Navy plans PFAS treatment in Calverton amid criticism over cleanup pace, transparency

The Navy is preparing to begin groundwater treatment at the former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant in Calverton to reduce PFAS contamination moving from the former fire training area toward Swan Pond, Navy representatives said during a virtual Restoration Advisory Board meeting Tuesday.

The work would begin as a removal action under the federal Superfund cleanup process, allowing the Navy to take action before completing the full investigation and final remedy-selection process for Site 2, where firefighting foam was used from the early 1950s until the former Navy/Grumman facility closed in 1996.

Navy representatives said the planned work is an interim step to reduce the movement of contaminated groundwater while the broader investigation continues.

The proposed approach has two parts: pumping and treating groundwater in the source area near the former fire training pit, and installing an underground barrier near the property boundary to intercept groundwater moving toward Swan Pond.

But the meeting itself drew immediate objections from several RAB members, who said the virtual format restricted public participation and made it difficult to ask informed questions about the technical presentations.

Local elected officials and residents had objected to holding the meeting virtually in the first place, saying the level of public concern over contamination at the former Navy/Grumman site warranted an in-person meeting. Navy representatives said Tuesday that the next RAB meeting, expected this fall, would be held in person.

The meeting was held by Zoom, but attendees could not see one another’s cameras or view a participant list. Attendee microphones were muted except when individuals were called on to speak. Participants also could not use the chat function to communicate with one another; it was limited to submitting questions to the panelists. The Navy said the meeting would be recorded, but the recording would not be made public.

RAB member Vinnie Racaniello said early in the meeting that members needed to know who was attending. Kelly McClinchy, another RAB member, said it was important for the RAB to see who from the community was present and understand what questions were being asked.

Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment and a RAB member, said during the meeting that she had “never seen a Zoom meeting like this.”

“This is a webinar structure, and we’re not doing a webinar, we’re doing a meeting,” Esposito said.

In an interview the next day, Esposito said the meeting was designed for the Navy “to talk at the community members, not to the community members.”

RAB members also objected to the Navy holding all substantive questions until the end of the presentations, rather than allowing questions after each section.

The meeting raised another transparency question: the presentation delivered during the Zoom meeting was not identical to the slide deck the Navy had posted online before the meeting. The Navy did not announce during the meeting that it was using a different version or explain the changes.

A comparison of the two decks shows that several slides appearing in the pre-meeting deck were not included in the Zoom presentation, including slides on cleanup funding and site status, Navy PFAS source-area investigation totals, county and Navy private-well sampling areas, and draft PFAS screening-value caveats. One slide in the pre-meeting deck, a PFAS regulatory timeline, was marked “INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE – DO NOT RELEASE.” That slide was not included in the Zoom presentation.

RiverheadLOCAL asked the Navy to explain the differences between the two decks and whether the Navy intended to notify RAB members or the public that the presentation had been changed. The Navy did not respond to those questions.

A Navy spokesperson said in an emailed statement the Navy “has acknowledged comments from participants and community RAB members and will take them into consideration when planning future virtual and in-person RAB meetings.”

“The Navy remains focused on continuing its cleanup efforts at Former NWIRP Calverton to protect human health and the environment,” the statement said.

Navy hydrogeologist and engineer Laura Cook, said the Navy plans to pump and treat groundwater near the Site 2 source area and install an underground barrier near the property boundary to intercept PFAS-contaminated groundwater before it reaches Swan Pond.

The barrier, called a funnel-and-gate system, would direct groundwater through replaceable filter media designed to capture PFAS. Cook said the goal is to cut off the ongoing flow of contamination from Site 2 toward the pond.

“If you don’t cut off that source at the site, then it’s very difficult to have any impact at all in the pond itself,” Cook said.

Navy representatives said the initial treatment system is expected to operate at about 20 gallons per minute, with the possibility of expanding to 40 gallons per minute. They said they hope to have it operating by mid-fall.

Several RAB members questioned whether the proposed system would be sufficient.

Racaniello asked how the Navy would prevent contaminated groundwater from moving around the funnel-and-gate system rather than through it. Cook said the Navy would model the system and make the barrier long enough to capture the plume.

Frank Mancini, a RAB member and superintendent of the Riverhead Water District, questioned both the cost of the Navy’s cleanup work to date and the proposed treatment approach. He said he builds PFAS treatment systems for public water and questioned whether groundwater would bypass the underground barrier because of the hydraulic pressure created by trying to move water through the treatment gate.

Riverhead Town Council Member Bob Kern, a member of the RAB, said in an interview Wednesday that the meeting was “horrendous” and said RAB members were not given enough opportunity to ask questions about technical material as it was presented.

“There was so much information that…the limited time for Q and A was ridiculous,” Kern said.

Suffolk County Legislator Greg Doroski, who attended the meeting, said in a Wednesday interview that the format created what he called “theater of transparency” by controlling the narrative and limiting uncontrolled public input.

The Navy’s treatment plans follow its 2024 sampling of fish, surface water and sediment in Swan Pond, which is downgradient of Site 2. The Navy also sampled Artist Lake as a reference location.

Jennifer Corak, a Navy human health risk assessor, said the Swan Pond data have been validated, but the report analyzing the data and related risk assessments remains in draft form. She said the Navy detected PFAS in Swan Pond surface water, sediment and fish tissue at levels that require further evaluation under the federal cleanup process.

The fish-tissue results included PFOS levels above the New York State Department of Health’s “do not eat” advisory level of 40 parts per billion, Navy representatives said. A sign warning against fishing in Swan Pond has been posted, and state, county and Navy officials are working on additional public-warning signage, according to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation project manager Francesca King.

The Navy acknowledged during the meeting that it had not promptly informed state officials that fish-tissue results exceeded the state’s “do not eat” advisory level. Addison Phoenix, the Navy’s remedial project manager for Calverton, called the delay “an oversight” and said the Navy would not make that mistake again.

Suffolk County Executive Ed Romaine criticized the delay at a recent community meeting in Manorville about contamination from the former Grumman site in Calverton, saying it took the Navy a year to notify state and county officials about the Swan Pond contamination.

The Navy also said it has found the highest PFAS levels in two known source areas at the former Calverton site: Site 2, the former fire training area, and Site 16.

Phoenix said private well sampling has not found contamination requiring the Navy to expand its current sampling area. Three wells tested at or above federal drinking-water limits, she said, but two are already connected to public water and the owner of a third declined follow-up testing.

Other work is continuing elsewhere on the property, including new monitoring wells, additional water sampling planned for July and follow-up testing at the former jet fuel systems laboratory, where the Navy is still evaluating possible vapor intrusion. King said the state continues to oversee the Navy’s work and review the proposed Site 2 treatment plan.

During the meeting, Andrew Rapiejko of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services said the Navy had excluded the county from a recent technical call about the treatment work and said Phoenix told him the county would no longer be permitted to participate in technical calls because the county had released draft data to the press — an assertion Rapiejko disputed.

Phoenix did not directly answer whether the county would continue to be included in future technical meetings. She said the Navy is moving toward a more formal “partnering” structure for technical discussions.

Racaniello, the RAB community co-chair, pressed the point before the meeting ended, saying the state DEC, state DOH and Suffolk County Department of Health all work together.

“The county has to be involved to some degree,” Racaniello said.

The Navy spokesperson did not respond to a question about the county’s future participation in the technical committee.

Congressman Nick LaLota’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. His office has been involved in discussions with the Navy, state and local officials about the Calverton cleanup.