The government's final hurdle for the joint fact sheet on trade, commerce, and security agreements with the United States is the "nuclear-powered submarine" (hereinafter nuclear-powered sub). President Lee Jae-myung asked at the South Korea-U.S. summit on the on the supply of "enriched uranium," the fuel for nuclear-powered subs, and President Donald Trump approved it within a day, pushing the issue to the forefront. Although the two leaders reached an agreement, the prevailing view is that the U.S. Department of Energy, which maintains a "nuclear nonproliferation" stance, is putting on the brakes. The delay in fine-tuning language for the security section, which was roughly settled on the last month, is also said to stem from the nuclear-powered sub issue.
According to the presidential office on the 7th, the wording on security was effectively finalized following the South Korea-U.S. summit in Aug. In subsequent talks, President Lee requested U.S. approval for "nuclear-powered sub fuel supply" and secured Trump's approval. Korea currently possesses uranium enrichment technology, but the current South Korea-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement prohibits the use of nuclear fuel for "military purposes," such as submarines. As a result, coordination among relevant U.S. government departments has dragged on, making it likely the fact sheet work will slip past this week.
A senior official at the presidential office met with reporters at the Yongsan presidential office that day and said, "The security part was almost fully drafted following the (Aug.) South Korea-U.S. summit and could have been announced as is," adding, "The trade part was not ready, so we could not announce them together and ended up coming to this summit. In the meantime, new developments emerged, and we are making working-level adjustments to reflect items that came out of the Gyeongju talks." The official also said, "Under the U.S. system, relevant departments must review the text, and we have to collect opinions from some departments, so it takes time."
However, the official did not give a definitive answer on which department is expressing dissent. On the timing of the announcement, the official said, "I cannot say definitively. It is hard to say it won't be this week, but we are simply in the process of further consultations." The official said, "The details of the consultations are not specific," adding, "We have identified the issues, but we have not reached the stage of exchanging language. If we have to negotiate again on a new text, it may not be tomorrow or the day after tomorrow."
Regarding the construction of nuclear-powered subs, the government proposed a plan under which ▲the submarine hull and reactor would be built domestically and ▲enriched uranium would be brought in from the United States. Although Korea has its own enrichment technology, considering "expense-effectiveness," the idea is to receive enriched uranium from the United States rather than enrich the fuel directly. The government also holds that, given Korea's generally shallow waters and security needs, it would not be the U.S. large "Virginia-class" submarine.
The official said, "The U.S. Virginia-class submarine uses 90% highly enriched uranium, which does not suit our circumstances," adding, "The United States operates attack submarines that cross the oceans while nuclear-armed, but we likely do not need that purpose. Considering an appropriate size, there is no scenario in which we would use 90% enriched fuel." In other words, the intention is to receive low-enriched uranium at roughly the 20%–25% level from the United States and load it as fuel into a small reactor manufactured domestically.
The official said, "We have conceptually been studying SMRs (small modular reactors), and I presume we would assume a fuel form (degree of enrichment) at the design stage," but added, "If we have the authority to enrich, we could enrich and use it directly, but given the small demand, I am not sure it is practically cost-effective." The official continued, "Even if we obtain nuclear-powered subs, it would be only a few small reactors, and I do not know whether producing the fuel ourselves would be economical. Direct enrichment would also take a long time," adding, "Considering those points comprehensively, it may be better to receive supply from the United States."