the LIRR train yard and terra firma) are at an elevation of 

approximately 10 feet above mean sea level. Due to variations in street grade, the Project Site is 

approximately 10 feet below street level on its eastern side, and at street level on its western side. 

In the 1980s, the Project Site was redeveloped for use by the LIRR. The redevelopment included 

removal of historical train tracks, installation of a 12- to 18-inch concrete slab over the train yard, 

and installation of new tracks and structures over this slab. The terra firma area was paved with 

asphalt. The Project Site includes portions of existing railroad infrastructure underlain by 

anthropogenic fill and sand, and was formerly part of the Hudson River, which was filled to expand 

the Manhattan shoreline beginning roughly in the late 1800s. Based on the 2004 subsurface 

investigation, beneath the pavement, the Project Site is underlain by an approximately 10- to 35-

foot layer of fill materials (including silty sand, gravel, bricks, cinders, concrete, roots, and rock 

fragments). An area at the approximate center of the Project Site contains fill up to 45 feet deep. 

The fill is underlain by native sand, silt, clay, organic soil (riverine deposits), and glacial till. Depth 

to bedrock beneath the Project Site ranges from approximately 25 to 150 feet below ground 

surface (bgs), with bedrock sloping down toward the west. Groundwater was first encountered at 

approximately 5 to 7 feet bgs, and is anticipated to flow in a westerly direction toward the Hudson 

River, but is likely tidally influenced. During disturbance associated with the Project, soil and/or fill 

materials containing petroleum contamination, creosote, coal tar, polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCB)-containing components and/or buried demolition debris could be encountered. 

Groundwater and/or soil vapor conditions may also have been affected by former on-site industrial 

uses. 

12.4.1 2004 PHASE I ESA 

A Phase I ESA1

1 Caemmerer Yard Phase IA Environmental Site Assessment, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) and Louis Berger 

and Associates, P.C. (LBA), July 2004.

was completed for the Project Site and adjoining areas as part of the 2004 Hudson 

Yards FGEIS.

The following RECs were identified by the 2004 Phase I ESA: 

• Historical uses of the Property as a lumber yard, freight yard, and train storage yard;

• Potential use of pesticides, herbicides, and creosote at on-site train tracks;

• Historical off-site uses, including a rail yard with coal storage, iron works, and a locomotive 

house on the east-adjacent block (the Eastern Rail Yard), a metals purchasing company, a 

lumber yard, a coal yard, garages, filling stations, a truck rental company, and a motor freight 

station; and

• Two off-site properties within 0.125 miles of the Project Site were identified in Leaking Tanks 

(LTANKS) and NY Spills databases with open/active petroleum spill listings.

No historical properties of environmental concern were identified north or west of the Project Site.

12.4.2 2004 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION RESULTS

Based on the findings of the 2004 Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESI2

2 Caemmerer Yard Phase II Environmental Site Investigation, PB, 2004

consisting of subsurface soil and 

groundwater sampling was conducted throughout the Project Site. The scope of the ESI included

the following: 
Chapter 12: Contaminated Materials

12-5 June 2021

• Installation of 45 soil borings to a maximum depth of 45 feet bgs, with collection and laboratory 

analysis of 175 soil samples; 

• Screening of soil samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane; and 

• Collection and laboratory analysis of 11 groundwater samples.

Soil sampling results were compared to the Remedial Soil Cleanup Objectives (RSCOs) contained 

in NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) #4046 (a set of 

guidance values used at the time of the ESI). The soil sampling results revealed no exceedances 

of the RSCOs for pesticides, herbicides, or PCBs. Also, no above-background levels of methane 

were detected, and none of the samples exhibited toxicity levels above Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste characteristics. Nine soil samples containing levels 

of benzene ranging from 96 to 2,200 parts per billion (ppb) were detected above the RSCO of 60 

ppb. Three of these nine samples also exhibited levels of ethylbenzene, ranging from 15,000 to 

120,000 ppb, above the RSCO of 5,500 ppb. Sampling revealed the presence of semi-volatile 

organic compounds (SVOCs), including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, 

benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, dibenzofuran, 

fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, pyrene, acenapthene, and phenanthrene at concentration 

levels exceeding their respective RSCOs. The compounds detected were part of the group of

SVOCs known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), formed during incomplete burning of 

coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage, or other organic substances, such as tobacco and charbroiled meat.

PAHs are commonly present in urban fill materials. Benzo(a)pyrene, a known carcinogen, ranged 

from not being detected to 30,000 ppb in the samples, many of which exceeded the RCSO of 61 

ppb. Metals detected at levels above their respective RSCOs included arsenic, barium, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, magnesium, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. 

Groundwater sampling results were compared to NYSDEC’s “Class GA” Water Quality Standards 

or Guidance Values (drinking water standards). No pesticides, herbicides or PCBs were detected 

in the groundwater samples. VOCs (benzene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and toluene) and 

SVOCs (naphthalene, 2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, and several PAHs) were detected in two 

of the samples analyzed at concentration levels above “Class GA” standards or guidance values, 

which may reflect the presence of isolated petroleum contamination (VOCs) and creosote 

(SVOCs). 

Metals exceeding the groundwater criteria included arsenic, barium beryllium, chromium, copper, 

magnesium, manganese, lead, and mercury. However, the contaminant levels encountered were 

consistent with those typically found in urban groundwater—in particular, areas with historic fill. 

Additionally, during the sampling event, field screening identified high turbidity levels. The Phase 

II ESI determined that the presence of elevated metals is likely attributable to metals in suspended 

particles within the groundwater samples rather than attributable to specific releases or spills.

In addition to the “Class GA” comparisons, the groundwater sampling results were also compared 

to NYCDEP’s Effluent Discharge Limitations to sewers. Analytical results indicate that 

groundwater would likely require treatment prior to its discharge to meet NYCDEP groundwater 

discharge criteria.

Generally, the soil sampling results were consistent with the presence of historic urban fill, which 

was expected at the Project Site. However, in two instances (NYSDEC Spill cases 04-07107 and 

04-07411), potential petroleum impacts were noted during field screening, and NYSDEC was 

notified. Laboratory analyses revealed no elevated levels of VOCs or SVOCs in the former case; 

the NYSDEC was therefore requested to close Spill 04-07107. The spill case was closed by 

NYSDEC on April 6, 2006.
June 2021 12-6 

Regarding Spill 04-07411, located on the sidewalk southeast of the intersection of Twelfth Avenue 

and West 33rd Street, contamination consistent with petroleum was confirmed by laboratory 

analysis. This spill was subject to a December 2006 Consent Order between LIRR and NYSDEC 

requiring implementation of a Site Investigation Work Plan and, if NYSDEC determines that it is 

necessary, subsequent implementation of an appropriate RAP. Both plans required prior NYSDEC 

approval. Following implementation of any required RAP, a Final Engineering Report was required 

to be submitted to and approved by NYSDEC before the spill could be administratively closed. 

Spill 04-07411 was closed by NYSDEC in March 2013 after additional soil sampling and 

groundwater monitoring; based on evidence of coal tar observed in the spill area, the Project Site 

was enrolled in the NYSDEC SHWS database as Site No. 231083.

A review of the sampling results for the soil and groundwater in the segment of Route 9A along 

Twelfth Avenue immediately adjacent to the Project Site (as summarized in the Route 9A

Reconstruction Project FEIS), did not reveal any additional information with regard to the nature 

and extent of subsurface contaminants identified in this area. Based on the findings of the Phase 

II ESI, the contamination identified raised no unique environmental concerns and would require 

protective measures to be employed during construction that are typically used at many New York 

City construction sites, as discussed in Section 12.6, “Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Measures.”

12.4.3 2009 PHASE I ESA

A Phase I ESA was prepared by LBA for the Project Site in January 2009. The findings of the 

2009 Phase I ESA were generally similar to those of the 2004 Phase I ESA, with the following 

additional RECs identified:

• On-site Spill 04-07411, which was reported based on contamination noted in the northwestern 

corner of the Project Site during the 2004 Phase II ESI, and had an active status at the time 

of the 2009 Phase I ESA (the spill was subsequently closed in March 2013); 

• On-site Spill 04-07107, for which closure was requested from NYSDEC at the time of the 2009 

Phase I ESA. The report noted that no closure documentation was identified; thus, the spill 

was identified as a REC. However, based on online NYSDEC records, this spill listing was 

closed in April 2006; and

• Nearby regulatory listings, including four active-status spills, one CERCLIS listing with a No 

Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) status, and one State BCP site.
Chapter 12: Contaminated Materials

12-7 June 2021

12.4.4 2020 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SCREENING

FRA’s preliminary review of previous reports, historical land use maps and the regulatory database 

information identified potential concerns, including a long history of railroad operations following 

the anthropogenic filling of the former in-water areas beneath the Project Site in the late 1800’s 

and historical railroad and industrial uses in adjoining areas. No active-status petroleum spills 

were identified at the Project Site. The database information noted that on-site Spill 04-07411 was 

closed by NYSDEC in March 2013 after additional soil sampling and groundwater monitoring. 

However, the Project Site is listed in the NYSDEC SHWS database as Site No. 231083 with 

Classification Code: P (Potential) based on evidence of coal tar contamination observed in the 

spill area (encountered within apparent fill materials between approximately 15 to 40 feet bgs

according to the spill file notes). According to NYSDEC information, this classification is used for 

sites where preliminary information indicates that a site may have contamination that makes it 

eligible for consideration for placement on the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal 

Sites (commonly referred to as the list of State Superfund Sites) and further investigation, in the 

form of a site characterization, is needed to determine if a Class P site qualifies for listing of the 

site on the Registry. The database information noted that as information for this site becomes 

available, it will be reviewed by the NYSDOH to determine if site contamination presents public 

health exposure concerns.

As required by the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, a RD was assigned to the Project Site in April 2014. 

The RD described the Project Site as Block 676, part of Lot 3 (the future Lots 1 and 5). The Project 

Site was subsequently subdivided into Lot 1 (terra firma) and Lot 5 (the LIRR train yard). The RD 

noted that preparation of a site-specific Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) would be 

required prior to soil disturbance; pre-demolition surveys of buildings to be demolished for 

asbestos-containing material (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP) and PCBs were required; vapor 

control measures would be required for future buildings on the Project Site; and additional 

investigation of soil, groundwater, and soil vapor conditions would be constructed prior to new 

development, as appropriate. Although the RD indicated that the site-specific CHASP would be 

submitted to NYCDEP for review and approval, NYCOER is currently the agency which oversees 

compliance with environmental RDs.

12.4.5 2020 PHASE I ESA

AKRF, Inc. completed a Phase I ESA on behalf of FRA in December 2020. This Phase I ESA was 

performed in conformance with ASTM Standard E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental 

Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Practice. 

The assessment revealed the following RECs: 
June 2021 12-8 

• Spill #1802063 was reported in May 2018 at a listed address of 645 West 30th Street (Lot 1) 

when petroleum contamination was identified during a subsurface investigation in a former 

bus fueling and washing area located on the southwestern portion of the lot (remnants of the 

former fueling station including an inactive pump island were observed in this area during the 

site reconnaissance). The spill file notes indicated that the Property was listed under the 

NYSDEC Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS) facility #2-601983 and was associated with a former 

NYC Department of Sanitation (DSNY) garage (portions of the lot appeared to have been 

historically used by DSNY for vehicle storage). Several closed-removed underground and 

aboveground petroleum storage tanks ranging in size from approximately 275 to 2,500 gallons 

of hydraulic oil, motor oil, biodiesel and diesel were identified; the tanks were reportedly 

removed between 2007 and 2014. According to the spill file, no evidence of widespread 

contamination was identified during subsequent soil boring investigations completed in the 

former bus fueling area in 2018, and it was noted that the proposed redevelopment would 

require petroleum-contaminated soil removal to the water table with associated waste 

characterization sampling for off-site disposal purposes. The file notes indicated that remedial 

activities would be managed under NYCOER oversight during redevelopment to address 

contamination and the spill was closed in January 2019.

• Spill #0407411 was listed in October 2004 with an address of Twelfth Avenue and West 33rd 

Street (Lot 5) due to significant on- and off-site petroleum contamination discovered during 

subsurface investigations. The contamination was noted to be primarily on the northwestern 

portion of the Property and to the north across West 33rd Street. Remedial investigations 

conducted in 2009 indicated few exceedances of dissolved VOCs in groundwater, and the file 

notes indicated contamination consistent with manufactured gas plant (MGP) waste (e.g., coal 

tar) was limited to an area on the northwestern portion of the site in deeper soil (below the 

groundwater interface). It was noted that additional remedial investigation activities were 

proposed to delineate potential residual contamination, which would be addressed under the 

NYSDEC SHWS program (ID #231083). The spill was subsequently closed in March 2013; 

however, residual contamination may be present. Online NYSDEC records identified the 

Property as a “P” site (i.e., a potential SHWS site, being evaluated for addition to the registry). 

• Sanborn maps and aerial photographs indicated that the Site had a long history of railroad 

and freight uses, since at least circa 1890 that could have affected subsurface conditions. 

Additional uses on the site included a lumber yard (subsequently a department store 

warehouse), freight storage sheds and a freight terminal. 

• The surrounding blocks were largely industrial and automotive in use according to Sanborn 

maps and the regulatory database information, including various warehouses, a varnish 

works, a beer distribution facility with fueling operations (subsequently a motor freight station) 

on the north-adjacent block and various uses including a soap factory, motor freight stations, 

various manufacturing uses, garages with gasoline tanks, a bus garage (subsequently a 

DSNY garage) and filling stations on the south-adjacent block. Such uses may have affected 

area environmental conditions.

On-site/Off-site Environmental Concerns (items outside the scope of ASTM E1527-13 

such as ACM, LBP and/or PCBs in Building Materials or Fill/Debris)

• Building components and/or historic fill materials may contain LBP and/or ACM and/or PCBs 

(including electrical equipment, train ballasts and other rail components).

• The Property was formerly part of the Hudson River, which was filled to expand the Manhattan 

shoreline beginning approximately in the late 1800s. Based prior subsurface investigations, 

the Property Site is underlain by an approximately 10- to 45-foot layer of fill materials (including 

silty sand, gravel, bricks, cinders, concrete, roots, and rock fragments).
Chapter 12: Contaminated Materials

12-9 June 2021

Potential for Vapor Encroachment

Based on the RECs identified (refer to the first four bullets above), the Phase I ESA identified a 

potential for vapor encroachment into current or future buildings at the Property. 

12.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

12.5.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

No hazardous materials impacts would be anticipated under the No Action Alternative since no 

excavation or foundation construction would occur. As such, the Project Site would remain in use 

as an open rail yard with no development above, and the current LIRR operational facilities would 

remain on the terra firma portion of the Project Site. Further site investigation and remedial 

activities associated with the on-site NYSDEC SHWS listing would be implemented, as required

by NYSDEC, and current MTA LIRR safety protocols would apply to any on-site disturbance.

Therefore, FRA has concluded that the No Action Alternative would not result in any adverse 

impacts related to contaminated materials with these activities implemented and protocols in 

place. 

12.5.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Construction resulting from the Preferred Alternative would involve both the potential for demolition 

or disturbance of existing structures or utilities, and a variety of earthmoving or excavating 

activities during the construction phase with the potential of encountering subsurface 

contamination. Excavation for the proposed Tunnel Encasement and caissons for the Platform 

support would extend well into bedrock. Groundwater depth at the Project Site is relatively shallow 

(i.e., less than 10 feet bgs); therefore, groundwater would be encountered during some of these

activities and dewatering activities (and possible pre-treatment) could be required, as specified in 

the CEPP for the Preferred Alternative, which includes a dewatering plan. 

The presence of hazardous materials contamination only threatens human health or the 

environment when exposure to such contaminants occurs. Even in these situations, a health risk 

requires both an exposure pathway to the contaminants and a sufficient dose to cause adverse 

health effects. To prevent such exposure, FRA has identified appropriate health and safety, 

investigative, or remedial measures for the Preferred Alternative (conducted in compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations, and conforming to appropriate engineering practice) that the 

Project Sponsor would implement before, and remain in place after, demolition and soil 

disturbance at the Project Site. These measures are discussed in detail below in Section 12.6, 

“Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures,” and would include the following (to be 

implemented by the Project Sponsor) during construction of the Preferred Alternative: 

• Prior to any excavation or construction activity, preparation of a site-specific Remedial Action 

Plan and Construction Health and Safety Plan (RAP and CHASP) would be prepared and 

incorporated into the Preferred Alternative’s construction documents. The RAP and CHASP 

would describe precautionary measures and safety procedures to be followed to minimize 

pathways of exposure to contaminants, including a Materials Handling Plan identifying specific 

protocols and procedures to be employed to manage soil and groundwater at the Project Site 

in accordance with applicable regulations during construction. The requirement for a CHASP 

is included in the RD that has been assigned to the Project Site.

• Proper handling and disposal of any building materials, equipment, or utilities containing 

suspect PCBs, LBP, and/or ACM, in accordance with the applicable regulations, prior to 

demolition or construction which may disturb them.

• Dewatering activities would be conducted in accordance with NYCDEP requirements, 

including pre-treatment as required during construction.
June 2021 12-10

• Installation of appropriate permanent ventilation systems (for post-construction operation) for 

areas under the Platform at the Project Site in accordance with LIRR’s engineering design 

criteria for yard ventilation. 

FRA has concluded that the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse impacts related 

to contaminated materials with these measures implemented.

12.6 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES

This section includes preventive and management procedures that the Project Sponsor would 

follow to avoid, minimize, or mitigate exposure pathways to contaminants. These measures are

included in the existing RD for the Project Site, and are included in the CEPP for the Preferred 

Alternative. To avoid adverse impacts on human health or to the environment, any such required 

action, investigation, or management would be conducted in accordance with applicable law and 

any additional regulatory requirements of USEPA (i.e., prior to disturbance of potential PCBcontaining components), NYCDEP and OER, and/or NYSDEC as appropriate. Any hazardous 

materials encountered during construction would be managed, isolated, and/or removed in 

accordance with a RAP and CHASP, as required. The RAP and CHASP would include a Materials 

Handling Plan (or equivalent) to identify measures to address any contaminated material that 

would not be removed as part of construction and therefore would remain in place. Elements of 

the RAP and CHASP would address health and safety, and would include provisions for managing

soil, soil gas, groundwater, petroleum storage tanks, ACMs, LBP, and PCB-containing 

components. The provisions of the RAP and CHASP would be mandatory for the contractors and 

subcontractors of the Project Sponsor engaged in on-site construction activities.

12.6.1 FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

Additional investigation(s) would be undertaken by the Project Sponsor, as appropriate, in 

accordance with NYCDEP, NYCOER and/or NYSDEC requirements prior to subsurface 

disturbance associated with the Preferred Alternative to evaluate the extent of soil, groundwater, 

and soil vapor contamination present at the Project Site in accordance with relevant regulatory 

protocols. Findings from these additional investigations would inform the appropriate course of 

action required which would be summarized in a RAP and CHASP to avoid or appropriately 

manage potential contamination. The RAP would present procedures for the Project Sponsor to 

follow for managing soil and groundwater during subsurface disturbance associated with 

construction of the Preferred Alternative in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local 

requirements, including guidelines for temporary on-site stockpiling and off-site transportation and 

disposal of soil. The CHASP would set forth health and safety procedures for the Project Sponsor 

to follow to minimize exposure of hazardous materials to the construction workers, nearby 

community residents, as well as the surrounding public and environment. The hazards of the 

Project Site would be evaluated by determining the subsurface contaminants of concern and their 

chemical and physical characteristics, and the health hazards associated with the work to be 

performed. As required by the RD, subsurface investigation(s) would be carried out by the Project 

Sponsor in accordance with an NYCOER-approved Work Plan and would be targeted toward 

areas of proposed disturbance associated for the Preferred Alternative. Coordination with 

NYSDEC would likely be required in conjunction with the SHWS program and USEPA prior to 

disturbance of potential PCB-containing materials. All intrusive work must be in accordance with 

MTA LIRR requirements. 
Chapter 12: Contaminated Materials

12-11 June 2021

12.6.2 EXISTING STRUCTURES

During intrusive work associated with the Preferred Alternative, the following measures would be

implemented by the Project Sponsor for existing structures and utilities prior to disturbance to 

avoid, minimize and/or mitigate potential adverse impacts with respect to hazardous materials. 

12.6.2.1 ACM MANAGEMENT PLAN

Proper handling, removal, and disposal of ACM is governed by federal requirements (OSHA 29 

CFR 1926.1101, NYSDOT 49 CFR Parts 171-173, and EPA 40 CFR Part 61), New York State 

requirements (Labor Law Article 30—Asbestos or Products Containing Asbestos Licensing and 

12 NYCRR Part 56 Asbestos Regulations), and New York City requirements (Rules of the City of 

New York Title 15—Handling and Disposal of Asbestos). The Project Sponsor would implement 

appropriate engineering controls (e.g., wetting and other dust control measures) to minimize 

asbestos exposure, if necessary, prior to and throughout demolition and renovation. 

12.6.2.2 LBP MANAGEMENT PLAN

If lead-coated surfaces are present, an exposure assessment would be performed to determine 

whether lead exposure occurs during the demolition. If the exposure assessment indicates the 

potential to generate airborne dust or fumes with lead levels exceeding health-based standards, 

a higher personal protection equipment standard would be employed to counteract the exposure. 

In all cases, the Project Sponsor would implement appropriate methods to control dust and air 

monitoring, as required by OSHA, during demolition activities.

12.6.2.3 HANDLING OF PCB-CONTAINING EQUIPMENT

Suspected PCB-containing equipment (e.g., train track ballasts, transformers, electrical feeder 

cables, hydraulic equipment, and fluorescent light ballasts) would be surveyed and evaluated prior 

to building demolition or utility relocation. PCB-containing equipment that would be disturbed by 

the work would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal (40 CFR Part 

761), State (6 NYCRR Parts 360–376), and local regulations and may require coordination with 

EPA prior to disturbance. Unless suspected PCB-containing equipment is labeled to be “nonPCB,” the Project Sponsor would test the equipment or assume it to be PCB-containing and 

dispose of it at properly licensed facilities.

12.6.3 SUBSURFACE DISTURBANCE

As described above, there is a potential to encounter subsurface hazardous materials 

contamination at the Project Site during soil-disturbing activities. The Project Sponsor would 

incorporate detailed procedures into the Preferred Alternative’s construction documents (i.e., 

construction, specifications) to govern the excavation work and all other activities that would 

require subsurface disturbance. In consideration of the various types of materials (i.e., petroleumcontaminated soils, historic fill, or native materials) that may be encountered during subsurface 

excavation, the environmental measures outlined in a site-specific RAP and CHASP would be 

prepared prior to any excavation or construction activity and would be included in the Preferred 

Alternative’s construction specifications. The Project Sponsor would implement preventive 

measures to protect the construction workers, nearby community residents, public safety, and the 

environment. All activities would be performed in accordance with applicable City, State, and 

federal requirements and subject to MTA LIRR protocol, as required.

Specifically, the Project Sponsor would implement the following remedial and protective 

measures: 
June 2021 12-12

• A Subsurface (Phase II) Investigation would be conducted in areas of proposed disturbance 

(above the bedrock interface) to characterize subsurface conditions. Since an RD was 

assigned to the Project Site based on the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, the Phase II must be 

conducted with NYCOER approval. The investigation may also include coordination with 

NYSDEC, as a portion of the Project Site is listed in the SHWS due to coal tar contamination 

noted in prior investigations and/or coordination with USEPA (prior to disturbance of possible 

PCB-containing components, i.e., train ballasts).

• Prior to any excavation or construction activity, a site-specific RAP and CHASP would be 

prepared and incorporated into the Preferred Alternative’s construction documents. The RAP 

and CHASP would describing precautionary measures and safety procedures to be followed 

to minimize pathways of exposure to contaminants, including a Materials Handling Plan 

identifying specific protocols and procedures to be employed to manage soil and groundwater 

at the Project Site in accordance with applicable regulations during construction. The 

requirement for a CHASP was also included in the RD that pertains to the Project Site. 

• Information in the NY Spills database indicated that additional remedial activities would be 

required to address known or potential residual contamination on the southwestern portion of 

the Project Site related to Spill #1802063 and on the northwestern portion of the Project Site 

under the NYSDEC SHWS program (ID #231083). Remedial activities in these areas would 

continue to be conducted in coordination with NYSDEC and NYCOER, as required. 

• Any underground storage tanks (USTs) encountered during redevelopment would be properly 

closed and removed, along with any contaminated soil, in accordance with federal, state, and 

local regulations, including NYSDEC for registration and, if applicable, spill reporting.

• During any future subsurface disturbance, excavated soil would be handled and disposed of 

properly in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, with spill reporting as 

required. Transportation of material leaving the Project Site for off-site disposal would be in 

accordance with federal, state, and local requirements covering licensing of haulers and 

trucks, placarding, truck routes, manifesting, etc.

• The appropriate vapor mitigation systems would be installed to protect buildings on the terra 

firma portion of the Project Site. If required, the design of new buildings would consider soil 

vapor mitigation measures to prevent any volatile contaminants that may remain present in 

the soil and groundwater from migrating into the new buildings. The RD includes these vapor 

mitigation requirements. This document specifies that, based upon further testing and review 

of any additional analytical data, the Project Sponsor would have the opportunity to 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NYCDEP and the NYCOER which of these measures 

are required. 

• Any building materials, equipment, or utilities containing suspect PCBs, LBP, and/or ACM 

would be properly handled and disposed of, in accordance with the applicable regulations, 

prior to demolition or construction which may disturb them.

• Dewatering activities would be conducted in accordance with NYCDEP requirements, 

including pre-treatment as required during construction. 

• Appropriate permanent ventilation systems would be installed during construction of the 

Preferred Alternative, as necessary, (to be operated post-construction) for areas under the 

Platform at the Project Site in accordance with LIRR’s engineering design criteria for yard 

ventilation. 

With these measures in place, FRA has determined that the risk of exposure to contaminated 

materials during intrusive work associated with the Preferred Alternative would be minimal. 