SOURCE:
https://www.eastendbeacon.com/navy-pitches-pfas-cleanup-plan-at-epcal/
By Beth Young - June 15, 2026
In the wake of pressure from Suffolk County to clean up numerous environmental issues emanating from the former Grumman plant in Calverton, consultants for the U.S. Navy have unveiled a plan to capture a groundwater plume of the emerging contaminants PFAS that is believed to be spreading toward a nearby lake and the Peconic River.
The plan — to pump and treat water near the contaminated site and install a barrier to keep the plume from moving offsite— was unveiled at a virtual June 9 meeting of the Calverton Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). Navy officials said it could be implemented as soon as this fall.
The June 9 announcement comes in the the wake of the Navy’s year-long delay in releasing the findings of elevated levels of PFOS (one of the compounds collectively known as PFAS) in fish in Swan Pond and the Suffolk County Health Department’s ongoing findings of PFAS in the surface waters of the upper Peconic River. The Suffolk County Health Department has since placed a “no fishing” sign at the pond.
Suffolk County teamed up with members of the RAB — which includes community representatives — for a special meeting outlining its findings after the Navy refused to allow the county to unveil its data at a quarterly RAB meeting this winter.
“The county data is valid data,” said RAB Co-Chair Vinnie Raceniello at the start of the June 9 meeting. “Everybody has to work together for this to come to a good resolution here. The PFAS in the fish — it’s important to get that addressed as soon as possible. We know people still eat the fish, whether there’s an advisory or not.”
Several attendees questioned why the Navy took so long to release the data on the fish tissue.
“This was an oversight. We take full ownership of it, and we will not make this mistake in the future,” said Addison Phoenix, the Remedial Project Manager for the Navy’s cleanup of the site. “We really learned our lesson on that. We need to be collaborating better.”
Navy human health risk assessor Jennifer Corack said that “fish tissue is the hardest media to sample,” especially since PFAS compounds are hazardous to human health at very low concentrations.
PFAS is one of numerous emerging contaminants known as perfluorinated compounds, which were not well studied or regulated until recently and had not historically been sampled by the Navy during more than 30 years of cleanup at the site, the former home of Grumman’s Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, where the company built F-14 Tomcats and A-6 Intruders.
Navy hydrogeologist and engineer Laura Cook said the Navy is planning to expedite remedial action at the PFAS plume at what’s known as “site two,” a former firefighting training ground or “burn pit” on the property.
“Our intent is to pump the groundwater, treat it and discharge it,” she said. “It’s not intended to be the final remedy, but it will be a step to get us moving in the right direction.”
Ms. Cook said the containment, known as an “underground funnel and gate,” would “corral water through a gate containing treatment media. It would be moved into the gate and the water would be filtered so it didn’t get downgradient to swan Pond.”
She said the Navy is still evaluating the best way to filter out the PFAS, likely either through an advitated carbon or anion exchange filter.
Nate Winston, a geologist with Resolution Consultants working with the Navy on the project, said the Navy “hopes to have that operational by mid-fall of this year. We’re actively working as hard as we can to get existing Navy-owned equipment to the site. It depends on coordination and timely input from our regulatory team.”
Riverhead Water District Superintendent Frank Mancini, a member of the RAB, was unimpressed by the design.
“Water that gets around this wall is going to still be contaminated,” he said, adding that, without physical force, like a pump and treat system, the water is not going to go through the (filter) media.”
He added that he was unimpressed by the Navy’s cost projections for the cleanup.
“I build PFAS treatment systems like nobody’s business,” he said. “I follow prevailing wage, but it looks like I’m doing it at a fraction of what you guys are doing. You’re spending our tax money, and it looks like you’re spending it poorly.”
Andy Rapiejko, a hydrogeologist and supervisor of the county’s Bureau of Groundwater Investigation and Management, who presented the county’s data at its April 28 meeting, asked why the county had not been included on a May 28 call about the treatment plan.
He said he had been told since by Ms. Phoenix that “the Navy has changed their position and the county will no longer be permitted to participate in technical calls going forward.”
He said he had been told he was excluded because “the county has been releasing draft data to the press,” which he said he hadn’t done.
“This is very concerning to us at the county,” he said. “We’ve been doing this for 30 years. We’ve heard from the technical people that they appreciate the county’s input.”
Ms. Phoenix responded by saying “we are making sure were using all the tools and resources to have effective meetings. This is part of the model the Department of War uses for facilitation and more formal consensus agreements.”
“I don’t think Addison answered the question about whether the county will be involved or not,” said Mr. Racaniello, the RAB Co-Chair.
“Different groups have different frequencies and collaborative discussions where we work through disagreements and technical details,” responded Ms. Phoenix. “Tehre’s a forma process for that.”
“The State Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of Health and the County Health Department all work together,” said Mr. Racaniello. “They need to be involved. It’s simple.”
“They have reviewed our documents for years. I don’t anticipate any changes to information-sharing,” said Ms. Phoenix. “We’re committed to collaboration. There’s a lot of work to do.”
Mr. Rapiejko also questioned why the Navy was now calling the proposed remediation an “interim remedial action” when in the past it had been called “a pilot test.”
“Since the last time we spoke, it may have gotten a little bigger for the pump and treat portion,” said Ms. Cook. “There hasn’t been any change other than the name. That decision was made by others in our organization.”
Many members of the RAB were disheartened by the virtual format of the June 9 meeting, which was conducted via Zoom in a webinar-style format, in which members couldn’t see each other on screen and could not participate without raising their hands or entering questions in a chat.
“This is odd. The reason you do a Zoom meeting is so people can see each other, and allow for more open discussion,” said Citizens Campaign for the Environment Executive Director Adrienne Esposito after raising her hand to be allowed to speak. “I don’t know who’s on from the Navy, the RAB, elected officials.”
She added that it appeared to her that some comments were being deleted from the chat during course of the meeting.
“This is unbelievable to me,” she said.
The organizers said they plan to conduct their next meeting in person this fall.
More information on the Calverton RAB’s work can be found online here.