Transcript No Slide Title

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Environmental Issues
on Returns of
Facilities and Areas
in the
Republic of Korea
27 July 2006
Maj Linda Moschelle
USFK Environmental
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
1
OVERVIEW
Environmental Issue
ROK-US SOFA
DoD Policy on Remediation Overseas
Land Returns in Korea
Environmental Issue
– RECAP
– Development, Recent Events
Lessons Learned
2
ISSUE
The US and Republic of Korea (ROK)
disagree on who is responsible for
the clean up of fuel and heavy metal
contamination on USFK installations
being returned to the ROK.
3
SOFA & Related Agreements
Article III (1966) Facilities and Areas – Security Measures
1. “Within the facilities and areas, the US may take all the
measures necessary for their establishment, operations,
safeguarding and control.”
3. “Operations … shall be carried on with due regard to
the public safety.”
Added Minute to Article III (2001):
US and ROK “acknowledge the importance of environmental protection in the context of defense activities”; and
the US commits to implement the SOFA “consistent with
the protection of the natural environment and human
health, and confirms its policy to respect relevant ROK
environmental laws, regulations, and standards.”
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
4
SOFA & Related Agreements
Article IV (1966) Return of Facilities or Areas
1. The U.S. is not obligated “to restore the facilities and
areas to the condition in which they were at the time they
became available to the U.S., or to compensate the
government of the ROK in lieu of such restoration.”
2. The Republic of Korea is not obligated to compensate
the U.S “for any improvements made in facilities and areas
or for the buildings and structures left thereon…”
US view: No stated US obligation to remediate
environmental contamination
ROK view: Article IV doesn’t preclude remediation
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
5
SOFA & Related Agreements
Memorandum of Special Understandings on
Environmental Protection (2001)
• EGS: review periodically to accommodate new laws
• Share information & provide access to our facilities
• US confirms policy to
-- Conduct periodic assessments,
-- Plan, program, and budget for requirements, and
-- “…promptly undertake to remedy contamination caused
by US Armed Forces in Korea that poses a known,
imminent and substantial endangerment to human
health; and to consider additional remedial measures
required to protect human health.”
US considers the MOSU nonbinding; ROK doesn’t
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
6
DoD Remediation Policy Overseas
DoDI 4715.8 Environmental Remediation for DoD
Activities Overseas
1)
Promptly remedy known imminent & substantial
endangerments to human health & safety caused by
DOD operations located on or emanating from a DOD
installation
2)
Remediate if required to maintain operations or protect
human health and safety
3)
Remediate if required by international agreement
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
7
DoD Remediation Policy Overseas
DoDI 4715.8 (Continued)
 Remediation measures = prevent access to site,
excavate and dispose of soil, biological process, etc.
 Complete when no more KISE, or no impact on mission
 Remediation may be completed after an installation is
returned to the host nation
 Seek host nation contribution, including assistance in
kind, for remediation funded by U.S.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
8
DoD Remediation Policy Overseas
DoDI 4715.8 -- Determination of Endangerment
Known imminent & substantial endangerment is determined
by in-theater Cdr after consulting with DoD medical authority
& DoD environmental executive agent
Case-by-case consideration including:
• All contaminants by type, total quantity, distribution,
persistence
• Conditions on site (e.g. soil and rock type, background
contaminant levels)
• Risk/barriers for transport
• Risk and impacts of exposure to humans via:
Skin contact; Inhalation; Ingestion
• Likelihood, frequency and duration of exposure
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
9
Land Return Survey Process
May 2003 SOFA Procedures for Environmental Survey and
Consultation on Remediation for Facilities and Areas Designated
to be Granted or Returned
 A 3-step process to determine the environmental
condition of areas to be granted or returned:
• Information exchange – what we know about the
condition of the area, historical uses, etc
• Testing, if desired (ROK is testing in every case, using
a commercial contractor)
• Consultation on the results
 USFK uses the survey results in making remediation
determinations
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
10
Land Return Scheme
ROD-MPRC RANGE
JSA MAC
OULETTE
LIBERTY BELL
WESTERN
CORRIDOR
WARRIOR BASE
CASTLE
NORTH
Training
Areas Ph1
GARRY OWEN
NIMBLE
DONGDUCHON
SEARS
CRC ESSAYONS
STANTON
EDWARDS
KYLE
LAGUARDIA
HOWZE
FALLING
WATER
JACKSON
FED
MORSE
TAXI
KIM
YONGSAN
RETREAT
CTR
UN
TMP COLBERN
STANLEY
UIJEONGBU
SEOUL
H208
SEOBINGO
GRAY
CAMP
MARKET
SUWON
Consolidated
Closing
Closed
Returned
CASEY
HOVEY
Training
Areas Ph2
GIANT
PYONGTAEK
PAGE
CASTLE
H220-MOBILE
BONIFAS
GREAVES
FREEDOM BRIDGE
CHARLIE BLOCK
KOO-NI
K16
OSAN
Beta South
LONG
DAEGU
HUMPHREYS
CARROLL
KUNSAN
Acres
48,744
11,180
Returned
5
10,106
AS OF MAY ‘06
SACHON
GWANGJU
Begin
Closed
Facilities/
Areas
104
30
EAGLE
WALKER/HENRY/GEORGE
HIALEAH
MACNAB
CHINHAE
11
ROK Environmental Surveys - Soil
Items Analyzed:
TPH, Cd, Cu, As, Hg, Pb, Cr+6, BTEX, TCE, PCE, Zn,
Ni, F, CN, Org. Phosphorous, Phenol, PCB
Contaminants found:
- TPH from heating fuel (JP-8), gas, and diesel
- Lead and copper in impact areas on firing ranges
- Other metals (Zn, Cd, Cr, Ni, F)
Sources not clear; Ni and F are naturally occurring
Note: USFK is taking action on items in blue
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
12
ROK Environmental Surveys - Water
Items Analyzed: Cd, As, CN, Hg, Organic Phosphorous,
Phenol, Pb, Cr+6, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene,
TCE, PCE, TCA, NO3-N, Cl-, MTBE, TPH
Contaminants Found: - TPH, Phenol, MTBE dissolved in
the ground water, and
Petroleum
floating on
ground water, or
“Free Product”
Camp Sears
13
Camp Edwards: 4.88 meters
Environmental Survey Results: Part 1
UNDERGROUND
HEATING OIL
TANKS
Kansas Range
INSTALLATION
SOIL
CONTAMINATION
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
POL
Lead &
Copper
Other
Metals
Dissolved
Fuel
Floating
Fuel
---
---
X
---
---
---
Texas Range
---
---
X
---
---
---
NC/Wagner Range
---
---
X
---
---
---
Oklahoma Range
---
---
X
---
---
---
Cp Bonifas
Left in place
X
---
x
---
---
Cp Liberty Bell
Left in place
X
X
---
X
---
Charlie Block
---
X
---
---
---
---
Freedom Bridge
---
X
---
---
---
---
Cp Greaves
Left in place
X
X
---
X
---
Cp Stanton
REMOVED
X
---
---
X
---
Cp Howze
REMOVED
X
X
X
X
---
Cp Edwards
REMOVED
X
---
X
---
X
Cp Essayons
REMOVED
X
---
---
---
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
Cp Sears
Green = Operations transferred to ROK military; Blue = Bioslurping
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Environmental Survey Results: Part 2
UNDERGROUND
HEATING OIL
TANKS
Cp Garry Owen
Cp Giant
INSTALLATION
SOIL
CONTAMINATION
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
POL
Lead &
Copper
Other
Metals
Dissolved
Fuel
Floating
Fuel
REMOVED
X
---
X
X
---
REMOVED
X
---
---
---
---
Cp Nimble
---
X
---
---
---
---
Cp LaGuardia
---
X
---
X
---
---
Cp Kyle
---
X
---
---
---
X
Cp Falling Water
---
X
---
X
---
X
Cp Page
REMOVED
X
---
---
---
X
Cp Gray
REMOVED
X
---
---
---
X
Cp Colbern
---
X
---
X
---
---
Cp McNab
REMOVED
X
---
---
---
---
UN Compound
REMOVED
X
---
---
---
---
Cp Walker (H-805)
---
X
---
X
X
X
Kimpo Mail Terminal
---
X
---
---
---
---
27
10
23
7
9
5
5/8
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Problem Scope
• Clean up of the 27 surveyed sites to ROK standards would
cost at least $180M using their methods:
– Landfarm soil with TPH > 500 mg/Kg
– Soil washing for soil with heavy metals
– Pump and treat for fuel in/on ground water
• Assuming the same level of contamination in the locations
to be returned through 2008, clean-up cost is >$500M
• Cost to IMA KORO to guard and maintain the closed camps
– Averaged $402,000/month; > $3M by end of June 06
• The closed camps amount to more than 11,000 acres with a
tax assessed value of over $500M. By 2008, USFK will
have closed 59 camps amounting to 36,000 acres
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
17
The Land Return Issue -- Recap
ROK Position:
• US must remediate to levels established by ROK law before ROK will
accept return of facilities and areas
• SOFA Article IV does not apply; “restore … to the condition in which they
were at the time they became available ” is not the same as cleaning up
environmental damage done by the US
• US agreed to “respect relevant ROK environmental law” = follow ROK law
USFK Position:
• US has no obligation under the SOFA to remediate contamination
• US has confirmed its policy to remedy contamination caused by US
forces that poses a “known, imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health.“
• US Commander makes a case-by-case, risk based determination of any
remediation required by the US.
• Article IV of the SOFA establishes a tradeoff of no restoration, and no
residual value compensation.
• The USG is obligated to respect, but not comply with or obey, ROK law.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
18
Issue Development
2001 SOFA Revision
2002 LPP signed; ROK expresses concern about underground fuel
tanks
2003 - USFK Cdr decision to remove underground fuel storage tanks
- Joint Environmental Survey Procedures established
2004 First 2 areas surveyed and returned (Arirang Taxi Annex, Osan
Beta South) – no issues
2005 - ROK blocks return of closed camps; wants US to remediate all
contamination to ROK standards
- Discussed in SOFA Envir. Subcommittee; Joint Committee; SPI
- USFK Commander refers the issue to OSD
- October: SECDEF talks to MND, ROK President
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
19
Recent Developments
2006
• Feb: USFK Commander, having been told ROKG will accept,
obtains SECDEF approval to propose a set of USFK actions
• ROKG backs out of agreement, but does not reject the proposal
• Series of technical discussions to explain proposal (bioslurping)
• Mar: USFK Cdr, OSD, DoS develop Environmental Action Plan
-- Remove USTs, lead/copper from firing ranges, floating fuel
• OSD explains the US determination of actions USFK will
perform; states US will not negotiate this and expects a yes or
no answer
• 7 Apr: USFK announces Action Plan to press; OSD sends letter
to ROK; ROK asks for delay until May to respond
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
20
Recent Developments
2006
• 25 May: SPI – ROK rejects US proposal; demands cleanup IAW
ROK law
• 5 June: GEN Bell’s speech to Korea Defense and Security
Forum
• 21 June: OSD letter to ROK MND – Advance notice that 19
installations will be returned on 15 July
• 15 July: Return of 19 installations
Camp Bonifas
Camp Giant
Camp Kyle
UN Compound
Camp Liberty Bell
Camp Greaves
Camp LaGuardia
CPX A-1 at Humphreys
Camp Nimble
Camp Howze
Camp Colbern
Camp McNab
Charlie Block
Camp Stanton
Camp Gray
Koon-ni Range
Camp Garry Owen
Freedom Bridge
Seoul RTO
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
21
OSD Letter to ROK MND
“US is taking the following measures to return this valuable
land”
- Remedy KISE to human health and safety, as determined by the US
Commander, considering the environmental survey results and a risk-based
analysis by US medical and environmental experts
- Remove underground fuel storage tanks
- Remove PCB items
- Clean visible spills at motor pools and hazardous material / waste
collection points
- Perform routine maintenance on firing ranges:
-- Remove and dispose of lead and copper contaminated soil in the target
impact berms of small arms firing ranges
-- Dispose of unexploded ordnance from the surface of ranges operated
by USFK
- At those sites that will not be retained by the Ministry of National Defense
for use by the ROK military, the following additional measures may be taken:
-- Drain and remove fuel from storage tanks
-- Drain and clean heating and hot water systems; separate fuel from water22
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Lessons Learned
• When there is a perception of flexibility, the Host Nation will
not honor existing agreements or accept “final” proposals
-- Establish negotiating position up front and don’t change it
-- Set clear deadline for FINAL talks
• KISE difficult to explain and defend; unacceptable to ROKs
-- Need language that is easy to explain to the public
• Ensure all parties involved stay informed, understand what
they have to do, and are prepared to execute (IMA KORO
scrambling at last minute to finish clean up actions)
• Establish STRATCOM at DoD level quickly; identify a POC
for official responses
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
23
Observations
• Installation returns reveal the weaknesses in environmental
programs. Extensive contamination is a symptom of:
-- No oversight function overseas like the EPA
--- EEA doesn’t have staff/resources; Services must enforce
compliance with EGS
-- Years of underfunding (infrastructure, training, etc.): When
will we learn the pennies saved now are not worth the pain
suffered later?
• DoD
needs a definable, defendable clean up standard
• Fence $ for projects that prevent contamination; e.g. retrofit
facilities to use natural gas versus JP-8 or diesel
• Need stronger incentives to follow rules.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
24