The Marmot’s Hole

Paul H.

Just to be clear, I take you meant that the lawmakers were “…unimpressed with ‘the US cleanup efforts to lessen’ the level of ground pollution”.

“One lawmaker even liked the experience to discovering an oil field.”

Meaning what? That there were visible pools of tarry substance on the surface?

Discovering an oil field without such surface manifestation normally involves test drills to bring up samples from various depths. I assume that there in fact such sampling going on, if so the details of what the samples contain (and the levels) would be interesting (not that I expect you to go seek this info out, but maybe somebody else knows).

A detectable level of contaminants in the ground water (sampled by test wells) is a common problem in the US at old military air bases, where unfortunately fueling techniques and the disposal of used POL were often sloppy back in the old days.

Usually there’s a cost-benefit analysis done as to how much effort is made into cleaning up such pollution. It’s usually impossible to get every bit of it out.

The standard of comparison should be to what’s been done at a selected broad sample of closed military bases bases back in the US. If the US is doing approx the same thing for the Koreans that it does for its own citizens, the lawmakers don’t have a valid beef IMO, not that I expect that comparison will satisfy them.

Paul H.

No, my reference was to the 1940’s thru 1960’s, and the contamination of the groundwater at some CONUS DoD locations relating to maintenance. With the use and then land fill disposal of various exotic chemicals, ones which are nowadays treated carefully as hazardous waste. Example; former Kelly AFB in San Antonio TX, a long-term USAF big acft depot maint location.

Based on my experience with US Army POL procedures in Germany in the late 70’s, we weren’t allowed even then to be casual about ordinary (not exotic) standard motor vehicle motor fuel and POL spills, or disposal of used waste oil/lubricants.

However, after thinking about it some more, I assume these nine locations referred to were former US army, with wheeled vehicle motor pool and/or armored vehicle parks. If so, they undoubtedly had permanent refueling points, ones that might have remained in the same location for decades, with consequent local spillage and possible unauthorized GI disposal of waste oil on the ground.

Probably any bare ground around such a refueling point will be barren, with a stained look to it; I’m guessing this is what the quoted lawmaker meant when he said he saw an “oilfield”. But I don’t think this is a serious problem, if it hasn’t migrated into groundwater which might be a local water source.

If it’s projected to in the future, then that’s a problem. I suppose underground “profiles” vary at the different locations, though I think the US is justified in relying on its own studies of the matter (ie not relying on Korean ones).

I reckon though that these details don’t matter if you’re a left-wing Korean politician looking for ways to keep the Americans “on the spot”.

A relatively trivial amount of local motor pool POL ground contamination, vs 55 years of a US ground forces security presence seems like a good deal to me. Of course, security is intangible and its residue isn’t, so the residue can become an easy cause for an astute politician.

Well, so be it; perhaps these hearing will servie to hasten the day when all US forces eventually leave the ROK. If so, I think the US should take one, two, three or even more years of budget savings from such a withdrawl and present it to the ROK govt as a “superfund” for cleanup of former US bases, thus solving what must be one of the most serious problems facing the modern ROK.

Assuming of course that the money isn’t diverted by ROK politicians for some other purpose; but hey, if that should happen it’ll be a strictly Korean problem.