$ I Hudson^River
X PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
PRCJV^ ^e9'on 2: NJ> NY PR' V " 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Fact Sheet
•	Second Five-Year Review
•	Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action
April 11, 2019
EPA Releases Final Five-Year Review Report for Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
and Certifies that Dredging and Related Construction Work was Properly Completed
EPA is announcing two actions today:
1.	The issuance of the five-year review, which includes
EPA's decision to defer a determination of the
protectiveness of the remedy in the Upper Hudson
River until more years of Hudson River fish tissue data
are gathered.
2.	In a separate action from the issuance of the five-year
review, EPA also issued a "Certification of Completion
of the Remedial Action" today to GE for activities it
conducted that were components of the remedy selected
for the cleanup of the Upper Hudson River. This is the
second certificate in a series of three: the first was issued
in 2012, the second today, and the third is not expected
to be available to GE for more than five decades.
Consequently, the third certificate, the "Certification of
Completion of Work" is not being contemplated and is
not a part of today's announcement.
EPA's important work to address contamination along the
Upper Hudson River continues. Under a separate agreement
with the Agency, GE is conducting a detailed investigation of
the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination that may be
present in sediment carried onto land during flooding.
EPA is also working closely with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to
determine what additional supplemental studies should
be conducted in the lower portions of the Hudson River
from the Troy Dam downstream to New York City. Those
supplemental studies will inform EPA on the need for
a remedial investigation and if a potential cleanup is
necessary in this portion of the river.
What is a Five-Year Review?
The purpose of the five-year review at a Superfund site is to determine whether a cleanup remedy remains protective
of human health and the environment. All cleanup decisions under the federal Superfund program must be protective
of human health and the environment. However, many cleanup remedies achieve protectiveness without complete
removal of contaminants.
As required, EPA issued its first five-year review for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site in 2012, while the dredging
was still underway. EPA concluded that the remedy was proceeding as planned, and that it was expected to be
protective of human health and the environment upon completion of all components of the remedy.
In June 2017, EPA took the very unusual step of releasing for public comment a draft of the second five-year review
report. The 2017 draft report evaluated the large amount of data on fish, sediment and water quality collected up to
December 31, 2016; however, because dredging ended in late 2015, this included only one year of post-dredging
data. The 1000-page draft report found that the remedy is not yet protective of human health and the environment; but
that it was expected to be so after the natural attenuation element of the remedy occurs over a period of more than five
decades, as projected in the EPA's 2002 decision document, called a Record of Decision (ROD). During the 90-day
public comment period, EPA held three public meetings, and received over two thousand comments, which were
carefully reviewed.
A number of commenters urged EPA to also consider a large number of additional sediment samples being collected
during 2017 by NYSDEC. In January 2018, EPA received from NYSDEC the data from those samples, and over the
past year EPA has carried out an intensive, in-depth review of those data, in collaboration with NYSDEC.
The results of EPA's collaborative review of these data were considered by the Agency before it finalized the final
second five-year review report, which was issued on April 11, 2019 (www.epa.gov/hudson). In the final version of
the report, EPA has deferred making a determination of protectiveness until sufficient additional years of
post-dredging sediment and fish tissue data are collected to support a scientifically reliable evaluation of the
improvement in PCB concentrations in fish.

-------
2
Second Five-Year Review
EPA's Protective ness Determination: Second Five-Year Review Report
EPA has decided to defer conclusions about
whether the remedy is or will be protective of
human health and the environment because there
is not enough fish data yet to draw a scientifically
reliable conclusion.
Lowering PCB levels in fish tissue over an extended
period of time (decades) is the key objective of the
remedy selected in 2002 by EPA and agreed to by New
York State; recognizing that concentrations in the fish
offer an important indicator in gauging the health of the
river ecosystem.
Because dredging ended just two years before the
five-year review, only limited post-dredging data were
available for the review. The post-dredging data show
PCBs continue to decline in the water and sediment as
a result of the cleanup.
Declines in fish tissue are expected to occur over time
as the remedy anticipated. As also expected, fish
tissue levels have not yet reached protective levels.
Most experts agree that it will take as many as eight
years or more of post-dredging fish data to reliably
establish a pattern in the levels of PCBs in fish. The
next five-year review will include at least six years of
post-dredging sediment data.
EPA is committed to continuing to collect and evaluate
water, sediment, fish and habitat data necessary to
track the recovery of the river.
Goal: Reducing PCB Levels in Fish
The primary purpose of the Hudson River PCB site
remedy is to reduce PCB levels in fish, in order to protect
humans and other species (e.g., mink, otter, osprey,
eagle, heron, etc.) that consume the fish. The 2002 ROD
set a remediation goal of 0.05 mg/kg of PCBs in the fish
(a level that would allow people to eat fish from the river
once a week) and projected that meeting that goal will
require more than five decades of natural recovery after
the completion of the dredging. The ROD projected that
fish would more quickly reach two interim targets - the
first when fish would be clean enough for people to eat
one fish meal every two months; and the second when
fish would be clean enough for people to eat one fish
meal every month.
In the 2002 ROD, EPA was clear that even with the
massive amount of dredging, it would still take five
decades or more for the goal of 0.05 mg/kg PCBs in
fish to be reached. This slow process of improvement is
called "natural attenuation," and is explicitly an element
of the selected remedy, along with the dredging.
In advance of the 2002 ROD, EPA had also evaluated a
considerably more extensive cleanup alternative, involving
much more dredging. That alternative would have
accelerated achievement of the fish recovery goal by
only a few years, which EPA found did not justify the extra
years of disruption to the river and river communities as
well as the significant extra cost required.

-------
3
Collaborative Review and Comprehensive Analysis
EPA took additional time to finalize the five-year review in
order to allow the Agency to consider the extensive public
input offered in response to the June 2017 proposed
five-year review report and engage in a comprehensive
consultation with NYSDEC officials and its consultants.
Over the course of 2018, EPA worked collaboratively
with NYSDEC in exhaustively reviewing the data from
approximately 1200 sediment samples taken by the state
in 2017 in the Upper Hudson River, along with the results
from some 215 sediment samples taken by General Electric
(GE) in 2016 under EPA direction. Available fish tissue
samples were also analyzed in combination with sediment
samples in an effort to review the effectiveness of the
remedy (which includes dredging and natural attenuation)
in the Upper Hudson in advancing the river's recovery. Both
sediment and fish data were reviewed by river reach (pools
in the Upper Hudson separated by dams), as well as by
river section (as defined by the 2002 ROD). The analysis
Key Findings from Analysis of EPA/NYSDEC Data
•	The dredging was very effective in removing the contaminated sediments that exceeded the thresholds EPA set
for dredging in the Upper Hudson. Collective analysis of both the GE and NYSDEC data show that over 99%
of the sampled locations are below the surface sediment criteria set in the ROD, in both dredged and non-
dredged areas.
•	There are no areas that would be characterized as "hot spots" in the Upper Hudson. Instead, only three very
localized "areas of interest" were identified with slightly elevated levels of PCBs. EPA will specifically track
these areas with NYSDEC as it continues its broader, ongoing monitoring to evaluate the "protectiveness" of the
dredging and natural recovery in the Upper Hudson in the years ahead. This ongoing monitoring will assist EPA in
determining whether additional active remediation should be required of GE in the Upper Hudson over time.
•	There has not been substantial recontamination of dredged areas in the Upper Hudson. While some
movement of sediment between dredged and non-dredged areas was always expected, it is not viewed as an
obstacle to achieving protectiveness and will be monitored over time, along with other conditions.
•	Post-dredging fish, water, and sediment data results are inconclusive indicators of remedy "protectiveness"
at this time. More time and monitoring are needed. EPA will continue to review fish data collected through semi-
annual sampling for a number of years before it can make reliable conclusions on the effectiveness of the remedy
(the combination of dredging and natural attenuation) in the Upper Hudson.
**EPA developed a Technical Memorandum summarizing the results of the collaborative data evaluation, which can be
found on EPA's project webpage: www.epa.gov/hudson.
by river reach was preferred by NYSDEC and provided
the ability to look at fish populations within each reach to
determine if they were showing improvement after dredging,
or if populations in certain reaches (pools) were lagging
behind what was projected in the remedy. Additionally, the
individual sediment data points were plotted and analyzed
by reach and river section to determine if areas of higher
concentrations ("hot spots") remained in the Upper Hudson
after dredging.
Data was analyzed by both total PCB concentration as well
as by "Tri Plus" PCB concentration. "Tri Plus" concentrations
represent an important subset of total PCBs known to
bioaccumulate in fish (and any person or animal eating the
fish), thus serving as an important metric for assessing the
"protectiveness" of the remedy in promoting recovery of the
Upper Hudson.

-------
4
Certification of Completion of the
Remedial Action
Certification is Not a Release from Liability
•	EPA is not letting GE walk away or, as others would say,
"off the hook," and GE's legal obligations for cleanup
of the Hudson River remain and will continue for many
decades to come.
•	The certification is an acknowledgement that the
dredging and associated construction work specifically
required of GE under the Consent Decree was properly
carried out. GE has continuing obligations under the
Consent Decree to carry out an extensive Operation,
Maintenance and Monitoring program. This requires,
among other things, that regular sampling of water
quality, sediment and fish tissue continue and that the
protective caps installed in a few parts of the Upper
Hudson River are properly maintained.
•	The issuance of the certification is not based
on the findings of the five-year review, including
the protectiveness of the remedy; rather it is an
acknowledgement that certain activities were carried
out by GE, as required under the Consent Decree.
•	The 2006 Consent Decree includes "reopener"
provisions under which EPA can require GE to perform
additional remedial work, if specified conditions are
met. The reopener can be triggered if EPA receives
new information which, along with any other relevant
information (including prior sampling results, etc.),
causes EPA to determine that the remedy will not be
protective of human health or the environment, and that
specific, additional work will address or respond to that
lack of protectiveness.
What is the Certification of Completion of
the Remedial Action?
In late 2005, GE entered into a legally binding
agreement with EPA to carry out the work called for
in the 2002 ROD. This lengthy, detailed agreement,
called a judicial Consent Decree, was finalized by a
federal judge in 2006. The Consent Decree provides,
among other things, that once GE has performed
the dredging and associated construction work that
it was required to do under that agreement (which
included dredging, capping, habitat restoration, and
deconstruction/decontamination of the sediment
processing facility), the company is entitled to
request and receive from EPA a certification that it
properly completed these activities. This is called
the "Certification of Completion of the Remedial
Action," and it is one of three such certifications
provided for in the Consent Decree. The others are
the "Certification of Completion of Phase 1 Field
Activities," which was provided to GE in 2012; and
the "Certification of Completion of the Work," which is
the final certification confirming that all work required
under the Consent Decree has been completed. This
latter certification is not expected to be available to
GE for more than five decades.
Importantly, the term "Remedial Action" is explicitly
defined in the 2006 Consent Decree as not including
the Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M)
phase that follows the dredging. Rather, the term only
refers to the dredging, capping, habitat restoration,
and deconstruction/decontamination of the sediment
processing facility that GE conducted with EPA
oversight between 2009 and 2016. The OM&M period
is when much of the natural attenuation is expected
to occur.
As authorized by the Consent Decree, in January
2017 GE requested that EPA issue the certification
that the remedial action construction work was
properly completed. Under the Consent Decree, EPA
was to have responded to that request within one
year (January 2018). EPA delayed its response to
GE's request for the certification until EPA completed
the collaborative assessment of sediment and fish
data with NYSDEC and finalized the second five-year
review report.

-------
5
Covenant Not To Sue
Some community members have expressed concern over the granting of a "Covenant Not to Sue'' to GE as part of
EPA's issuance of the Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action.
A "covenant not to sue" is a promise by one party to the settlement of a lawsuit that it will not sue the other party for
certain specified claims, provided the other party fulfills its end of the agreement.
Under the 2006 Consent Decree, GE is entitled to receipt of a "Covenant Not to Sue" in concert with the issuance
of the "Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action", acknowledging it has fulfilled specific obligations under
the Consent Decree. EPA's covenant not to sue GE again for cleanup of the PCB contamination in sediments of
the Upper Hudson River does not mean that GE is relieved of all further responsibilities in the Upper Hudson River,
or elsewhere in the Hudson, under the Superfund law or the Consent Decree. The "Covenant Not to Sue" does not
extend to the Upper Hudson River Floodplain or the Lower Hudson River, nor does it protect GE from the obligation
to perform additional work in the Upper Hudson, including potentially more dredging, if EPA deems the remedy is
not protective of human health or the environment and a "reopener" is triggered.

-------
Important Work to Restore the Hudson C
•	Dredging the river is not the only work that EPA
is advancing to clean up the Upper Hudson.
Comprehensive investigations to assess and mitigate
PCB contamination that may be present in sediment
carried onto local floodplains and landlocked
segments of the Old Champlain Canal are actively
underway.
•	GE remains responsible for PCBs that have
contaminated certain parts of the Hudson floodplain
between Fort Edward and Troy. Under EPA oversight,
GE is currently carrying out an extensive study of PCBs
in the Upper Hudson River floodplain, involving many
thousands of samples.
•	If at any time PCBs are detected in the Upper Hudson
River floodplain at elevated levels that are a potential
health concern, a short-term response action is taken
promptly. GE, under EPA oversight, has already
conducted over 60 such short-term response actions.
•	As part of the process, EPA is talking to local leaders
and others who have asked for help in fast-forwarding
floodplain remediation in support of economic
development and quality of life projects. EPA is
reviewing these requests with an understanding of the
benefits of such an approach for strengthening the
fabric of local communities along the river.
•	GE also remains legally responsible for its PCBs that
reached the Lower Hudson River, from Troy south to
New York City harbor. EPA has begun supplemental
studies in the Lower Hudson to determine whether
additional, more detailed study and/or cleanup is
necessary in this portion of the river. EPA is consulting
with NYSDEC on this work, and regular monitoring of
fish and water in the Lower Hudson continues.

-------
7
Site History
Over a 30-year period ending in the 1970s, GE discharged an estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the
Hudson River from two factory sites in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, about 40 miles north of Albany. In 1984,
EPA added 200 miles of the Hudson River to the Superfund National Priorities List, covering the entire stretch
from Hudson Falls to the southern tip of Manhattan in New York City.
In 2002, after many years of study and public debate, EPA selected the dredging remedy for the 40-mile stretch
of the Upper Hudson River between Fort Edward and Troy. The dredging remedy was memorialized in a detailed
document called a Record of Decision (ROD), which was developed in partnership with the NYSDEC. The
remedy was designed to address the most highly contaminated areas in the Upper Hudson River through active
remediation - dredging and, where necessary, capping — followed by allowing the river to recover naturally
through "monitored natural attenuation" (MNA) which is expected to continue to reduce PCB levels in surface
sediment throughout the river. EPA was clear in the 2002 ROD that the MNA process would take at least five
decades before the remediation goal would be reached, and even longer in some parts of the Upper Hudson.
river in hort Edward
In 2006, a federal judge finalized the legally binding agreement between EPA and GE, called the judicial Consent
Decree, which required GE to carry out the work called for in the 2002 ROD. Following this agreement, and
under close supervision from EPA and NYSDEC, GE performed the dredging between 2009 and 2015. The
project is one of the largest environmental dredging projects in the U.S. to date. A total of 2.75 million cubic
yards of contaminated sediment was dredged from the 40-mile stretch of the Upper Hudson River. Over 310,000
pounds of PCBs were removed - twice as much as originally anticipated, and 72% of the overall total mass
estimated in the sediment of the Upper Hudson River (exceeding the 65% reduction assumed in the ROD).
Millions of aquatic plants were reestablished in areas that were disturbed by dredging. The dredging project cost
GE an estimated $1.7 billion. It generated 500 jobs while ongoing and created significant infrastructure along the

-------
Staying informed: Hudson River PCBs
Site Webpage
EPA's Hudson River site webpage now features an in-depth
collection of frequently asked questions and provides links
to the second five-year review report, a technical summary
presenting the data collected and collaboratively reviewed
by EPA and NYSDEC, as well as important historical
documents such as the ROD, Consent Decree and more.
The EPA website offers a number of ways for the public
to gain greater insight into the decision-making process
and stay informed. EPA will continue to involve the public
in the process of cleaning up the Hudson River, including
through supporting regular Community Advisory Group
meetings, issuing fact sheets and press releases, as well
as maintaining information through its website and social
media. For more information about the EPA's work to clean
up the Hudson River, visit www.epa.gov/hudson.
For More Information
For more information, visit,* call toll-free, or write to the EPA Region 2 Hudson River Office at the address below. More
information about the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site is also available online: www.epa.gov/hudson.
EPA Contacts:
Gary Klawinski, Project Director
EPA Region 2 Hudson River Office
187 Wolf Road. Suite 303, Albany, NY 12205
(518) 407-0400 or (866) 615-6490 Toil-Free
klawinski.gary@epa.gov
Larisa Romanowski, Public Affairs Specialist
EPA Region 2 Hudson River Office
187 Wolf Road, Suite 303, Albany, NY 12205
(518) 407-0400 or (866) 615-6490 Toil-Free
romanowski.larisa@epa.gov
*The Hudson River Office hours are Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, with evening hours by appointment.
003239.0005.05.30-Factsheets\Upper Hudson River -Five Year Review-March2019.indd-04/9/19

-------