ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCOMMITTEE IMPASSE: SPI 10 FORECAST

C O N F I D E N T I A L SEOUL 002812

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/21/2014
TAGS: PARM PREL MARR PGOV KS
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCOMMITTEE IMPASSE: SPI 10 FORECAST

Classified By: A/DCM Joseph Y. Yun. Reasons 1.4 (b,d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: At the end of Security Policy Initiative
(SPI) 9 meeting on July 13, the chairs of both parties left
with an agreement that fifteen of eighteen bases would be
returned immediately and formally accepted by the ROKG, with
documents signed within 1 or 2 weeks following internal
administrative actions. Both parties agreed that
"bio-slurping" would be conducted at five camps not included
with the eighteen camps returned on July 14 (see Table).
This agreement included holding Joint Environmental
Subcommittee meetings to explain the details of the ROKG
environmental remediation proposal tabled at SPI-9 and the
U.S. selection criteria for additional environmental measures
as outlined in the DUSD Lawless June 15 letter to Ministry of
National Defense (MND). At SPI-9 the ROKG stated that the
additional three camps would be fully accepted after further
consultation concerning the fuel contamination on those
camps. The status of three bases accepted by the ROKG, but
not acknowledged as officially returned, remains unclear
after the environment subcommittee meetings. The ROKG
continues to push for additional measures and has not clearly
answered all U.S. questions on its environmental proposal.
END SUMMARY.

--------------
SPI-9: USG-ROKG Disagreement on Where We Are
--------------


2. (SBU) When SPI-9 adjourned on July 13, the U.S. reiterated
that eighteen bases would be returned on July 15, per DUSD
Lawless, letter, dated June 15, 2006 (see Table 1). On 14
July, the USG returned the keys and real estate documents for
those bases to the Ministry of National Defense. On July 15,
USFK terminated base security contracts and affected handover
to MND personnel. At the end of SPI-9, the USG also stated
that no further environmental surveys would be conducted on
these camps. The U.S. added that five bases, selected by the
USG and separate from the group of eighteen, would be subject
to bio-slurping, to remove the free product found floating on
the groundwater. The USG emphasized that the bio-slurping
was a measure of good faith and not required under the Status
of Forces Agreement (SOFA).


3. (SBU) While the ROKG accepted the proposal to conduct
bio-slurping at five camps (Camps Edwards, Essayons, Falling
Water, Page and Sears),it also proposed that four additional
camps (Camps Garry Owen, Gary Annex, Kyle and Walker) should
undergo bio-slurping. This proposal raised the ROKG desired
number of bases to be bio-slurped from five to nine (see
Table 1, Groups 1 and 3). As a result of SPI-9 discussions,
the two sides decided that Joint Environmental Subcommittee
meetings were necessary to explain the U.S. selection process
and criteria for bio-slurping the five DUSD Lawless cited
camps and to understand the ROKG proposal at SPI-9.

-------------- -
Explanation vs. Negotiation
-------------- -


4. (SBU) The subcommittee meetings occurred on July 21, 28,
31 and on August 2. It became clear that the ROKG saw the
subcommittee meetings as a forum for continued negotiation
and not a venue to understand U.S. criteria or to present the
details of their remediation proposal. On July 21, the U.S.
side explained in detail to the ROKG its selection criteria
for the five camps where bio-slurping will take place (see
Table Group 1). In addition, the U.S. side explained why
three of the camps, proposed by the ROKG, do not meet the
U.S. established bio-slurping criteria. The U.S. did not
address the ROKG concerns about the fourth camp (Camp Walker)
and stated that the environmental survey is ongoing.


5. (SBU) The ROKG disagreed with the U.S., and it became
clear that the Ministry of Environment (MOE) aimed to
renegotiate the number of camps to be bio-slurped and to
establish a new environmental baseline for future base
returns to include Yongsan Relocation Plan / Land Partnership
Plan property. MOE Co-chair, Kim Hak-Joo, argued that the
four bases meet some of the USG criteria for bio-slurping and
presented soil contamination data bringing the ROKG
bio-slurping proposal to a total of nine camps.
Additionally, the ROKG proposal included establishing a joint
evaluation committee for a new environmental baseline. After
six months the joint committee would evaluate the
bio-slurping process to determine if additional measures were
required. In an apparent attempt to reopen the July 13 SPI-9
agreements, Kim also proposed that the joint verification
committees revisit the fifteen returned camps already
accepted by the ROKG to verify the additional measures
completed by the U.S. The ROKG was not prepared to explain
procedures beyond revisiting the camps and had no answer in
the event the verification committee found something remiss.


6. (SBU) The final, and most troublesome, portion of the ROKG
proposal states that future bases to be granted to the U.S.
must be remediated to meet ROK national environmental
standards. The ROK delegation was unable to answer whether
the ROKG plans to implement such regulations for Camp
Humphreys/Pyongtaek, but later added it, removed it then
re-added it again. The ROKG was also unable to answer whether
it was proposing to renegotiate the current SOFA agreement,
which clearly does not require such remediation.


--------------
Environmental Challenges for SPI-10
--------------


7. (C) The subcommittee meetings made it clear that the ROKG
MOE proposal includes participation in the camp bio-slurping
selection process and final decision authority on the
effectiveness of the additional measures - a prerogative the
U.S. repeatedly explained belonged to the USFK Commander. In
the event of joint evaluation committee disagreement, the
ROKG would not accept camp return. The U.S. reminded the ROK
that the first stage of the bio-slurping process on camps has
already begun and is scheduled for completion by February

2007. The project contract will be complete in May 2007.


8. (C) COMMENT: The Joint Environmental Subcommittee meetings
revealed a significant gap remained between the U.S. and ROK.
These meetings included representatives from the MND, Blue
House, MOFAT and MOE. MOE representative Kim, the ROKG
subcommittee meeting lead, openly disagreed with other
members of the ROKG team on the meetings, purposes and the
details of the ROKG proposal. At the August 2 meeting, the
U.S. would not consent to follow-on subcommittee meetings
stating that the SPI-9 charter for the meetings had been met.
The U.S. stated at SPI-9 that absent agreement, the U.S.
would refer to the June 15 letter and the SOFA as the
environmental way ahead.

Table: Bases Returned On July 15

Camp Bonifas, Camp Howze, Seoul RTO, Camp Liberty Bell, Camp
Stanton, UN Compound, Camp Nimble, Freedom Bridge, CPX A-1 at
Humphreys, Charlie Block, Camp Kyle, Camp MacNab, Camp Garry
Owen, Camp LaGuardia, Camp Giant, Camp Colbern, Camp Greaves,
Camp Gray

Group 1: 5 bases that the USG has agreed will receive
further remediation (bioslurping) -- no USG-ROKG disagreement

Camp Edwards, Camp Essayons, Camp Falling Water, Camp Page,
Camp Sears

Group 2: 15 bases that the USG and ROKG agreed would be
returned to the ROKG without further remediation at the
conclusion of the SPI 9 meeting (July 13)

Camp Bonifas, Camp Howze, Seoul RTO, Camp Liberty Bell, Camp
Stanton, UN Compound, Camp Nimble, Freedom Bridge, CPX A-1 at
Humphreys, Charlie Block, Camp MacNab, Camp LaGuardia, Camp
Colbern, Camp Giant, Camp Greaves

Group 3: 4 bases that the ROKG asserts require further
remediation (bio-slurping)

Camp Gary Owen, Camp Gray, Camp Kyle, Camp Walker
STANTON