TL: MV Greenpeace Tour of Korean Peninsula Briefing SO: Greenpeace (GP) DT: April 15, 1994 Keywords: environment korea fareast nuclear power / GREENPEACE TOUR OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA During April Greenpeace will be touring the south Korean peninsula to highlight the nuclear problems in the country. This brief provides basic information to the wider Greenpeace organisation on why we are here at this particular time. It is divided into two parts, firstly, some key facts on nuclear energy in south Korea. followed by some questions and their answers that may be asked by the media on the purpose behind our tour. NUCLEAR POWER: In 1992, nuclear power supplied 43% of total electricity in south Korea. One Canadian CANDU and eight pressurised water reactors (PWR's) are operating at three sites (numbers)- Kori, Yonggwang and Ulchin). In September 1991, the Energy and Resources Ministry and the Korean Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) called for an additional 18 new reactors to be built by 2006. Currently 7 reactors are under construction: Yonggwang 3 and 4 reactors (Combustion Engineering of the USA), Ulchin 3 and 4 reactors (ABB Combustion Engineering), Wolsong 2,3 and 4 (CANDU, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited - AECL). A further eight PWR's and five CANDUs are already planned. Korea's energy demand is reported as growing at 9% each year. By 2006, installed capacity is expected to be 23,000MWe, equivalent to 40% of total capacity or 55% of electricity generated. RADIOACTIVE WASTE The first demonstration against the nuclear power industry took place in December 1988 at the Kori nuclear reactor site, following reports that radioactive waste had been buried near the plant's perimeter fence. The volume of low and intermediate level radioactive waste is predicted to rise to 40 million litres by the year 2000. Cumulative spent reactor fuel volumes will be 4,420 tonnes by the year 2000. No final selection site for LLW/ILW waste - there are six locations possible according to body established by KAERI in 1991 (NEMAC). PLUTONIUM/REPROCESSING South Korea has been prevented from obtaining reprocessing facilities despite attempts by successive governments in Seoul over the past 20 years. However, the UK, France, Russia and Canada are either negotiating with or training scientists from south Korea, in plutonium separation technologies. The plutonium stock contained within south Korean spent fuel will reach 34 tonnes by the year 2000, compared to just over 3 tonnes in north Korea's spent fuel. NUCLEAR WEAPONS Linked to attempts to obtain plutonium, south Korea began a nuclear weapons program in the early 1970's. The program was believed to have ended in the late 1970's. Recent reports suggest that it continued at least until 1991. The present government has admitted that the program was 95% complete in 1979. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: WHY IS GREENPEACE VISITING THE KOREAN PENINSULA AT THIS TIME? The nuclear situation in the North-east Asia region is of great concern to Greenpeace. South Korea has rapidly developed nuclear power as a means to meet the increased energy demand over the past ten years, and the planned increase in nuclear power - 9 reactors currently, 7 under-construction, a further 13 planned by 2006 - is one of the few remaining nuclear programs in the world that is expanding. As a consequence of this expansion, south Korea is faced with very serious nuclear waste problems, an increased risk of major nuclear accidents and rapidly escalating radioactive discharges, contaminating the environment and affecting human health. In addition, Greenpeace is concerned about south Korea's attempts to obtain access to reprocessing technology and separated plutonium, the result of the policies of previous governments which sought to develop nuclear weapons. In the regional context south Korea's nuclear industry and the suspected nuclear program of north Korea, the large plutonium nuclear program of Japan, the continued targeting of the region by U.S. nuclear weapons, leads to a worrying situation. It is essential that Greenpeace, which is against all nuclear programs, obtain a greater understanding of the south Korean and regional situation, to exchange information and ideas on alternatives to nuclear power with NGO's, the general public and political parties. Greenpeace believe that providing public support for the anti-nuclear movement in south Korea is essential. Much of our activities will be to provide information and some limited support to local, regional and national opposition to the nuclear program of south Korea, whether it is the siting of nuclear waste sites or reactor construction and operation. The development of the nuclear power industry in all countries, has led to secrecy and restrictions on democracy. Nuclear power and freedom of information and democracy are not compatible. South Korea as it moves towards more openness in society, must involve the people in deciding its future energy supply, especially when currently so much is to be based upon nuclear power. Greenpeace have developed a working relationship with the south Korean environmental movement over the past two/three years. The MV Greenpeace's visit is the result of many months of discussions and planning by ourselves and south Korean NGO's, specifically KFEM (the Korean Federation of Environmental Movements) the largest environmental NGO in south Korea. WHERE WILL GREENPEACE BE VISITING DURING THE TOUR? Greenpeace will be visiting the eastern coast of south Korea - including: Samch'ok (planned site of four reactors), demonstration at Ulchin (two French supplied reactors operating, two U.S. supplied reactors under construction). Visit to second city of south Korea, Pusan, meetings on role of environmental organisations. IS IT NOT THE CASE THAT NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY OPTION FOR SOUTH KOREA WHICH LACKS ENERGY RESOURCES ? NUCLEAR POWER IS CHEAP, CLEAN AND SAFE. WHY SHOULD THEY NOT DEVELOP NUCLEAR ENERGY? The history of the nuclear power industry is littered with accidents - some minor and some major, such as Chernobyl. No one can give a guarantee that any nuclear power plant is safe. When costs such as decommissioning are 100% factored in - to nuclear power plants - which is often not the case, including in south Korea, nuclear energy is exposed as not cheap. Decommissioning is going to cost south Korea billions of dollars early next century, with a potentially devastating affect on the country's economic competitiveness. Borrowing funds on the international financial markets to fund new construction, as south Korea intends to do, will expose the real risk of nuclear power. All reactors have the potential to be another Chernobyl - and yet no reactor is covered by adequate financial liability. The true costs of nuclear power remain hidden. As the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have stated, more competitive alternative technologies could be preferred by investors. Safety and performance will suffer as keeping costs down becomes more important. The OECD is not a known critic of nuclear power. Additionally, no solution has been found to the problem of radioactive wastes, and south Korea already faces a very large problem in this area, even without increasing the number of reactors. As the OECD recommends, south Korea should "carefully evaluate (nuclear)...expansion, taking into account ... human, material, and financial resources, but also the impact of the expansion on safety and performance levels of existing plants." Energy Policies of south Korea, OECD 1992. WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION ? The global trade in nuclear technology and materials and the environmental and security threat that it poses, is clearly demonstrated by what it taking place in the North-east Asia region, and south Korea in particular. Greenpeace is concerned by the role of the nuclear companies of Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Britain and the United States, who are all actively promoting their dangerous nuclear technology and materials in the region, including south Korea. Greenpeace is working to end the proliferation of nuclear technology, nearly all of which has both a civil and military application. In 1995 the future of the NPT (Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) will be decided. The NPT has not only failed to prevent proliferation, and in fact promotes it. Given the international interest in the current situation in north Korea, Greenpeace will be using the opportunity of this visit to the southern part of the peninsula to highlight the double- standards and contradictory policy of western nuclear nations and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). The latter is actually assisting south Korea and Japan to develop and obtain technologies and materials that could be used in nuclear weapons. BY CAMPAIGNING AGAINST THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF SOUTH KOREA, IS GREENPEACE NOT PROVIDING A PROPAGANDA BONUS TO NORTH KOREA? Firstly, Greenpeace campaigns around the world against nuclear energy and weapons. We are as opposed to nuclear power and nuclear weapons development in north Korea as we are to nuclear power and weapons in south Korea. The issue of nuclear proliferation in the region is far more complicated than is reported by most of the media. As we have said, the nuclear program's of south Korea, and Japan, and the United States nuclear `umbrella' are all factors contributing to nuclear tensions in the region. China's and Russia's nuclear programs are also major issues that need to be challenged. DOES GREENPEACE BELIEVE NORTH KOREA HAS A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM? North Korea has a nuclear program that could provide it with the means to gain plutonium for nuclear weapons. However, the same can be said about south Korean and Japan, as well as most other countries in the world with advanced nuclear technology. Greenpeace is not aware that a political decision has been made by any of these countries, including north Korea, to develop nuclear weapons. What we can say is that so long as nuclear weapons are used as a means of exerting political power, as is done by the US, Russia, France, China and the UK, other nations will have a justification and incentive for developing nuclear weapons themselves. "The nuclear weapons program of south Korea operated during the 1970's, and was in operation briefly in 1991 under the government of Roh Tai Woo. How far exactly the program progressed during these periods is not known. There remains much to be learnt about what exactly is the status of South Korea's program - another reason for our visit." WILL GREENPEACE BE VISITING NORTH KOREA? There are no plans at this stage, though we would welcome the chance to learn more about the situation in the country and the opportunity to express our views on nuclear energy and weapons. ENDS