Presentation on theme: "The US Bases in the Philippines"— Presentation transcript:
1 The US Bases in the Philippines Peoples Task for Bases Clean Up / ABC INTERNATIONAL
2 History of ResistanceFilipino Revolutionaries fought against Spain and was winning when Spain sold the Philippines to the U.S.The U.S. Coopted Gen.Aguinaldo the Bourgeoisie Revolutionary LeaderFilipino Revolutionaries fought against the US and were defeated in bloody warsFor every Us trooper killed 50 Filipino revolutionaries were killed or 200,000 out of 700,000 population.Filipino fought against Japan and was winning when U.S. came back to invade it under the guise of liberatorsFilipino revolutionaries continued to fight against u.S. and the puppet governmentsFilipino fought against the dictator MarcosFilipino fought against the bases and won
3 U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines Chronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military U.S. suppression of Philippine revolution1900 Philippine serves as staging area for US military contingents sent to China to crush the Boxer RebellionPhilippines serves as base for UN intervention in Siberia during the Russian civil warPhilippines serves as base for protecting the “international Settlement” in Shanghai, ChinaJapanese conquer Philippines and use Clark for their 201st Air group ; Kamikaze base established nearbyClark Air Base and Subic naval Base play key logistical role in support of US forces in the Korean war
4 U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines Chronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military 1954 Plan drawn up to use bombers based at Clark Air Base t drop 3 tactical nuclear weapons on Viet Minh positions at Denbienphu to aid France’s colonial war . Plan not carried outSubic used for CIA operations against China1958 Philippines Bases used for clandestine supply drops to US-backed right-wing rebels in IndonesiaAir Force units from Clark deployed o Thailand as show of force to back US-allied rightists in neighboringBases in Philippines play crucial logistical role during US intervention in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Us ships departed from Subic on combat missions. No direct bombing missions from Clark, in part because of Philippine sensitivity and in part because it was cheaper to fly from Thailand
5 U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines Chronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military 1971 Naval force from Subic deployed to Bay of Bengal to support Washington’s “tilt toward Pakistan” Policy during the India Pakistan- Bangladesh war1975 Subic serves as staging for US military actions against kampuchea during “Mayaguez” incidentCarrier task forces from Subic sent to the Indian Ocean and Arabian sea, with major deployments during the Iranian revolution, the north Yemen-South Yemen border war, and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan1980 Marcos government announce that it has agreed that US bases can be used at staging areas fir US marines bound for Arabian Sea. Clark Air Base used as a staging point for the abortive mission of US Special operations Force who tried to free embassy hostages in Teheran1986 Clark used to evacuate Marcos and his retinue to Guam and then Hawaii
6 1987 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON FOREIGN MILITARY BASES Article II, Section 8 :The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.Article XVIII, Section 25 :After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under 2 treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.
8 19,694 identified sites at 1,722 military installations Extent of Contamination at Military Bases in the United States as of FY 1993 (excluding overseas bases)19,694 identified sites at 1,722 military installationsplus2,815 identified sites at 1,632 former defense facilitiesTOTAL :22,509 sites in 3,354 actives and former basesSource : “The Defense Environment Cleanup Program ; Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1993,” Development of Defense, March 31, 1994
9 By Aimee Houghton and Lenny Siegel Pacific Studies Center and Career IPRO, San Francisco State UniversityThe US military list 80 distinct facilities with a projected Defense Department cleanup cost, from start to completion of more than $100 million each. We list them, in descending order by total estimated cleanup cost.Containing more than 4,100 individual sites where investigation or cleanup is in progress, these bases represent the bulk of the currently planned cleanup program. Though fiscal year 1994, nearly $4billion had been spent at these installations, and the Pentagon projects an additional expenditure – from fiscal year 1995 on – of over $17 billion, for a total exceeding $21 billion. None of these figures include expenditures by other responsible parties, such as shell Oil at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal or Intel at Moffett Field.
10 Cleanup of U.S. Air Force Bases Overseas (as of 1990) Host CountryNo. ofInstallationSites$ Spentas of 1990Project Total CostCanadaGermanyGreenlandItalyJapanKoreaNetherlandsPortugal(Azores)SpainTurkeyUnited Kingdom216213288,400,000920,0001,201,00070,000200,000568 ,0001,0008,000500,00061,400,00030,751,0001,559,0001,580,000650,000986,0001,000,000151,00051,000115,0001,950,000Total3968$11,887,000$100,193,000Source : Air Force survey of worldwide cleanup costs conducted for the Environmental Quality Division, Directorate of Engineering and Service, U.S. Air Force, April 1990;Cited in Defense Cleanup, Vol.3, No. 16, July 24, 1992
11 “U.S. bases are encountering increasing numbers of cases where host countries are taking legal action against the bases or the officials responsible for hazardous waste management because of past practices of improper handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste”From October 1984 to 1991There were 1,259 host country claims against the U.S. totaling about $25.8 million with 140 claims for an undetermined amountIncidents of pollution confirmed at 113 additional sites and more are suspected at others. The preliminary cost estimate to settle claims that may arise at the 113 sites is $111 million, but the actual cost may be much higher.Source : “Hazardous Waste: Management problems Continue at Overseas Base.” General Accounting Office Report, August 1991
12 U. S. General Accounting Office, “Military Base Closures : U. S U.S. General Accounting Office, “Military Base Closures : U.S. Financial Obligations in the Philippines” January 22, 1992Environmental officers at both Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Facility have identified contaminated sites and facilities that would not be in compliance with U.S. environmental standards…For examples, the underground storage tanks lack leak detection equipment, and fire fighting facilities have no drainage system. Instead, the fuel and chemical used in fire-fighting exercises seep directly into the soil and water table, and at the Navy facilities, the overflow goes directly into Subic Bay.… according to Air force and navy officials, if the United Sates unilaterally decided to clean up these bases in accordance with U.S. standards, the costs for environmental cleanup and restoration could approach Superfund proportions.
13 Pollution Abatement and Environmental Projects (“to correct environmental hazardous and remedy situations that pose serious health and safety threats’) at Clark and Subic that were abandonedAt SubicSanitary sewer and waste treatment facilityOil/Water separatorHazardous material storage structureImprovements to fuel storage tanksAt ClarkPCB removalAsbestos survey and removalHazardous waste removalU.S. General Accounting Office report , January 22, 1992
14 Examples of contaminated sites found at both Clark and Subic : Dumping of untreated wastewaters into Subic BayDumping of lead and other toxic metals from the Ship Repairpacility’s sandblasting site into Subic Bay or in the landfillPCB contamination at the Subic Power PlantUnderground storage tanksFire-fighting training facilitiesU.S. General Accounting Office report , January 22, 1992
15 List of 46 contaminated Sites at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility(Clark-27, Subic 19) Known Contamination Sites at Clark Air Base(27 total sites)Based on the weston Environmental Baseline StudyMabalacat LandfillFire training AreaPower PlantCorrosion Control AreasDefense Reutilization and Marketing OfficeStorage Yard AreaJet Engine Test CellCivil Engineering EntomologyCalifornia Bus Line Motor PoolMotor PoolFuel System Repair ShopPhilippine Area Exchange Motor PoolWagner Aviation TransformerOperational Well 1 in CABCOM Evacuation CenterOperational Well 2 in CABCOMOperational Well 3 in CABCOMOperational Wells near former (CDC-2,8,and 9)Operational Back-up Wells Upgradient (Near Golf course and Housing CDC-16,17)Operational Well Downgradient to the Golf course (CDC-23)Operational Well near the former DRMO (CDC 4)Well Downgradient to the former DRMO (CDC -12)Operational Well near the former DRMO (CDC -4)Based on the U.S. Air Force Environmental Reviewof the Drawdown Activities at Clark Air Base,Republic of the PhilippinesMechanical Room, Bldg 7509Supply Storage Yard Adjac at to the DRMOClark – Subic POL pipelinePhil. Rock Products Compound, Bldg 18Asbestos Land fill
16 List of 46 contaminated Sites at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility(Clark-27, Subic 19) Known Contamination Sites at Subic Naval Facility(19 sites)Based on the Woodward-ClydeEnvironmental Baseline StudySubic LandfillOsir Basin Old LandfillNavy Exchange Taxi CompoundDefense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard/Deltic YardPWC Vehicle Maintenance YardCubi Hospital IncineratorFire Fighting Training AreaFormer Demilitarization Facility / NAVMAGSRF CausewayExplosive Ordance Disposal Area / NAVMAGBased on U.S. Navy’s Potential Restoration Sites onBoard the U.S. facility, Subic BaySanitary LandfillSubic Power plant (Building 1800)Fleet Mooring / Sandblasting YardFoundry Shop. Building 30Naval Supply Depot Tank Farm, area around UST structure No. 1758Wood Preservation and Treatment Facility, Bldg. 2259/NAVNAGFuel Farm Area in Cubi Point naval Air StationWashrack holding Tanks, Structure No and 8416Cubi Point Plant
18 Migration of contamination in US Air Force Base
19 Summary of Analytical Result on Soil from CDC (cited from : Weston International, “Soil and Water Baseline Study Report” Final Report, August 1997)SitePollution which exceed US EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations for Soil IngestionMabalacat Land FillAldrin ; Dieldrin ; Lindane ; Hexachlorobenzene ; TPH (C10 to C28)Fire Training AreaAldrin , Lindane , TPH (C6 to C36)Power PlantTPH (C15 to C36)Corrosion ControlDefense Reutilization Marketing Office(DRMO) storage areaJet Engine Test Cell (JETC)TPH (C15 to C28)CE Entomology (CEE)Deldrin, Heptachlor, TPH(C6 to C36)California Bus Lines (CBL)Lead, Aldrin, 4,4’-DDD, TPH(C to C36)Motor Pool (MP)Lead, TPH (C10 to C36)Fuel System Repair (FSR)TPH (C6 to C36)Philippine Area Exchange Motor Pool (PAX)Chlordane, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide, TPH (C15 to C28)Hospital (transformers)PCBsWane Aviation (transformers)PCBs (7,800mg/kg)
20 Mercury Tetrachloroethane Lead Dichloroethane Chemicals (exceeding WHO/PNS standards) founded in Clark Air Bases Well- Documented in 1997 Weston International Soil and Water Baseline Study, commissioned by the Clark DevelopmentMercury TetrachloroethaneLead DichloroethaneBenzene DichloropropyleneToulene dibromo-Xylene chloromethaneDieldrin Ethylbenzene
21 Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) : 1985-86 Aldrin/Diedrin : in humans : potential for cancer; in animal : produced tumorsof the lungs, liver, tyroid and adrenal gland.Benzene : Cancer(leukemia)Lead(Pb) : Kidney , blood, and nervous system effectsMercury (Hg) : Central nervous system depressant; mental effectsPCB(Arochlors) : Potential for cancer in humans; produced tumors of the liver,pituitary gland and leukemia in animals ; skin, liver, andreproductive system effects.Blood testing required; females of child-bearing age andnursing mothers should be warned of potential harmful effects1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane : potential for cancer in humans;produced tumors ofthe liver in animals; liver gastrointestinal, and nervous system effectsToluene : Central nervous system depressant; respiratory effectsTotal Petroleum Hydrocarbon(TPH):Xylene : Central nervous system depressant; respiratory irritation
22 Pollution which exceed Water Quality Criteria Summary of Analytical Result on Water from Various Well in CDC (cited from : Weston International, “Soil and Water Baseline Study Report” Final Report, August 1997)SitePollution which exceed Water Quality CriteriaEvacuation Camp WellMercuryNear Former Landfills (CDC-2)DieldrinNear former Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) storage yard (CDC-4)Lead;1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane;1,2-Dichloroethane;1,3-Dichloropropylene, Benzene, Cis-1,2dichloroethene;DibromochloromethaneEthylbenzene; Toluene; Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene; XylenesNear former Landfills (CC-8 and 9)Downgradient of DRMO (CDC-12)LeadDowngradient of Golf Course Maintence (CDC-23)
23 Limitation of Measure Taken Measure Taken by CDCLimitation of Measure Taken1. Immediate and permanent shutdown of wells with contaminants exceeding health standard so as to prevent ingestion and ensure further dilution of faint traces of contaminants noted in some wellsOnly prevents further contamination from vandalism.Existing studies indicate that the aquifers have already been contaminated.2. Sealing of decommissioned wells to prevent pilferage and further contaminationSame as above. A fuller investigation into the aquifer system, water hydrology, and ongoing testing can only determine the size of the plume and extent f contamination that has already reached these water systems.3. Regular monitoring of water in ClarkCDC has yet to release their monitoring results to people around the Clark area or to other government officials. Undetermined whether this water monitoring is testing for the whole range of contaminants, that could endanger the health of nearby communities.
24 McClellan Air Force Base 258 identified sitesIncluding 18 acres of contaminated soil, 3 plumes of contaminated groundwater, PCB hot spots in DRMO area, disposal pits.350 groundwater monitoring wells installedSome of the contaminants found in groundwater and soil samples ; benzene, carbon tetrachloride, toluene, perchloroethylene, Xylenes, chloroform, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, lead, arsenic, cadium, mercury, PCBs and dioxin.150 USTs removedSince 1979, 548 residences supplied with alternate drinking water source
25 McClellan Air Force Base (near Sacramento, CA) OperableUnit(OU)ABB1CC1DEFGHNumberOf Site12147242615198FMcClellan Air Force Base (near Sacramento, CA)GEDHPlaced on NPL in 1997Scheduled for closureTotal estimated cleanup cost: $1.6 billionExpected date of cleanup completion: 2040CC1AB1B
29 - Woodward Clyde Report Some contaminatedsites in Subic- Woodward Clyde Report
30 Comparisons of Size and Function Alameda NASHunters Point AnnexMare island Naval ShipyardSubic Naval Base*largest in the worldSince 19302,842 acres of land and waterNaval Air StationNaval Aviation DepotSince 1941522 acresNaval Shipyard/Ship repair FacilityNaval Radiological LabSince 18545,677 acres of land wetlandsNaval MagazineNaval ShipyardLogistical Support for Assigned ShipsSince 189916,452 acres of land plus 27,932 acres of land and waterNaval Shipyard / Naval Supply Depot* / Naval Magazine / Naval Ship repair Facility / Naval Air Station (Cubi) / Naval Regional Medical CenterLogistical Support for Seventh Fleet and Naval Patrol Wing Interm / Aircraft Repair Command, Control, Comm Bombing Practice Areas Jungle Survival TrainingEstimated Cleanup Cost : $95 millionEst. Date of Completion : 2016Estimated Cleanup Cost : $402m (52site)Est. Date of Completion : 2005Estimated Cleanup Cost : $207m (42site)Est. Date of Completion : 2010
31 Comparisons of Identified Sites Alameda NASHunters Point AnnexMare Island Naval Shipyard23 IDETIFIED SITESincluding landfills,Fuel storage areas,Pest control area,Plating shop, aircraft maintenance facility, contaminated buildings, power plant, fire fighting training, transformer storage area, lagoon,hazardous waste storage yard, sewer system, fuel lines58 IDETIFIED SITESIncluding asbestos in buildings, PCB leas, hazardous waste in landfill and sewer, transformer storage area, tank farm, possible radiological contamination, soil and groundwater contaminated with heavy metals, sandblast waste dumped in landfill, electroplating shop(28 of 46 USTs found leaking)24 IDETIFIED SITESIncluding landfill, oil sump, berths, lagoon, acid tank, contaminated buildings, electroplating shop, acid battery storage area, waste treatment plant, fuel oil tank
32 v CONTAMINANT 1. Arsenic 11. Chloroform Detected 2. Lead 12. DDT,P’P’- Top 20 Hazardous SubstancesCONTAMINANTPresent at Subic Above Screening Levels1. Arsenicv11. ChloroformDetected2. Lead12. DDT,P’P’-3. Mercury13. Aroclor 12604. Vinyl chloride14. Aroclor 12545. Benzene15. Tricloroetylene6. Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs)16. Chroium(+6)7. Cadmium17. Dibenz[a,h]anthraene8.Benzo(a)pyrene18. Dieldrin9. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons19. Hexachlorobutadiene10. Benzo(b)Fluoranthene20. DDE, P, P’U.S.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR) Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Priority List for 19999
33 Disease Related to Toxic Waste Cotamination Leukemia Research and StatisticsDate : Feb 2000Resource Person : Ronnie GeronimoResources : Universal of Santo Tomas Hospital(UST)James L.Gordon Hospital (former Olongapo City Gen.Hosp)U.S.T. HospitalYear19961995199419931992Adult211632835Children 18Y/O Below7061604447Total9177637282James L.Gordon HospitalNameAddressAgeJacquelyn TubigOlongapo City3 years oldMelane Basco4 years oldJay RYANGatmnChristopher DiwaUnknownNameAddressAgeRomar DevillenerOlongapo CityUnknownRommel Lopez14 years oldJasper CatubayZambales4 years oldAdonis Vinluan9 years old
34 FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND VULNERABILITY Fetal period extends from day 5(at 2 months) to birth(at 9 months)By 2 months after conception(10weeks LMP) organogenesis(the formation of organs) is almost complete and the fetus starts to resemble the human body.From this time on intrauterine fetal development is predominantly growth and maturation. Once the fetus is formed, it is less susceptible to toxic insult although the central nervous system is still sensitive. The brain continues to develop during the entire pregnancy and it is not known what agents may harm it in the latter stages of pregnancy.
35 FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND VULNERABILITY SIXTH WEEKdays8TH week LMPHands feet and ears begin developing.Liver is identifiable.SEVENTH WEEKdays9TH week LMPMost of heart structural development completed.Sexual differentiation of ovaries and testes begins.SIXTH WEEKdays10TH week LMPKidneys begin to form Bone calcification. Closure of palate occurs. Differentiation of external genitalia begins.
36 Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility The Environmental Review of he Drawdown Activities at Clark Air Base, Republic f the Philippines, U.S. Air Force, September 1991A preliminary and incomplete study which identifies some sites where hazardous materials were stored, used, and disposed of, sits where spills had taken place and where samples were taken showing varying levels of contamination.Military Base Closures : U.S. Financial Obligations in the Philippines, U.S. General Accounting Office, January 1992Report by the investigative arm of Congress. Identifies some contaminated areas by environmental officers at both Clark and Subic. Estimates that the costs for environmental clean up could approach Superfund proportions.3. U.S. Navy Potential Restoration Sites on Board the U.S. Facility, Subic Bay, October 1992Identifies 28 potentially contaminated sites on Subic, as well as 28 potentially contaminated training areas and range utilized by Naval forces. At many sites, contamination was documented, but no cleanup had occurred; a limited cleanup had occurred but was found to be ineffective; or no investigation had occurred but contamination was suspected due to records indicating many years of toxic discharge
37 Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility 4. World Health Organization Mission Report - Subic Bay Environmental Risk assessment and Investigation Program, May 1993Prepared for the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR).Contains a brief history of SBFZ, lists operations conducted when the facility was still a naval base, and physical description of area. Identifies and classifies the 32 activity areas at Sublc based on potential contamination. Fifteen activity areas were identified as high priority, meaning areas requiring detailed site inspection and sampling. Based on the priority ranking, a physical sampling program costing $600,000 was recommended5. An Environmental and Health Impact Report on Known and potentially Contaminated Sited at Former U.S. military Base in the Philippines, P. Bloom etal., August 1994Written by a team of US and Filipino scientists sponsored by the Philippine program of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee(UUSC), a NGO in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Review of DOC, WHO, and other exciting information including site visits and interviews. Identifies 14 known contaminated sites, 17 potentially contaminated sites, and 5 areas of further concern at former Subic naval Station. Also identifies 5 contaminated sites and more than 10 potentially contaminated sites at Clark Air base. Describes potential health effects due to migration of toxic and human exposures.
38 Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility 6. Soil and Groundwater baseline Study of Clark Development Corporation, weston International(USA), August 1997Commissioned by the Clark Development Corporation for $26,000. Groundwater baseline study tested water for chemicals and bacteria within Clark field and CBCOM evacuation center. A total of 21 of the 24 locations sampled had at least one pollutant that exceeded drinking water standards. The soil study identified contamination at 13 of the sites studied. Recommended that the soil and groundwater of 75% of the soil sites be further investigated.Environmental Baseline Study at Subic Bay Freeport Zone(SPFZ), Woodward -Clyde International (USA), February 1997Commissioned by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority with a $670,000 oan from the World Bank.. Identified potential areas of significant contamination and determined the presence of toxic materials based on a review f past land uses and activities, sampling, and analysis of soils, Groundwater, and sediments within the developed areas of the Freeport. Recommended remediation of 9 sites costing $7-10 million and futher investigation of 13 sites costing $1.4 million.
39 Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility 8. Technical Review of the Woodward – Clyde Environmental Baseline Studyat SBFZ, Clearwater Revival Company (USA), July 1998Commissioned by Arc Ecology, a California based environmental and military toxic NGO, for the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean Up. Purpose was to determine whether the methodology and recommendations of the Woodward-Clyde report were technically sound. Determined that the study did not accurately characterize contaminations at Subic BAY Free Port Zone. Concluded that “ the results of sampling performed during the EBS indicate that existing environmental conditions within the Freeport Zone present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and environment”Technical Review of the Weston Soil and Groundwater baseline Study of Clark Development Corporation, Clearwater Revival Company (USA), 1998Commissioned by Arc Ecology for the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean Up. Purpose was to determine whether the methodology and recommendations of the report which was to continue to use the drinking water supply. Found flaws in the sampling methodology which could underestimate the extent of contamination. Also found Iimitations in the analysis of soil sampling results.
40 Victims Should not have to prove that they are victimized” Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval FacilityHealth for All, A Study of the health of People Living on or near the former US Clark Air Force Base A joint project of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health and the Peoples Task force for Base Cleanup.Principal investigator Dr,. Rosalie Bertell.Survey of 759 family respondents from 13 communities around Clark Air Base. Survey included health problems, economic status, environmental conditions, and living conditions. The dominant health problems noted were female, urinary tract, and nervous system problems. Respiratory problems were reported in 24-31% of children in each community surveyed. Dust and poor water quality were each associated with kidney and urinary tract problems, corrosive drinking water with respiratory problems, and water with unusual taste or smell with nervous system problems. The highest percentage of female, urinary tract, and nervous system problems occurred in Margot, Sapang Bato,(Angeless)Macpagal, Poblacin, San Joaquin, nd cbcom(Mabakacat). Bertell recommended officials target these area for improvement, remediation, and cleanup.“It is the polluters who should prove they are not causing the illness.Victims Should not have to prove that they are victimized”– Dr. Rosalie bertell Nov. 1998