For those of you who have just arrived for
the last day and a half.

We've been holding some
internal discussions about U.S.

South Korean nuclear energy cooperation
but those you'd don't have don't know

how in March two thousand and fourteen the
United States is due to make a decision

about renewing the cooperation
agreement that we have with South Korea

as we do with many other countries and
as part of these agreements

are a number of conditions
that were negotiated early on

in the seventy's and there has been a lot
of water under the bridge there have been

a lot of changes in the global nuclear
landscape Have there been changes in U.S.

South Korean relations that
the new technologies new threats

in the emergence of a priority
consideration of nonpolluting for

non deliberation in global
nuclear security for

the global community in particular for the
United States there are obviously new and

new economic trends there new energy
sources that if you hit the scene.

Most recently with shale gas and shale oil
that are cutting into the market share.

There's obviously the nuclear
accident in Fukushima.

And so there's been a lot of
changes going on and there's a very

dynamic landscape in addition with respect
to the U.S. South Korean relationship

in many respects as some of our colleagues
articulating today but really couldn't

be here at a higher point in terms of the
overall political economic relationship.

However as South Korea
is increasingly becoming

reliant in some cases

on nuclear energy and
seeing their role as a prominent exploit

exporter across a nuclear fuel cycle or at
least the many stages of the fuel cycle.

There are interested in in
changing some of the two.

That arrangement and so
this is become a a hot button issue

increasingly hot button issue especially
during times of political transition and

only United States South Korea but
also within and

across northeast Asia so
these are very heady times.

This is a very delicate issue.

And so we spent the last day and
a half trying to dissect the issue.

Look at specifically
the technologically dimensions to it.

The economic dimensions of the political
and strategic dimensions situated in

the broader bilateral relationship in the
context of what's going on in the global

nuclear energy landscape and of course in
the regional security landscape and so

what we wanted to do is
use this opportunity for

us there to the still some
of the high points and

some of the low points low points low
points in terms of some of the challenges

that may be affecting that relationship
as it as it matures especially

on the nuclear side but also over
the course of the last day and a half.

We've raised several issues that may
be the foundation for developing and

broadening and deepening that partnership
and so what we've done Mansong and

I have asked several of our colleagues
from from over the course of

the last day and I have to distill some
of those main points with respect and

challenges and opportunities and
so what I'd like to do is invite

a number of my colleagues here to stand
to come to the podium and speak for

about five minutes on those terms and so
the first person I'd like to invite is

Professor Steven Miller Steve
as many of you know it comes

from Harvard University is the director
of the International Security Program.

He has also been very much involved and

doing research on the changing landscape
if you will of the global nuclear.

Energy Arena as well as is
a long time scholar of U.S.

national and
international security policy so Steve

and I thank you Adam
that's I'm grateful for

the opportunity to share some
final thoughts with you.

My understanding of our mission here is
to give a few kind of final thoughts and

reaction to the day and a half of very
interesting discussions we've had and

I want to touch on four
issues First a number of

our participants have noted along the way
over the course of the last day and

a half that as a general proposition U.S.

relations with South Korea
are in very good shape.

Several people use that line
about the best shape ever

and across a whole array of issues.

There's a degree of harmony or degree of
cooperation or degree of partnership.

That is really quite heartening and

suggests that the alliance is
really quite in robust shape.

There is however one issue
on which American and

South Korean preferences currently
collide sharply and that has to do with

the desirability in the short run of
pursuing the plutonium recycle option.

And the question I want to raise
here is whether it makes sense as

many people suggested in their
in their presentations to frame

the one two three issue
as a strategic test

of the alliance as the acid test
of the future of our relationship

to zero in on the one area where we
have a fundamental collision event.

Trysts and
make that the salient Choice Point for

the future of the alliance to me it
makes not so much sense to zero in

on the one area where we have
a fundamental disagreement of interests

and my fear would be that framing
the issue in that way has the potential to

do real harm to what is otherwise
a very robust and durable relationship.

So that's the first observation
I would make a second and

one of the touch a little bit on why
the United States is strongly opposed to

further enrichment and reprocessing on a
national scale anywhere in the world as as

the Bush quote that I invoked earlier
indicated this is a global policy.

It has nothing to do with Korea it has
nothing to do with doubts about Korea.

It has nothing to do with worries about
what Korea might do in the future.

It has everything to do with nine
eleven with American worries about

nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of bad guys.

It has to do with the perception of at
least three if not four consecutive

American administrations that the number
one threat to American security

is the potential of nuclear weapons or
other W D In the hands of of radical bad

guys bad guys coming into stripe
States and and non-state actors.

So there is today an overwhelming
consensus in the United States

certainly among the nonproliferation
community which I'm a card carrying member

that we should do everything
we can to inhibit the spread

of weapons related technologies
in the W M D severe.

And for this reason there is a desire
to inhibit the spread of enrichment and

reprocessing technologies for as.

Long as this seems sensible.

There are some who are I would say
extremists who say we should never do it.

There are others who say there's
no need or reason to do it now.

So let's put it off for
as long as possible and that's more or

less the approach of the U.S.
government in my opinion.

President Bush stablished a very
clear marker on this as far as I know

there is no one in the nonproliferation
crowd in the Obama administration

that diverges from that
general orientation and so

the career may see this as
a test of the relationship or

as a key to its own sense of its

nuclear energy future but for Washington
the enrichment and reprocessing program

has to do with its global strategy for
contending with what is regarded and

stated in official documents as the number
one threat to American security.

So those are contending visions and
I think that we have to work very hard to

kind of manage the collision of those two
visions to avoid harming our relationship.

So you're going to find real
opposition to pursuit of any form.

You can call a pyro or processing whatever
you want to call it anything that produces

usable plutonium you're going to find
resistance in the United States and

criticism from the United States has
nothing to do with worries about Korea has

to do with this wider canvas on
which we're operating now the third

point I want to touch on briefly is so
there's a response that says

well what about Japan you let Japan
do it why can't we have an exception.

Just like Japan and
here I would make three points

One is the Japanese made their fuel cycle
decisions basically in the sixty's.

So fifty years ago.

So everybody was in a different
frame of mind after nine eleven.

It's a different frame of mind altogether.

Personally I have not the slightest
doubt that if Japan were in

Seoul's position today and making
the contemplations that South Korea is

currently doing it would meet with very
similar reactions from from Washington.

The second thing is I can tell you having
been part of it that there have been

American nonproliferation both official
and unofficial streaming to Japan for

years telling them that their
plutonium recycle policy

is both strategically unwise and
economically unsound.

It's not the case that we have simply
accepted this and embraced it and

said well the Japanese are a wonderful
exception and we're happy about it.

The American community is has been
critical of the Japanese effort and

of course there is a third point
which is more of a footnote.

But for the perspective of much of
the American community they Japanese

recycle policy has been an utter disaster
fifty years of massive investment

which has not gotten them very close
to commercialization whatsoever and

with lots and lots of problems
still persisting in their program.

So this is not exactly a model to be
held up as something that went well.

And then since we're limited
to five minutes let me

close with the last point that relates
to my first given the long time lines

associated with the the potential
commercial viability

of the plutonium fuel cycle is it
really necessary to have this fight now

and I'll stop there next.

Peter and I'm I may add that.

For those of you who just arrived
this whole workshop is really.

Been a product of a partnership with
the Korean Institute of inner science and

technology and my colleague and
partner in arms.

Here is Professor Mansour you professor
of nuclear engineering and quantum

physics at costs are he's going to stand
up and give us a couple of points from his

perspective as well thank you

Adam thank you for

staying remaining until
the end of this program for

those of you complaining because for
the last two days and

then you guess what
come to our discussion.

I think this is a very timely and
important topic that everybody at least in

this community ought to think
about seriously as far as talk or

you have put it we are living
in post American word.

Thanks to the hard work of
United States of America

we spread the Liberal Democrats you
know across to countries around

the globe and then because of that
the world has become better but

the rest of the world catch caught up.

They picked up and then they are now
challenging the United States.

I think as he

put it in the book to what
other trends the global trends.

That's coming up in the future
rise of the rest will continue.

It's not the U.S.

dominated world anymore where it
didn't used to be two superpowers.

But then when the one superpower is gone.

There was one only superpower.

You know the state but that is going away
with the whys of China and then Russia.

Kate.
And vantage of the energy resources making

a comeback for
the global stage the rise of nationalism

evolution and spread of technology
will continue deeper and

connected trend of the nations how this
trend shape up the future of this globe.

I think the issues we're talking about
here has something to do with those

global trend for the future.

What if you know the state
is very concerned about

what is happening out there in the world
we have to think about this question.

One of the greatest dangers coming up in
the coming years to the United States and

to the Globe and potentially there
is a clash of values coming up

we united state was created under the
premise belief that everybody is created

equally everybody needs to
be treated with dignity.

Everybody does.

There is peace prosperity.

But then that whole notion may go

all way to contain trans
uprising the rest continues.

Certainly the rise of China is
making cause in Homs in Africa.

I think for

the last couple of decades were able to
remove both written some of the dictators.

So all these dictators couldn't sleep well

over night during night when you know
the state was having some leverage.

But now these leaders are sleeping
well because in the Chinese they

are helping them providing all these
aid without asking any questions

I think that spread of

whatever you want to do concept.

Whatever the leaders want to.

Due to people I think it's one of
the greatest dangers are facing

in the coming years and that threatens
the identity of the United States as

one wonders how the state government saw

the challenges coming in the early
days of nuclear politics a moment.

The president and I and
Howard came up with the idea of atoms for

peace in fact the Atoms for

Peace was sort of a imperative when this
country saw the upcoming commercial race

Russia China appearing up and
Friends U.K. are gearing up for

the spread of this technology repaired or
take the lead in this and take control and

that's how current the regime is
established and that is regime is

under threat at this point as these new
powers are coming to the game and again.

So while we're bogged down with this
idea of what you know our discussions or

I don't know you can.

It's words argument Bush is
going to argument is valid

in this among countries to have weapons or
not whether

that will be the really greatest danger
is this this globe is going to face.

I think we as as I said
yesterday the shift.

Craig Pearce puts is
needed from the mystic

energy option to international safety and

security imperative for
those people working in this community.

What would be the best thing
to do then in that regard and

this you know she is you
know quality development.

I think the U.S. are OK collaboration
in nuclear is not just something

about the N.R.A. or whatever industry or
just question of interest in interest.

I think it could be a catalyst for
a global norm.

Or it could be a catalyst to lay out.

Maybe the reason why
each countries want to

supply will prosper to defend
the fundamental values and

assure everybody deserves
what they deserve to have so

I think I think we should think
about this big picture issues.

Why are we discussing
some of the pairs and

I'm actually the one that what I was given
this opportunity to organize this workshop

my personal interest was not really
something about us are OK and companies

getting more money and US have more money
and I think I see an opportunity for

for us to make a contribution
to the big picture our stuff.

Thank you.
And so

on the next speaker is
Professor Bill Charlton his

associate professor of nuclear
engineering is also the director of

the Nuclear Security Science in the Policy
Institute at Texas A and M. And for

those of you who were here earlier today
I think his remarks made up to a nicely

man sums because he he laid out some of
the tangible areas of cooperation but

that may not be what he's
going to talk about now so

I'll start by saying the same thing that
everyone also said which is that it's

relatively obvious to most of us that the
U.S. and South Korean relationship is very

strong and as was mentioned this morning
a lot of those based on the fact that we

share common values and those common
values result in us having very similar

positions in most things in the world but
I will good mention what I see is the big

challenge here in the bridge challenge
as has been sort of discussed is in my

opinion the back end of the fuel cycle
the enrichment part of the one two

three agreement I personally don't
think it's really that big of a deal.

Enrichment technology.

It's a fundamental sense of technology but
I don't think economically it really makes

all that much sense for South Korea
to worry about acquiring enrichment

technology economically the back into
the fuels like are processing technology

is not economic at all that viable either
but the problem is that it does provide

at least in some people's minds an impact
on the public good and one can forego with

the economic benefit in order to seek
out the interest of the public good and

it's difficult for us in the United States
to argue with people about the back of

the fuel cycle and we have no policy on
the back end of our fuel cycle in the U.S.

So it's a little hypocritical for
us to to argue about it and

that's the big challenge just the thing
that's going to have to be settled and

worked out and I see that as a big
disagreement the task to be resolved and

I agree that it's probably not the most
crucial issue in the world to dissolve but

it is one that at least amongst the
nuclear community is something that needs

to be dealt with in terms

of my view of that I think the right
way to deal with it is sort of what

Amir had mentioned earlier
today which is that

we have it doesn't necessarily
have to be resolved.

Right now if you as long as we
could come to an agreement that

allowed us to cooperate
in terms of development.

I think that would allow us to postpone
really having to to really focus

purely on a legal agreement at this point
but to allow us to cooperate in terms of

development and work together
as partners to achieve something

that maybe could actually help both of our
countries because here in United States we

have the same problem with spent nuclear
fuel disposal is a major issue for

us in our country and maybe together
we could come to a fruitful and

state in which everybody would benefit
from it and I guess I'll stop there.

Get most of the points I think
of all been made right Bill.

The next speaker is he

young Lee who is a senior vice president
overseas nuclear project development.

He is the senior vice
president who led the U.A.E.

project and for those of you were
just arriving one of the hallmarks

of developments in this
changing energy landscape was

the South Korean deal to construct
the reactors in this first

in this newcomer state in
the nuclear energy realm of U.A.E.

So he brings to us wealth of
information and expertise and was

really there at the inception we've been
talking a lot about gold standards and.

The process U.A.E. is figured
a lot of interest discussions but

here we have somebody who actually was
in the middle of all please thank you.

Good to see you.

Senior Vice President of kept cool and
I'm you Chris Hayes but

not the nuclear arms dealer yesterday and

to the heard a lot of opinions about
the relationship between you and

your C R OK and I think

the all the discussions we can take great
and we view as the result of business.

Finally So
as I know the important criteria

of the season making in the state
East whether it is good for

the nation of interest or
not as I know so I bring some

data based on the excellent
testimony which

then Lehman was the last clearly made
the testimony in June before the Congress.

So people of my presentation on.

Briefly introduce my company tackle

the largest estate owned
electricity toothy in Korea.

We supply the full oil.

And we have two hundred seventeen
power generation facilities we total

capacity of sixty eight kilowatt but

our company has fifty
per cent of government.

It could be the others
from foreign investors

thirty percent this in two thousand warm.

According to the government policy.

The generation product has been
the best to you from capital.

So we have five juncos of power and
one for

you but they are steel one hundred
per cent subsidiary cackle.

So for all nuclear sector.

We have many subsidiaries
including Kate and P.V.

for operation kept we design and

engineering tapirs maintains and Kenny.

For our.

Field have occasion.

In terms of overseas call
projects we are the developer

investor is the strategy part.

So we operate in three point
four to go lots of wind power.

We are now constructing a lot of power and

five point six kilowatts or
you can power in U.A.E..

Also we have you ring in mind capacity
of three hundred fifty million tonnes.

Coal mine or one point six billion tons.

So as I mentioned before our side

down really learns testimony about
being a relationship between us are OK.

U.S.'s first to Korea in new compiler
plant since long time ago all

us are supposed to have third countries to
supply Korean projects especially China

and US It's a joint venture of
all new fuel we've kept coal.

And US imports materials from Korea for
A.P.

one thousand projects in China or
so in the state.

Us main culprit in far in the project.

So US significant parts
are in their investments.

So I brought data since the one

you knew three and
four because for the one three and

four we are true of the localized Jason
through the technology transfer or

so we say that we achieve the technology.

So if a technology reliance So
says that for

your domestic market.

The accumulative is above
six billion dollars But

from now on to maybe two thousand and

thirty maybe it will be.

Double.

Including home and.

So in case you really project for
a major achievement.

We agreed to share user to huff and

puff and half from Tucson heavy
industry and also from the else.

So after the contract to work we

serve the business cooperation
agreement between kept

us to share the domestic market and

also overseas possible
overseas Newcomb market.

So in case of the U.A.E. project

summarized and the total we
were to be learned dollars but

it is it is between the price

of services and some vendors.

But.

In case the owner and

were already late to nuclear cooperation.

They hire the C.S. to end here as
the project management organizer.

And also there are many
services companies for

example at so known in the party room for.

So emergency planning and
also training so C.S. for you.

E.
So they are in direct impact.

Or U.A.E. project and now we have for
all your needs simultaneously.

But maybe one more in something.

So I put across our part.

So it will be.

It is just for construction.

And if you think about the year since the
year operation and maintenance the service

amount will be much much
higher than this or I cost.

In terms of the tax subsidies.

I put our in the subsidies for C.T.C. or

for two hundred an architect engineering
services system engineering and

fuel so it says we have one

point one billion dollars for subsidies.

And also the supply chain is one
of the critical issue for the.

Sounds in the world.

So we have very strong.

Supply chain including major
achievement and also your P. humans.

So for A.P. one thousand projects.

Of China and also.

We are supplying many
different kinds of components.

We've high level of quality.

Very reasonable price.

So if the want to three
Agreement released Italy.

What kind of impact will be.

So I totally cite in the same logic that

reminds me of the testimony before
the Congress the therapists

of coal show nuclear cooperation
will be put at risk can put at risk.

Ten.
Of thousands of American jobs.

Yours can be damaged in real
life beauty supply parts for

example you are you a you could project.

The reactor vessel we
believe in two thousand and

fourteen and two thousand and
fifteen or so before delivery.

We have to get the support
control from the US government.

So if the current one to three
agreement is to lay there and

it really impacts on
the construction schedule

as you know we have in
international Newcomb market.

We have very

worst case of construction delay.

For example in France and China also

there are five years delay or
two years doing.

It.

We'll close a lot of money and
financing is also very critical issue.

So if it is if the want to three months
is delayed and if we impact direct.

On the present schedule.

The reliance of third countries on us.

You could come polars tackles Ian So
this might reduce and

to make success in highly competitive
commercial nuclear market

Korea can choose other countries for
all their partners.

Instead or us.

So by two thousand and thirty.

Catcall.

Has a very initial plan.

Because for our company we
planned two thousand and thirteen

overseas visitors sure will be higher.

From three per cent piece current three
to fifty per cent is total revenue.

So we suspect at least ten more
he needs in the world market

and we need for all services.

And the deal with this cost effective for
us.

We'll be up to twenty billion dollars.

So of course with the impact
on the job creation.

And so call we will be
the investment parts are not true.

Other countries recognize the.

So because capital is the estate
company different from.

Which tells you so
we can be used to the Potters Creech

many projects all of us
are thinking about so.

We will be investor.

We will be a piece of contractor and
also we operated.

So.

TEPCO came to be more real
to take on the supply.

Because as I made sure that we
observed the A.B.C. technology.

And also we are applying the U.S.
and our C. safety.

Concept.

Licensing is always
the exact same we've seen so

we are using all the tackles in practice.

He said to saying we see and yes.

We have to take some responsibility and

obligation as a you know we have
to technology supply you in

consideration of the nuclear
leadership in the new world market

cap Cooper shoes coexistence and
co-prosperity with us.

Partners including stones in other fields
you go in there isn't services companies

through continuous cooperation and
relationship and

we've contributed to
the intrusion of new can market.

So based only on a piece is called
Precision agreement between tech cool and

this tells we really spend we
released the mutual cooperation for

the domestic nuclear project and Mosul.

You know most of you for president.

Thank you thank you Mr Lee.

Next speaker is Mr Dr Charles Ferguson
who is the president

of Federation of American
Scientists Charles is going to talk

a lot about the broad landscape
of the nuclear domain and

some of the challenges for
international cooperation.

Thank you Adam and Mansong and
all the colleagues for last day and

a half the clock is ticking and
I don't mean necessarily

the end of this workshop which is overall
I think a very delightful and lightening.

I mean Time is running out for
all of us and the world and

I want to sound overly dramatic but
it is dramatic.

We're talking about something.

Crucial to all people
reliable sources of energy

in particular when it comes to nuclear
energy reliable sources of electricity

reliable and clean and
a sense of dissension meeting go.

Greenhouse gases for
an operating a clear power plant

we see demand crossed the world
increasing and increasing for

fossil fuels that when they're
burned really screen house gases

in the environment will have dire
effects to this quote to humanity

Korea is I believe taking
a very responsible step and

increasing its share of
nuclear generate electricity.

So right now roughly a third of its
electricity is from nuclear power and

by twenty thirty it plans for about half
of his lectures to be from nuclear power.

So it's increasing US dependency
on nuclear power and it's doing so

because it does want to limit the
greenhouse gas emissions into the glow.

But it's also doing so because energy
security is very important for

Korea Korea is one of the most
energy poor energy resource

poor countries in the world it imports
something on order of ninety eight percent

of its energy supplies it doesn't really
have any of its own fossil fuels.

It's hard for Americans to get
their minds wrapped around that

I grew up in western Pennsylvania and
one of my grandfathers is a coal miner

now Pennsylvania is known as a place for
natural gas specially Shell gas.

So it's hard for a Pennsylvania guy
like myself to really imagine this but

I've traveled around the world
been to Korea many times been to

places like Japan which
have similar concerns.

That's why those countries and
that part of the world are investing so

heavily in nuclear power and

this is why it's crucially important
the United States to be a partner was.

Korea the clocks also ticking on this
nuclear cooperation agreement and

many of my colleagues have
already spoken to that but

I want to address a few things that
I don't think have come up yet there.

Let me just walk you through a timeline
over the next roughly ten to twenty years.

So two thousand and fourteen.

You've heard several times
already is the deadline for

the renewal of the cooperation agreement
we should not left that lapse.

I agree with Mr Lee that we have
a lot at stake economically

we have a lot at stake in terms of our
political alliance and teaching alliance.

There is another crucial date.

We need to keep in mind it has been
brought up yet and that's two thousand and

sixteen.

That's the year.

Not too far in the future when many of
the pools at the nuclear power plants

in the Republic of Korea will be over
capacity for storing spent nuclear fuel.

What are we going to do about that.

I mean we meaning Koreans and
Americans working together.

Now you have to understand
domestic context in Korea.

There has been protest
violent protest against stop

citing even low level intermediate
level nuclear waste facilities so

imagined the level of protest and
citing a high level waste facility or

a permanent facility for
disposal of this nuclear waste.

So it's this is foremost in
the minds of Korean politicians.

I think Americans just
aren't aware of that.

So we need to work together to at
least keep the door open for all

turn the pathways for alleviating pressure
on the build up of this waste in Korea.

One option is to do a joint project an R.

and D. project X. investigating what's
known as Pyro processing sounds very very.

Nicol but it's an alternative means
of trying to reuse the Tony M and

other fissionable materials
that come out of spent fuel and

by doing so what the aim is is to reduce

the volume and
the ultimate heat load on a repository.

So you need less space cost less money.

We believe to store this
waste over the long term.

Now there's a lot of technical
details to be worked out so

very smartly you know Ambassador park and
his predecessor worked

out a deal with the US government
to do a ten year study to do it.

Aren't joint R. and D.

study to figure out what or how to address
these challenges technical political

safeguards non-plussed ration challenges
and managing this nuclear waste.

So that's another element of
the time line that we're facing

where the clock's ticking.

So we have to reach a renewal within
the next year year and a half.

We have to at least give assurances
to the Korean people that the U.S.

is a reliable partner alleviating the
nuclear waste problem about we can't solve

it by two thousand and sixteen and we have
this pending study that's going to show

its results at the end of two thousand and
twenty beginning of two thousand and

twenty one but that's not the end
of the story because if the power

processing approach or something like
it is worthwhile worth pursuing.

It's going to take many
decades beyond that

to really put in place that
that type of solution.

So we're talking about a long term
partnership here we're talking about

something that's going to last for decades
if not centuries to come if you think

about the life of a nuclear power
plant you have to think on a scale

of one hundred years for
that plant so that reactor and

plant walk rate for probably sixty
years maybe eighty years for

the most modern of the reactors and
then you have to do.

Commissioning and waste management
that we need to do in partnership.

Beyond that.

So I know Howard still has to speak to us.

Let me just make one more final point and

terms of this vexing
question of giving Korea.

Vance can set to do enrichment
reprocessing I've already talked

about how we're trying to approach to
reprocessing slash Power processing issue.

I think by and large it's a smart
approach in terms of this joint study and

trying to assess their options fully and
openly and transparently but

the uranium enrichment issue is
something that has also come up and

I think Korea does have a strong
case economically to say

as a country of the third or fourth
biggest nuclear power producing country in

the world that could argue
from an economic standpoint

it doesn't make sense to begin
investing in uranium enrichment.

But on the other hand you look
at the decreased demand for

nuclear power recently
post Fukushima accident.

There are appears to be for

all kind of a glut of an uranium
enrichment right now in the market.

So it's not a pressing need for
new enrichment suppliers.

So I think there's been some interesting
ideas that have come out in the last day

and a half.

You know one of them is for
my colleague Miles popper to assess and

create a United States to
a bilateral relationship that

ritual investment in uranium enrichment.

We need to move as a world
toward bilateral and

multilateral approaches to
Richmond reprocessing by doing so

we can alleviate some of the concerns but
if you have national alone and controlled

facilities that they could be misused
in the future for political purposes.

If you have bilateral multilateral
owned and operated Sylvie's that risk.

I would argue is much reduced.

So I think that's the pathway where we
can move forward to address each of

those concerns about limiting his.

At National in Richmond
reprocessing while addressing

Korea's valid concerns about assurances of
fuel supply in nuclear waste management.

Thank you for your attention and

Charles and
I was the last speaker of the floor.

We open it up to us and how often is a
professor Howard Hall who is the director

of the universe's Tennessee's Institute
for Nuclear Security.

He's also holds the governor's chair.

Professor of nuclear security
at that at that institution.

So Howard.

Please.

I thank you.

I would echo the comments of

my colleagues that I think one of
the bright lights here is that this is

a discussion a vigorous discussion but
it's a discussion framed in

a very strong relationship between
the U.S. and the Republic of Korea.

So even though we may be struggling with
a particular question I think we should

reflect on the fact that it
is a relatively small pick

up in a very close and and fruitful
relationship between our two countries

the the course of this discussion.

I think over the last couple of days
we've talked about a number of very

interesting issues.

I think there are clearly
strong arguments on the part

of our colleagues from South Korea that
issues of equity issues of cultural

respect issues of mutual collaboration
are very important in this relationship.

I think in terms of the U.S. perspective
this is a decision that is not just a U.S.

South Korea agreement this is a decision
that in a perfect world would be guided by

a comprehensive integrated self consistent
U.S. strategy on energy security.

We unfortunate don't have that we have

economic interests we
have security interests.

That are very important here and

both way in some conflicting ways
on this particular agreement.

I think the I'm certainly no I
have no metal no crystal ball.

So I can't tell you whether which way this
will come out but I think an important

characteristic of the outcome is continued
close cooperation between the U.S.

and the Republican Korea an extraordinary
level of transparency in

whatever decision is made
in terms of enrichment and

reprocessing I like
the idea of multilateral or

international facilities I think
that's that's very credible.

I think we also need to continue
to pursue building deeper and

stronger ties between our two
countries and the exchange

of activities and students and

and staff and so
forth that we've talked about a bit you

know sort of grass roots connections
are very important for that as well.

Finally I'd like to thank Adam for all for

arranging this and
some comes to him that I and

I thank you all for your time attention so
little bit of time left.

Believe it or not.

And I'd like to invite anybody to either

pick up some of the themes here race
new you know wishes for consideration.

We've exhausted a number of you but

I think that several of them come you
know Jeff I can always count on you but

I am I want to appreciate our

last kind of life or

off policy on the industry.

You are today.

There's sort of the dreadful
set of marks to all of this

challenges us the opportunity.

One of the opportunities I should try

to separate what you have for
a long the other actor to shine for

a year in the former University of
Tennessee as well as texting out

to align itself with industry and
drive the institutional day.

With just two shoes that are well
represented right here in your own

hometown in Atlanta with zero zero
zero zero with with want to go

Certainly through that for
any awkward conversation you

suck up to here as a leader
here you want the house

not to mention a host of
utility companies seek out.

Charlotte North Carolina village to
harness that type of intellectual power

and conveying to set their
generation of students

how they have to operate
collectively as a digital age.

What I see years and
I'll tell you many of the TELL ME THE so

that you have to come to know what
those verses are so you're saying

and build a bridge such that you
take these top tier shooters and

more closely with industry you put
them on some of these critical issues

you have outstanding policy groups in
your district who should you know about

your aspects are there with Georgia Tech
you have a house there robotics lab.

So the ability to generate becomes

one of those disciplines to soften
these very complex policies.

I think the fact that here
was here this morning.

I think very clear picture and

I think that John.

OK Thank you.

And he but he else.

Well let me just I guess conclude by
noting making several observations

from my vantage point as I am not
a an area specialist in East Asia.

Nor am I a nuclear engineer but
I have I do dabble in the area of

nuclear security and I spend also
international security broadly and

I'm struck by the problems and
it's sort of picks up some of the points

that I think Steve Miller mentioned
with framing this relationship and

even the nuclear cooperation relationship
around a technology that's not mature and

and and and set of economic
variables that are very fluid

and rather there are some
very tangible interests and

intangible shared values that
center around issues related to

nuclear security and
nuclear safeguards vet I think may be

reflected in some of
the tangible ideas that bill and

and Howard and some of the others have
mentioned that may be the foundation for

reformulating and if not read framing the
way that we think about this cooperation

relationship because those are the areas
where our commonalities are undisputed

and and given the time lines
that Charles has given us and

that we are we need longer term
perspectives and we need those the.

We need time for the technologies to
mature and for the economics to make more

sense and where we have less time in
dealing with some of the security

types of issues associated
with the nuclear industry and

the nuclear sector in general
that I think reframing the one

two three effort as a way of
forging partnership on safety in

safeguards issues that may as by
products of those dialogues and

very tangible efforts and promoting join
our Indian multinational efforts and

by products may be the technologies
of the future that will make

economic sense for both countries and
for the industry as a whole and

help to sort of get us away from
these points of acrimony so

to pick up some of the themes that were
raised right before we broke for lunch and

focusing on those sort of collective
goods issues as the strategic framework

around which to build this very tangible
set of commercial and safeguards and

security related initiatives that
could then produce the kinds of

positive commercial externalities
on that may be a fruitful way of

thinking about it but that's the charge
that Mansong and I have been trying

to distill from this day and
a half set of dialogues

a set of concrete issues that we want
to develop and conduct more research on

and it's in that regard that we'll be
following up with all of you in the weeks

and months to come so on behalf of Mansong
and my colleagues here at Georgia Tech.

I want to thank you all for joining us
over the last stand a half I think we

really did more than scratch the surface
on technical economic political and

strategic issues that are both
bones of contention of emerging.

Bones of Contention But
we've also begun to identify

you know rays of hope and rays of optimism
that we really want to explore and

much more in depth so
again thank you very much for joining us.

And I look forward to being in touch
with you all in the very near future.

Thank you thank you.