.tffcD ST^f.
.	• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	10-P-0229
% Office of Inspector General	September 21,2010
5> mm r-
, A
At a Glance
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
The Office of Inspector
General (OIG) is testing long-
term monitoring results at
Superfund sites the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has deleted
from the National Priorities
List (NPL). PAB Oil and
Chemical Services, Inc.,
Superfund Site, in Abbeville,
Louisiana, is one of eight sites
being reviewed. In March
2008, the OIG obtained
ground water samples from
the site and conducted an
inspection.
Background
EPA placed PAB on the
Superfund NPL in 1989.
Recovery and disposal of oil
and gas wastes had
contaminated the site with
arsenic, barium, and organic
compounds. Remedial action
included treating,
consolidating, and capping the
onsite soils and wastes.
Region 6 deleted PAB from
the NPL in 2000 after it met
clean-up goals.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2010/
20100921-10-P-0229.pdf
EPA Should Improve Oversight of Long-Term
Monitoring at PAB Oil and Chemical Services, Inc.,
Superfund Site in Louisiana
What We Found
Our independent ground water sampling results from the PAB Oil and Chemical
Services, Inc., Superfund Site were consistent with Region 6's valid historical
results. However, we found that Region 6 accepted from the responsible parties"
contractor two types of invalid ground water data at PAB and included that invalid
data in its analyses. For two wells, data were collected on stagnant water at the
bottom of the wells, below screen openings where the water enters the wells.
Consequently, data on both water quality and water levels were collected contrary
to accepted procedures and were invalid. Ground water level measurements are
needed to understand the direction ground water flows. Measures of water quality
are needed to ensure that the contamination treatment actions are successful and
ground water quality does not degrade.
Region 6 said it was aware of the declined water level condition, but noted it had
data from other wells that were sufficient to determine the direction of ground
water flow and that the remedy was protective of human health and the
environment. We agree that the invalid data did not have adverse implications for
the Region's protection decision because ground water flows past these two wells
before flowing under the area where contaminated soils and wastes were capped.
However, if ground water conditions were to change, the invalid data could
impede the Region's ability to determine whether the site's clean-up remedy is
still protective and whether the network of ground water monitoring wells remains
effective.
What We Recommend
We recommended that Region 6 improve oversight at PAB by amending the site's
most recent Five-Year Review to identify invalid data, and by modifying the
long-term monitoring plan to ensure collection and reporting of valid data on site
conditions. The Region's official response only partly addressed one
recommendation and did not address the other. In a follow-up meeting, Region 6
staff committed to completing actions that would meet the intent of both
recommendations. We consider both recommendations to be "undecided with
resolution efforts in progress." In its final response to this report, Region 6 should
provide a corrective actions plan for both recommendations, including estimated
or actual milestone completion dates.

-------