Environmental Issues on Returns of Facilities and Areas in the Republic of Korea

1. Environmental Issueson Returns ofFacilities and Areasin theRepublic of Korea FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 27 July 2006 Maj Linda Moschelle USFK Environmental FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2. OVERVIEW • Environmental Issue • ROK-US SOFA • DoD Policy on Remediation Overseas • Land Returns in Korea • Environmental Issue – RECAP – Development, Recent Events • Lessons Learned

3. 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.

4. 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 environ-mental 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. DoD Remediation Policy Overseas DoDI 4715.8 Environmental Remediation for DoD Activities Overseas • Promptly remedy known imminent & substantial endangerments to human health & safety caused by DOD operations located on or emanating from a DOD installation • Remediate if required to maintain operations or protect human health and safety • Remediate if required by international agreement FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

8. 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

9. 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

10. Land Return Survey Process May 2003SOFA 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

11. Consolidated Closing Closed Returned Facilities/ Areas Acres Begin 104 48,744 Closed 30 11,180 Returned 5 10,106 Land Return Scheme ROD-MPRC RANGE JSA MAC OULETTE LIBERTY BELL WARRIOR BASE CASTLE NORTH PAGE WESTERN CORRIDOR CASTLE CASEY HOVEY BONIFAS H220-MOBILE DONGDUCHON GREAVES FREEDOM BRIDGE CHARLIE BLOCK Training Areas Ph1 NIMBLE GARRY OWEN Training Areas Ph2 GIANT SEARS ESSAYONS CRC STANTON KYLE EDWARDS LAGUARDIA UIJEONGBU HOWZE STANLEY FALLING WATER FED JACKSON MORSE RETREAT CTR SEOUL TAXI Han River UN KIM COLBERN TMP YONGSAN H208 SEOBINGO GRAY CAMP MARKET EAGLE K16 SUWON LONG OSAN KOO-NI PYONGTAEK Beta South DAEGU HUMPHREYS CARROLL KUNSAN AS OF MAY ‘06 SACHON GWANGJU WALKER/HENRY/GEORGE HIALEAH MACNAB CHINHAE

12. Items Analyzed: TPH, Cd, Cu, As, Hg, Pb, Cr+6, BTEX, TCE, PCE, Zn, Ni, F, CN, Org. Phosphorous, Phenol, PCB Note: USFK is taking action on items in blue ROK Environmental Surveys - Soil • 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 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

13. Items Analyzed: Cd, As, CN, Hg, Organic Phosphorous, Phenol, Pb, Cr+6, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene, TCE, PCE, TCA, NO3-N, Cl-, MTBE, TPH ROK Environmental Surveys - Water Camp Sears Camp Edwards: 4.88 meters Contaminants Found: - TPH, Phenol, MTBE dissolved in the ground water, and Petroleum floating on ground water, or “Free Product”

14. Environmental Survey Results: Part 1 Green = Operations transferred to ROK military; Blue = Bioslurping FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

15. Environmental Survey Results: Part 2 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

16. 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 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 water -- Drain and dispose of refrigerants from air conditioning systems FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

22. 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