Chapter 2 - Submarine Rotational Force—West, Priority Works, HMAS Stirling, Western Australia

  1. Submarine Rotational Force—West, Priority Works, HMAS Stirling, Western Australia

Department of Defence

2.1The Department of Defence (Defence) seeks approval from the Committee to proceed with the proposed Submarine Rotational Force - West Priority Works, HMAS Stirling, Western Australia.

2.2From 2027, Australia, United Kingdom, United States (AUKUS) partners will have a rotational presence at HMAS Stirling of one UK and up to four US, conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines.[1]This rotational presence of submarines at HMAS Stirling will be known as Submarine Rotational Force - West (SRF-West) and will be located in the local government area of the City of Rockingham approximately 60 kilometres south of Perth, Western Australia.[2]

2.3In preparation for SRF-West, infrastructure at Stirling will be upgraded and enhanced to meet the requirements for conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines - both for visiting and rotational submarines and for Australia’s own nuclear-powered submarines in the future.[3] The aim of the project is to provide critical facilities and infrastructure required at HMAS Stirling to support the establishment of the SRF - West in 2027.[4]

2.4The estimated cost of delivery of the project is $738.1 million (excluding GST).[5]

2.5The project was referred to the Committee on 6 June 2024.

Conduct of the inquiry

2.6Following referral, the inquiry was published on the Committee’s website.

2.7The Committee received twenty submissions, one confidential submission and two supplementary submissions. A list of submissions is in Appendix A.

2.8On 2 August 2024, the Committee received a private briefing, and then conducted a public and in-camera hearing at Australian Parliament House, Canberra. A transcript of the public hearing is available on the Committee’s website.

Need for the works

2.9The 2020 Defence Strategic Update and the 2020 Force Structure Plan identified the need for Australia to invest in high-end capabilities that bolster deterrence and better prepare Australia to respond in the event of conflict in the region.[6] The need for a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability has arisen as Australia’s strategic environment has deteriorated. The Indo-Pacific region is now the centre of strategic competition. As a three-ocean nation dependent on seaborne international trade, Australia requires cutting-edge naval capabilities.[7]

2.10On 21 September 2021, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States announced the establishment of the enhanced trilateral security partnership called AUKUS. Under AUKUS there are two related lines of effort – acquisition of a Nuclear-Powered Submarine capability and other Advanced Capabilities. The AUKUS Nuclear Powered Submarine Pathway (‘Optimal Pathway’), trilaterally announced by Australia, UK and US in March 2023, committed Australia to establishing a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability at the earliest possible date.[8]

2.11SRF-West will help Australia build the necessary operational capabilities and skills to safely and securely own, operate, maintain and regulate a fleet of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines from the early 2030s.[9] This project is one of the first steps in developing HMAS Stirling over the next decade to becoming an operating base for at least half of the future nuclear-powered submarines by the early 2040s.[10]

Scope of the works

2.12Defence undertook master planning, site investigations, stakeholder consultation, whole-of-life cost analysis and design development to establish the capital facilities and infrastructure works required. Where practical, existing facilities are being re-purposed or upgraded to meet the requirements of SRF - West. New facilities are proposed where there are no alternative solutions.[11]

2.13The project involves three elements:

  • Project Element 1 – Maritime Infrastructure:
  • Upgrade berthing infrastructure and services and complete required dredging for nuclear-powered submarines
  • Upgrade existing berthing infrastructure and services and construct a new pontoon for small boats
  • Complete required dredging at the Explosive Ordnance Loading Wharf.
  • Project Element 2 – Operational Facilities:
  • Construct a Radiological Controls Technical Field Office.
  • Project Element 3 – Maintenance and Sustainment Facilities:
  • Construct a Controlled Industrial Facility
  • Construct a Power Station and associated services
  • Construct a pure water processing plant.[12]

Potential impacts

Environmental impacts

2.14Establishing the facilities will involve dredging, incurring destruction in a unique area within the Perth metropolitan area. Cockburn Sound and Garden Island are sensitive ecosystems which are made up of critically endangered ecological communities, highly endemic plant species, migratory species, priority fauna species and diverse and significant marine species.[13]

2.15At the public hearing, Ms Mia Pepper from Nuclear Free WA provided further information about the environmental impact of the proposed works:

The Cockburn Sound area has incredible ecological values. It's home to a number of rare and endangered species, including the critically endangered ecological community of melaleuca forest and woodland. There's the little penguin, carpet python, tiger snake and Perth slider, which are all priority species. The development itself, the increased impact due to the number of personnel visiting that site and the development works put increasing pressure on these species, including 94 species of bird. There's also the dredging component, which impacts on the aquatic life, and we know that there's a very valuable seagrass area within Cockburn Sound and that dredging can impact that. We're also concerned about the heavy metal contaminants in the floor of the sea and that dredging will bring up those heavy metals. There's a huge presence of recreational fishing in the region, and we're concerned about the heavy metal uptake in aquatic species that might be eaten by the local community.[14]

2.16At the public hearing, Defence provided further information about the extent of the dredging:

There are two elements of dredging that we need to undertake on the project. The first area of dredging is at the Diamantina Pier. The dredging is required to provide a two-metre-gross under keel clearance for safe berthing of the SSNs. The total estimated volume of material to be dredged to achieve the design dredge depth is minus 12.5 metres to the low water mark Fremantle level, which is nominally minus 13.3 metres AHD. The total volume of dredging at Diamantina is expected to be approximately 6½ thousand cubic metres. The second element of dredging is at the explosive ordnance loading wharf. The No. 2 berth is the proposed location for berthing of the SSN. The estimated volume of material that we need to dredge there is 13,000 cubic metres, again, to minus 12.5 metres to the low water mark Fremantle mark. It's currently around 10.2 metres, so there's about 2.3 metres of dredging to do there.[15]

2.17In regard to the native fauna and flora at the site, Defence states the works will be designed to minimise the clearing required and where possible, avoid impacts on the Western Australian listed threatened ecological communities on Garden Island. Defence states the listed little penguin colony located immediately adjacent to proposed work areas will not be directly impacted by the works.[16]

2.18Defence will refer elements of the proposed works that may significantly impact the environment to the Minister for the Environment and Water under the EPBC Act. Defence lists these as the following:

  • Marine intrusive activities. Project elements and activities that intersect with the seafloor and marine environment such as piling, dredging and dredge disposal.
  • Controlled Industrial Facility. The development and operation of the controlled industrial facility and its associated radioactive waste management activities.[17]
    1. Defence is also seeking license approval for the nuclear elements of the project from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). At the public hearing Defence explained how they attempted to manage the multiple approval processes required:

The essence is: we took the deadline—the government-directed outcome and year—and worked the program backwards to understand what we could do in parallel and to seek to do as much work whilst concurrently obtaining approvals. For example, in one case, we will be seeking to undertake early works, HAZMAT removal and remediation, and other clearing and preparatory works while finishing the design, to enable the main vertical works to proceed. It's been a program driven by a deadline and working on how we could undertake concurrent approvals and activities.[18]

Nuclear waste

2.20The proposed works will require storage of low-level radioactive waste from US and UK nuclear submarines from 2027. The Committee heard that some members of the community fear that this short-term site may become a long-term storage solution, simply due to lack of alternative options. There are also concerns about the impact of the temporary waste facility, which is located close to a heavily populated area.[19]

2.21This concern was captured at the public hearing by a representative of Friends of the Earth:

The whole plan assumes that there will at some stage be a permanent disposal facility. I understand that the Department of Defence assumes that that will be tied in with the broader establishment of national waste facilities in concert with ARWA, the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency. It raises a whole set of issues around the fact that efforts to establish national facilities have been ongoing for 25 years or more and have conspicuously failed to generate any outcomes to date. That pattern could well continue, so, essentially, we're putting the cart before the horse and we're making a huge assumption that permanent disposal facilities will be available in due course.[20]

2.22In addition, members of the community fear that the presence of US and UK nuclear submarines and nuclear waste storage may make HMAS Stirling a military target. If attacked the radiation risks may threaten Cockburn Sound, Shoalwater Bay Marine Reserve and the communities associated with Cockburn Sound, Rockingham, Kwinana, Cockburn and Fremantle.[21]

2.23At the public hearing, there was uncertainty from community groups about the level of nuclear waste that will be stored at HMAS Stirling. Representatives from Defence were able to provide further information:

What will be coming from the submarines is, as Admiral Buckley just mentioned, things such as gloves, personal protective equipment and other items that are used in maintenance while the submarines are underway. When it comes into port, they're packaged up and moved from the submarine to the controlled industrial facility to be sorted, reduced in size, packaged and temporarily stored ahead of, in our case, further storage and disposal in the longer term.

The other low-level waste that will be produced is as parts et cetera are worked on within the controlled industrial facility …There will be low-level waste, very low-level waste and what's called exempted waste. They will all be packaged separately and dealt with in accordance with the regulations that we're subject to by ARPANSA.

The concept behind the temporary storage, the nature of the controlled industrial facility, is to take those couple of waste streams to then package them down, reduce them in size and, where possible, reduce the levels of radioactivity to then temporarily store them. Once we have an economical amount to move, we'll move those to sites on the Defence estate for temporary storage ahead of decisions to be made in concert with the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency on final disposal for low-level waste here in Australia.[22]

2.24When asked about the volumes of nuclear waste that would be generated Defence explained:

From 2027, we'll have the first of the United States Virginia class submarines that will start to have a presence in Western Australia. Then, you might imagine, through 2028 we'll start to develop some low-level radioactive waste. What we understand is packaged from each submarine per year is about two cubic metres. That's a drum and a bit. Over time, as we get further submarines, further workshop activities occurring, we will continue to build up that temporary storage.[23]

Impact on infrastructure

2.25Evidence to the inquiry suggested that growth in the region due to the proposed works, as well as the longer-term program of works associated with AUKUS, may strain already under-resourced infrastructure. Transport was raised as a particular issue, with increasing traffic congestion predicted within the local road network adjacent to the site of the proposed works. Traffic projections that consider the growth associated with AUKUS suggest the local road network will experience significant congestion and will fail by 2030.[24]

2.26Housing supply and homelessness are already an ongoing concern for the region. Due to AUKUS, the City of Rockingham’s population is forecast to increase by 64% over the next 23 years, increasing to almost 245,000 by 2046. The number of UK and US Defence personnel who will be relocating to Rockingham and surrounding Local Government areas will require housing, services and amenities in support of the rotational workforce, placing further pressure on existing housing stock.[25]

2.27While there are plans to house some personnel at HMAS Stirling, the large influx of foreign defence personnel under AUKUS will strain the local housing market, potentially displacing vulnerable residents.[26]

2.28This project is one of several large infrastructure investments planned for the region under the AUKUS program. At the public hearing the Committee heard concerns that without coordination between the three tiers of government, the potential benefits to the region will be lost:

Over the next 10 to 20 years, it's probably fair to say that the Perth south-west corridor is set to be the most intensive development site in any urban area in Australia… without a clear plan that coordinates the timing approach to the public and private works, what we'll have here is an immense opportunity but very little public uplift. A planned approach could see our communities uplifted by the investments, ensuring that our most disadvantaged are helped to thrive and a range of highly skilled opportunities become apparent for our youth. We need our Commonwealth government, now and into the future, to recognise and help work across all three tiers of government to structure an infrastructure plan that provides certainty, finding and scheduling of these massive projects, because we can see that for AUKUS to be a success our region needs to, first, be successful.[27]

Stakeholder consultation

2.29Defence undertook the following community consultation activities to ensure the local community and relevant stakeholders were provided with relevant information about the proposed works:

  • Advertisement of community information sessions in both state-wide and local newspapers.
  • Advertisement of community information sessions on social media using geo-targeting to reach local community.
  • A letterbox drop of a flyer advertising the Public Works Committee inquiry related to the proposed works. This was dropped to 63,450 residents in the Rockingham, Kwinana, Cockburn and Fremantle Local Government Areas.
  • Invitation to key stakeholders, including Federal, State and Local Members of Government, to receive a private briefing about the project.[28]
    1. As part of the EPBC Act referral process, Defence completed two rounds of community consultation activities. The first round of community consultation activities was completed during 11-16 March 2024 and involved a series of drop-in sessions across the City of Cockburn, and the Kwinana and Rockingham Local Government Areas. Meetings with key stakeholders were also completed and included mayoral and local government executives, the Western Australian Government’s Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, the Fremantle Ports Authority, the Southwest Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, and the Aboriginal Advisory Council of Western Australia.[29] A second round of community consultation activities was completed during 3-9 May 2024 and involved information stalls at the Rockingham shopping centre, a local farmers market and a series of drop-in sessions in Rockingham. Further meetings with key stakeholders were also completed and involved meetings with the Cockburn Sound Management Council, the Western Australian Government’s Department of Planning Lands and Heritage, and the Gnaala Karla Booja Aboriginal Corporation. [30]
    2. As part of the Public Works Committee inquiry process, Defence held a pop-up community information session on 20 July 2024 and two drop-in community information sessions on 22 July 2024 in Rockingham. The pop-up session was aimed at community members who may not be aware of the project or not motivated to attend a drop-in information session. Over five hours, the project team engaged with approximately 380 people and collected feedback from 124 people. Of the 124 people who provided feedback, 90% indicated they were local residents and/or businesses. Only 13% of those providing feedback indicated they had previously engaged with the project.[31]
    3. Two drop-in community information sessions were held on Monday 22 July 2024 at the Gary Holland Community Centre (19 Kent Street, Rockingham) from 10:00am to 12:30pm and 2:00pm to 4:00pm. 40 people attended across both sessions and 28 people provided feedback to the project team. Of the 28 people who provided feedback, all were local residents and/or businesses. More than 20% had previously engaged with the project.[32]
    4. Comments raised by the community focused on:
  • traffic impacts on local roads in Rockingham
  • concerns about accommodation and impacts on housing affordability and supply in an already constrained market
  • environmental impacts on Garden Island / Meeandip and surrounding area, particularly penguins and water quality
  • concerns about management of radioactive waste and potential safety risks to people and the environment
  • continued access to Garden Island / Meeandip for recreation and fishing.[33]
    1. The Committee heard from some groups that Defence’s community engagement has not allayed community concerns about the proposed works, particularly when it comes to transparency around its nuclear elements:

The public has been denied access to the AUKUS agreement, to the licence application from ASA to ARPANSA, to all the submissions ARPANSA received and to any modelling of accident scenarios at HMAS Stirling. Have studies been done, and, if so, what did they show? We don't know. How would any nuclear accidents at the site be managed? Who would manage them? Would US or UK military personnel have significant input? We don't know the answers to these questions, and there are other examples.[34]

2.35At the public hearing, Defence provided further information about future consultation pathways which will be available to members of the public concerned about the nuclear aspect of the project:

We are looking, from an Australian Submarine Agency point of view, at setting up a permanent presence for drop-in for the local community as well. Specifically, as it relates to the controlled industrial facility and questions around our management of low-level radioactive waste from these submarines, our current regulator, ARPANSA, has committed that at each stage of the licensing they will continue with public consultation.

[…]

More broadly, as part of our stewardship responsibilities and what can be broadly termed our social licence, we understand that there is far more that needs to be done. But it's not a matter of broadcast campaign and stepping away from it; it's engagement with specific groups over specific topics. We have, for instance, a chief nuclear officer, who is able to speak in very technical terms to the scientific and engineering communities around issues that we're conducting in Western Australia. We also have people who are integrating with the community to speak with local Indigenous communities.[35]

Cost of the works

2.36The budget is $738.1 million (excluding GST).[36]

2.37There will be increased operating and sustainment costs resulting from the proposed works due to the construction of the new facilities and engineering infrastructure.[37]

Revenue

2.38No revenue will be generated by this project.[38]

Public value

2.39At a fundamental level, the public value of the proposed works lies in the requirement for Australia to create and maintain a nuclear-powered submarine capability, based on an assessment of the broader strategic and geo-political environment. Re-visiting the assessed need for this naval capability is outside of the scope of the Committee’s inquiry.

2.40More narrowly, Defence advises that the works will support the local economy, providing employment opportunities in the Rockingham and surrounding regions. Defence estimates that approximately 510 full-time equivalent jobs will be created over the life of the proposed works. Defence will also actively promote opportunities for local industry and Indigenous-owned businesses.[39]

Committee comment

2.41The Committee did not identify any issues or concerns with the proposal, and it is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost.

2.42The Committee notes that community organisations, local government representatives and members of the local community have concerns about the proposed works. Some of these concerns—for example, those relating to the AUKUS agreement and the utility of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia—fall outside of the scope of the Committee’s inquiry.

2.43Other concerns relating to nuclear safety and environmental concerns may be addressed during separate approval processes by ARPANSA and under the EPBC Act. The Committee urges Defence to provide extensive engagement and consultation with each of these groups throughout these processes. It is also important that the separate processes are co-ordinated and do not operate within organisational silos. The Committee suggests that Defence adopts a ‘no wrong door’ approach to community consultation where all concerns are taken at the point of consultation and funnelled by Defence to the appropriate area.

2.44The Committee considers that many of the concerns could be assuaged with timely, transparent and accurate communication by Defence. The Committee urges Defence to provide detailed real-time information about the progress of the construction as it occurs.

2.45The Committee is aware that one of the issues of most concern to community organisations and members of the local community is the nuclear waste aspect of the proposed works. The Committee urges the Department of Defence to continue to communicate forecast nuclear waste levels to the community clearly and transparently, to address valid community fears and concerns.

2.46The Committee also supports representatives from local government who are calling for a co-ordinated approach across all three levels of government in the delivery of the proposed works which are part of the larger AUKUS program of works, in order to ensure the local community is brought alongside the development and in turn ensure the development is successful at the local level.

2.47Having regard to its role and responsibilities contained in the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the Committee is of the view that this project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project which is fit-for-purpose, having regard to the established need.

Recommendation 1

2.48The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the following proposed works: Department of Defence – Submarine Rotational Force – West, Priority Works, HMAS Stirling, Western Australia.

2.49Proponent entities must notify the Committee of any changes to the project, scope, time, cost, function, or design. The Committee also requires that a post-implementation report be provided within three months of project completion. A report template can be found on the Committee’s website.

Footnotes

[1]Department of Defence (Defence), Submarine Rotational Force – West Infrastructure Project, https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/submarine-rotational-force-west, Accessed 30 July, 2024.

[2]Defence, Submission 1, p. 2.

[3]Department of Defence (Defence), Submarine Rotational Force – West Infrastructure Project, https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/submarine-rotational-force-west, Accessed 30 July, 2024.

[4]Defence, Submission 1, p. 2.

[5]Defence, Submission 1, p. 17.

[6]Defence, Submission 1, p. 2.

[7]Defence, Submission 1, p. 2.

[8]Defence, Submission 1, p. 3.

[9]Department of Defence (Defence), Submarine Rotational Force – West Infrastructure Project, https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/submarine-rotational-force-west, Accessed 30 July, 2024.

[10]Defence, Submission 1, p. 3.

[11]Defence, Submission 1, p. 4.

[12]Defence, Submission 1, p. 5.

[13]Nuclear Free WA and Stop AUKUS WA, Submission 7, p. 4.

[14]Ms Mia Pepper, Nuclear Free WA, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, p. 15.

[15]Mr Michael Owens, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, p. 2.

[16]Defence, Submission 1, p. 14.

[17]Defence, Submission 1, p. 15.

[18]Mr Martin Greenaway, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, p. 6.

[19]Name Withheld, Submission 5, p, 1.

[20]Dr Jim Green, Friends of the Earth, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, p. 16.

[21]Nuclear Free WA and Stop AUKUS WA, Submission 7, p. 4.

[22]Ms Michele Miller, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, pp. 2-3.

[23]Ms Michele Miller, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, p. 3.

[24]WARM Quakers, Submission 3, p. 2 and Perth South West Metropolitan Alliance, Submission 4, p. 2.

[25]Imagined Futures, Submission 6, p. 1. and City of Rockingham, Submission 4, pp. 2-3.

[26]Perth South West Metropolitan Alliance, Submission 2, p. 2.

[27]Mr Warwick Carter, Perth South West Metropolitan Alliance, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, p. 8.

[28]Defence, Submission 1.2, p. 2.

[29]Defence, Submission 1, p. 15.

[30]Defence, Submission 1, p. 15.

[31]Defence, Submission 1.2, Annex D.

[32]Defence, Submission 1.2, Annex D.

[33]Defence, Submission 1.2, p. 2.

[34]Dr Sue Wareham, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, p. 11.

[35]Ms Michele Miller, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 August 2024, p. 5.

[36]Defence, Submission 1, p. 17.

[37]Defence, Submission 1, p. 17.

[38]Defence, Submission 1, p. 18.

[39]Defence, Submission 1, p. 18.