Despite Active Clean-Up Options for Calverton Plume, Locals Unsure

After the U.S. Navy presented a study in April detailing active remediation plans for groundwater contamination near the former Grumman naval weapons plant in Calverton, it is currently considering which plan is the best approach for cleaning up the toxic plume.

Plans for active remediation as opposed to the route taken in recent years – natural attenuation, a passive process – has the support of Restoration Advisory Board, a group of local citizens and civic group members.

However, Bill Gunther, co-chair of the RAB and an engineer at Brookhaven National Lab, wants to see more than just plans for an active clean-up.

"We agree that something more aggressive is necessary," Gunther said on Monday. "But more time is going by while they decide which alternative is best for them."

In presenting its corrective measures study, the Navy detailed four different active clean-up options ranging from $3.1 million to $5.4 million dollars in capital costs. Operation and maintenance costs bump the project estimates up to the $6.5 million to $20 million range.

Gunther said he would like to see interim remediation measures while the long-term options are weighed by the Navy and regulatory agencies such as the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Environmental Protection Agency. Gunther said interim removal options were raised by regulators at a conference call in early May. 

However, the Navy questioned whether such actions would save much time.

"Any process – interim or long-term – would require writing up a study and going through some type of public comment period to make sure any adverse reaction would not be done," said Lora Fly, a remedial project manager for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the organization in charge of the remediation operation. "There's no shortcut, any way."

A spokeswoman for the DEC – as well as Gunther – confirmed that some type of regulatory review would still be necessary for any interim remediation steps. However Gunther said an interim clean-up option would buy more time for discussion.

Fly said that the Navy took a passive approach at first because contaminant levels in drinking water were not as high as more recent levels have shown – 400 micrograms per liter as opposed to as high as 2,000 micrograms per liter, she said. State drinking water levels allow for five micrograms per liter.

"This is a preliminary stage, evaluating the various alternatives for the effects of cleaning up the site," she said.

A comment period on the corrective measures study for regulators and RAB members ends on May 26.

After comments are collected, Gunther said the Navy will adjust its plan if need be, and put the study out for a 30-day public comment period, along with a "statement of basis" explaining its preferred remedy. Once a preferred path is chosen, the Navy will file for permits to begin work.

While the toxic plume originated on the site of the former naval plant, it has since spread beyond the former Grumman property, south and southeast toward the Peconic River to wetter and more wooded areas.

He said a remediation plan should offer on-site and off-site options, which it currently does not.

"We're waiting with bated breath to hear what they say," he said. "But we're not ready to celebrate yet."