Our recommendations:

1. Correct the factual errors regarding the effects of radiation.

2. Include active commissioning in the assessment.

3. Include the disposal of radioactive waste in the assessment and publish plans for management, storage and disposal of all streams of radioactive waste, including intermediate and high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel.

4. Include a proper analysis of the risks and consequences of incidents and accidents that could lead to a release of radioactive material into the environment.

5. Inform the public about the potential for exposure to radiation and the levels of radiation they could be exposed to.

6. The Commonwealth Government should consult with other levels of government, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, emergency services and with the general public to develop a response plan for radiological emergencies.

7. Publish the Strategic Assessment Plan before finalizing the Strategic Impact Assessment Report.

Read our full submission:

250314AUKUS SIA – FoEAdelaide

Our submission raised questions about assumptions made about the nuclear submarine agreements:

“The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is premised on the assumption that the proposed AUKUS nuclear submarines are in Australia’s strategic interest (pp. 9-10) and South Australia’s economic interests (pp. 12-13). Both these premises are false.

Many highly qualified defence experts argue that nuclear submarines are not in Australia’s strategic interest. [1]
Along with these experts, and retired senior politicians like Paul Keating, Gareth Evans and Malcolm Turnbull, we believe that Australia will be less safe if it acquires nuclear powered submarines. Although it is the federal government that has made this strategic blunder, the EIS should not lend it any credence (as in section 1.5.4).

…

AUKUS submarines will also be prejudicial to our economic interest. Some of the abovementioned analysts don’t think Australia will actually ever get the promised nuclear submarines, certainly not in a reasonable time frame. This is a view not restricted to left-leaning people. Conservative commentator Greg Sheridan has criticised AUKUS for this reason.[2]”

 

[1] Hugh White, “From the submarine to the ridiculous”, The Saturday Paper, 18 September 2021 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine-the-ridiculous/163188720012499#mtr
Major General Michael G Smith AO (Ret’d), ‘How should Australia defend itself in the 21st century? Silencing the drums and dogs of war’, The New Daily, May 26, 2023 https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2023/05/26/how-should-australia-defend-itself-in-the-21st-century-silencingthe-drums-and-dogs-of-war/
Sam Roggeveen, ‘Spiky questions remain for AUKUS proponents’, Inside Story, 19 March 2024 https://insidestory.org.au/spiky-questions-remain-for-aukus-proponents/

[2] Greg Sheridan, ‘Our nuclear subs fantasy adds up to military net zero’, The Australian, 6 October 2021. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/our-nuclear-subs-fantasy-adds-up-to-military-net-zero/newsstory/cec3b5e94c5bacac405a5eb535b3a628

Read our full submission:

250314AUKUS EIS – FoEAdelaide

Many independent experts have pointed to the unrealistic time frame, the high cost and financial risk, and the increase in Australia’s carbon emissions that it would entail. We provide extensive references to such expert analysis and to international experience in support of our arguments against the nuclear option.

Nuclear power could not contribute to the decarbonisation of the energy system for at least two decades, but in the meantime it would deter investment in renewables and storage. The transformation to a zero emissions energy system based on renewables and storage is a complex long-term project that must not be de-railed by nuclear distractions.

— from the summary of our submission to The House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy

 

SubmissionToNuclearEnergyInquiry-FoEAdelaide