The preferred site for the dump is (was?) within the Woomera Prohibited Area, used for missile tests and for civilian aerospace/rocket tests ...

DEFENCE officials and space researchers are "relieved" that Science Minister Peter McGauran has backed away from exclusively endorsing the construction of a nuclear waste dump beside the Woomera bombing range.

"We are very relieved," a Defence source said yesterday. "I think it has vindicated Defence's stance."

Mr McGauran said on Thursday that he was "more than happy with one of the other two sites" being considered for a national low-level nuclear waste dump.

In January, Mr McGauran endorsed an area known as "Site 52a" as the "preferred site" for the dump, ahead of Sites 40a and 45a, about 30km east of the WPA. This was despite Site 52a being located less than 1km from the Range E Target Area in the Woomera Prohibited Area, 500km north of Adelaide.

The Australian last month reported Defence officials and the space industry were strongly opposed to a dump at Site 52a, fearing it posed an unacceptable risk that would stifle military and commercial use of the WPA. In the past two days,

Defence Minister Robert Hill has received fresh departmental advice on Site 52a. He will now consider the information and, like other relevant ministers, will provide advice to Environment Minister David Kemp in coming weeks. Dr Kemp is expected to make a final decision on the best site for the dump.

A source told The Weekend Australian that the Government did not want to be seen as being divisive on the dump. "I would surmise that from a government perspective there was a potential to be very embarrassed, the source said. "Rather than having an open fight between government departments, good common sense has prevailed."

Australian Space Research Institute director Philip Teakle said the turn- around was welcomed despite ASRI's concerns being dismissed by Mr McGauran's final report on the issue in January. "We were perplexed because space science is within (Mr McGauran's) portfolio and his department has provided significant support for scientific trials at Woomera," he said. "It would be odd for the department to jeopardise its own investment in space science, along with commercial and military range activities."

The federal Government still has to contend with a possible legal fight from the South Australian Government over the dump. It hopes next Wednesday to push through a law prohibiting the construction of a federal dump in South Australia before Dr Kemp makes his final determination.

IT'S a Defence "graveyard". Active bombs, burnt-out aircraft wreckage and missing test projectiles litter the gibber plain across the Woomera Prohibited Area. And it all sits within 800m of a planned radioactive waste dump.

When The Weekend Australian visited the 127,800sqkm Defence weapons testing range this week, a military backpack sat in a crater 40cm deep, well inside the dump's safety zone.

Less than 1km away, a sign warned of "unexploded bombs" inside a flimsy wire fence, and further down the road is an old steel warehouse packed with contaminated soil.

Welcome to Site 52a. It's about 500km north of Adelaide and it's where Science Minister Peter McGauran wants to build Australia's national low-level radioactive waste repository.

At its closest point, Site 52a is 800m from the fence bordering the Range E Target Area, which is used for military weapons testing and evaluations.

It is understood that live weapons have been found outside the fence line.

"I'm surprised no one has been killed or maimed," one source said.

While the origins of the backpack remain a mystery, it is understood the Defence Department had been searching for a trial object more than 20km from Site 52a.

Australian Space Research Institute director Philip Teakle said the backpack was fresh "evidence" of Defence concerns that the dump was too close to its bombing range.

Defence Department officials recently voiced concerns in a secret inter- departmental document that the Government had "understated" the risks of a missile or bomb hitting the dump.

Mr Teakle said Site 52a falls beneath the firing template, the area in which a weapon may fall if it veers off course, for 60 weapons fired each year.

"I am not surprised that bits and pieces have been found around Site 52a," he said.

"If (the Government) had been out there and physically inspected the site, then I can't believe alarm bells weren't ringing when they passed the wreckage of all these weapons."

Just 400m from the southwest corner of Site 52a lies one of the 157 subsonic target aircraft, known as Jindivik, which crashed in the WPA during trials up until the 1980s.

"To me it looks like a graveyard of weapons out there and it certainly doesn't mention that in the draft (Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Mr McGauran's department)," Mr Teakle said.

Then there's the medium-level radioactive waste stored 3km south of Site 52a in a concrete bunker. The Defence Department's low- and medium-level waste, including Radon, was taken to the WPA from Sydney in May 1995.

Some 10km east of Site 52a, over half of Australia's known stockpile of low- level radioactive waste is stored in 9276 steel drums in a disused shed attached to an aircraft hanger.

The slightly contaminated soil, from a site at Fisherman's Bend, Victoria, was stored there in 1994 and 1995 against the wishes of local Aborigines.

The Weekend Australian has been told the soil is the principal reason the Government wants the repository built at the WPA, to cut transport costs by half. "I've been led to believe that the stuff in there, you could tip it out and grow your veges in it," one source said.

DEFENCE Minister Robert Hill told the Senate yesterday he would not break tradition by releasing Defence Department advice on the planned construction of a radioactive waste dump beside a military bombing range.

He was responding to a deadline imposed by the Australian Democrats for a Defence Department submission raising objections over the environmental impact statement for the national radioactive waste repository. Science Minister Peter McGauran wants to build the repository 3km from a range used for military weapons testing in the Woomera Prohibited Area, 500km north of Adelaide.

The Australian revealed this week that Defence Department officials had raised concerns over the chances of a bomb or missile hitting the repository, in a document submitted to Senator Hill late last year.

Senator Hill said yesterday he had consulted Environment Minister David Kemp and the Department of Education, Science and Training on the issue, but that no defence submission directly responding to the draft EIS had been made.

He said the inter-departmental briefing was "generally regarded as confidential".

"I do not intend to depart from that practice," he said.

He defended the EIS process, saying: "That study did address the issue of whether the site is likely to be incompatible with the activities carried out on the range."

Senator Hill has a second deadline to meet on March 3, when Democrats senator Lyn Allison expects all documents on the repository relating to the records and communication between the Defence Department and the DEST to be tabled.

Senator Allison said the Government was being forced to close ranks because the opposition of defence officials "puts a big hole in the proposal".

"I still think South Australians ... are entitled to know what the objections of the Defence Department are," she said.

A $350 MILLION Japanese space project could be jeopardised by the federal Government's proposal to build a radioactive waste dump next door to the Woomera missile testing range in the South Australian desert.

The National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan will evaluate the risk of its rockets hitting a proposed low-level radioactive waste repository in the Woomera Prohibited Area, about 500km north of Adelaide.

The boundary of the repository is less than 1km from where NAL plans to land a model jet in trials later this year and next year.

"That's a problem for our program," NAL's project director Kimio Sakata told The Australian during a visit to defence officials in Canberra yesterday.

"It's too close to our landing area," he said.

"And the landing area cannot be easily changed."

Science Minister Peter McGuaran has insisted the weapons testing range is the "best" location in Australia for the national repository, which could be operational next year.

NAL's trials involve firing a massive rocket carrying the model jet and are part of a Japanese government-funded project to develop a supersonic passenger jet.

Its first trial last July ended in disaster when a rocket weighing more than five tonnes veered off course, crash landing 8km from the preferred repository site.

"The Japanese people are very much sensitive on nuclear issues, so we would have to analyse the risk and report to the Japanese Government," Mr Sakata said.

He said the repository would be at the centre of "very severe" discussions with the Japanese Government on his return to Japan.

NAL has invested $6 million in upgrading WPA infrastructure and was yesterday re-negotiating an existing federal government agreement allowing use of the area until at least 2005.

The Japanese concerns contradict government claims in the final environmental impact statement, released in Adelaide last month by Mr McGauran, that there was no evidence future projects would be affected by the location of the repository.

The Australian earlier this week revealed documents prepared by defence officials last year warned Defence Minister Robert Hill that the repository would severely compromise range activities through the real and perceived risks of a bomb or missile striking the repository. The Government has refused to release the documents. The Australian Democrats yesterday called for the Government to table the relative documents by March 3.

Allan Paull of the University of Queensland said the proposal would also hinder the university's HyShot project, which tests high-speed scram jets in the WPA.

The Department of Science has provided $200,000 towards the project.

"It will certainly make people nervous," he said.

The Australian Democrats will today challenge the Federal Government over its refusal to release the full text of Defence Department documents, which reportedly warn of the catastrophic risk of locating the national nuclear waste dump near Woomera.

Democrats' Energy and Resources Spokesperson, Senator Lyn Allison's motions ordering the release of the documents in the Senate today will have the support of the Labor Party.

"The public and the SA Government is entitled to know why the Defence Department warns against this site," Senator Allison said.

Senator Allison will move that the following Defence documents containing advice  on the impact of the proposed National Radioactive Waste Repository be tabled in  the Senate:
* The submission or submissions made by the Department of Defence to the Environment Impact Assessment for the National Radioactive Waste Repository in South Australia (by 4PM, 6 February 2003)
* All documents relating to the records and communications between the Department of Defence and the Department of Education, Science and Training concerning the Government's consideration of the National Radioactive Waste Repository in South Australia. (by 4pm, March 3, 2003)

Democrats' Acting South Australian Leader, Sandra Kanck, said, "There is no valid justification for the Federal Government withholding Defence concerns from public scrutiny. Indeed, failure by the Federal Government to produce the complete and unedited text of Defence's communications on this issue would indicate that we should be very concerned about the ramifications of locating a nuclear waste dump next to the Woomera Prohibited Area."

SOUTH Australian Premier Mike Rann yesterday demanded the federal Government release a Defence Department document opposing the construction of a radioactive waste dump near Woomera or stand accused of engaging in a cover-up. Mr Rann yesterday lead calls for the public release of all submissions about the proposed construction of a low-level radioactive waste dump, just 3km from the bombing range in the Woomera Prohibited Area, 500km north of Adelaide.

The Premier's demands followed a report in The Australian that revealed Defence officials had prepared a document outlining serious concerns over the potential for test missiles to hit the repository.

The concerns were passed on to Defence Minister Robert Hill late last year but failed to receive a mention in a final environmental impact statement released by Science Minister Peter McGauran in Adelaide last month.

"This is not a time for cover-ups," Mr Rann said. "If they try to hide behind national security then we know there is a good old-fashioned cover-up happening," he said.

"We're talking about 6 million litres of radioactive material that has the possibility of being hit by either a rocket, missile and bomb -- it's a horrifying thought. "

Mr Rann said he would consider using freedom of information legislation should Senator Hill and Mr McGauran ignore his requests for untampered documentation.

A spokeswoman for Mr McGauran said his office had not received a Defence submission to the EIS.

But Senator Hill's spokeswoman said the document was "an internal government submission" which therefore would not be released.

"All queries about the EIS process and submissions need to be directed to the Minister for the Environment (David Kemp)," the spokeswoman said.

Sources yesterday said Defence officials had prepared responses to the draft EIS last year with the belief the document would be made public.

"It does exist. It was prepared for Defence with advice from expert consultants to refute some of the risks and environmental aspects in the draft EIS," a source said.

"It was to provide a counter argument to the draft EIS; to formalise Defence' s views on the draft EIS. "

Dr Kemp's office said the Defence submission would be considered after an assessment by Environment Australia was completed in coming weeks. The EA report would not be publicly released until after Dr Kemp makes his final decision in late March.

In a statement released yesterday, Mr McGauran said: "All issues relating to Defence use of the WPA have been fully examined by independent scientific consultants, who found that the national repository could be located on the WPA and could be accommodated along with defence use of Woomera".

Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister for Defence) (3.31 p.m.):

"Yesterday the Senate required that any submissions by the Department of Defence to the environment impact assessment for a national radioactive waste repository in South Australia be tabled before 4 p.m. today. The time frame for the tabling was unrealistically short. Nevertheless, I have been able to revisit relevant documentation. The Department of Defence has consulted closely with the Department of Education, Science and Training about the location of a national radioactive waste repository. Defence also has worked closely with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who oversighted the preparation of the environmental impact statements. However, there was no formal public submission to the environmental impact statement process. Defence’s input to DEST took the form of written interdepartmental advice. Traditionally, governments have regarded such advices as confidential and declined to publish them. I do not intend to depart from that practice. DEST published its final EIS on 23 January. I shall be responding to Senator Kemp during the 30-day period for comment following publication of the EIS."

A suppressed Defence Department submission to the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on the planned nuclear waste repository near the Woomera rocket range in South Australia expresses strong opposition to the location of the dump.

In the Senate yesterday Shadow Minister for Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, called for public release of the document.

“The Government has reneged on its promise of August 2002 to publish all submissions to the waste dump EIS,” Senator Carr said. “Now it refuses to make any of the 667 submissions public.

“What does the Government have to hide?”

Senator Carr said that he was alarmed at reliable reports that the Defence Department was “violently” opposed to the siting of the waste dump only a few kilometres from Woomera rocket range. Last year’s accidental crashing of a Japanese missile in the vicinity of the proposed site has underlined concerns about the danger of such a decision.

The private-sector Australian Space Research Institute (ASRI) has described the proposed siting as “dangerous and illogical”.

BAE Systems, the company under contract for commercial services to Woomera, says in its own submission that calculations on the risk of missile impact on the planned repository are fundamentally flawed. BAE and ASRI both believe that the probability of such an eventuality is seriously underestimated in the EIS.

“The Defence submission on the waste dump’s location must be publicly released,” said Senator Carr. “The people of South Australia, and Australians generally, have a right to be assured that the radioactive waste repository is safe and secure from stray test missiles.”

The South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, has called for the release of the full texts of all submissions on the proposed low-level nuclear waste dump near Woomera.

"This is not a time for cover-ups,'' Mr Rann said.

He was backed by the Australian Democrats, whose state leader, Sandra Kanck, demanded "the complete and unedited version'' of the Department of Defence submission on the proposed dump.

This follows reports that Defence has expressed strong opposition to the proposed dump, which would be sited close to a missile and weapons testing range in the commonwealth-controlled Woomera Prohibited Area.

Mr Rann said the SA government remained opposed to the establishment of a low-level nuclear waste depository in the state's north. It was also being seen as a stalking horse for higher-level dumps.

He rejected arguments that Defence concerns over the proposal, reportedly voiced in a submission to the draft environmental impact statement, should remain confidential for security reasons.

"There will have been no point in going through the whole EIS process unless the community is briefed on what it contains. They have a right to know,'' Mr Rann said.

He said BAE Systems, which runs commercial operations at Woomera for Defence, was believed to have expressed similar concerns about the potentially catastrophic risks of locating the dump at site 52A, after a burning Japanese booster crashed 8km from the site last year. The concerns were not revealed when the Federal Science Minister, Peter McGauran, issued a supplementary EIS document last month.

Mr McGauran said yesterday all defence issues had been examined by independent scientific consultants in selecting the preferred site. The consultants had concluded that the repository could be accommodated along with defence use, he said, and the EIS said the risk from defence activities was "low and within acceptable operational parameters''.

Apart from the full reports, Mr Rann demanded that the assessment report, the third and final stage of the EIS, should be made public. It is due to be completed on Friday.

State government legislation to prohibit a national low-level nuclear waste repository in SA, bolstering a present state law banning higher-level repositories, and new legislation to prevent waste being transported into the state was passed by the House of Assembly last year and is due for debate in the Upper House.

The Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth have pointed out that moving radioactive waste from the main Australian source the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney would involve a 1700km road journey across NSW and SA to Woomera.

Adelaide-based ACF campaigner David Noonan said this increased the potential for accidents and the exposure of communities to radioactivity.

Meanwhile, Ms Kanck said: "The implications of a stray missile slamming into a nuclear waste facility are truly horrendous.''

Apart from shocking environmental damage, such an incident would wipe out the state's "clean, green image'' and hit national and international markets for SA produce, including wine, fruit and grain, she said.

The Democrats believed each state should deal with its own waste, sharing the risks, rather than SA being forced to accept a national dump.

A nuclear waste dump near a rocket range? South Australia is nervous, reports Rebecca DiGirolamo

IT'S hardly rocket science that burying radioactive waste next door to a military bombing range is risky business.

But that's exactly what Science Minister Peter McGauran wants to do. As early as next year.

The minister believes storing 5.7 million litres of low-level radioactive waste inside the defence force's weapons testing ground at the Woomera Prohibited Area is the best option open to the federal Government.

It appears, however, that the minister is on a collision course with the Defence Department.

It is understood department officials last year submitted concerns to Defence Minister Robert Hill, arguing against site 52a.

"The proximity of the ballistics weapons site at Woomera leads to a potential risk for accidental explosion that is surprisingly high," defence sources tell The Australian.

Two weeks ago South Australian Premier Mike Rann thought he would be steamrolled over the dump. The Australian's report yesterday triggered calls for the secret Defence Department document to be publicly released.

"I will be writing to Robert Hill and Peter McGauran asking for the release of all of the documents," says Rann.

"Here we have a federal Government planning to mount a $300,000 public relations campaign to convince South Australians that a nuclear dump is a great thing, and yet they are not releasing all the facts," he says.

Rann says the SA Government raised the issue of proximity to the rocket range last July and was assured by McGauran that missile impact "would do nothing more than spread some dust".

"I'm not surprised that the Defence Department's opposition was not released publicly and was not mentioned by Mr McGauran when he released the final EIS environmental impact statement in Adelaide," says the Premier.

Though the Defence Department's official position has been kept confidential and the destination of its submission on the waste dump remains unclear, it is known to have aligned itself on this issue with much of Australia's space and science industries, which claim the risk of a missile impact is "surprisingly high".

"I really don't know why they want to put it there," Australian Space Research Institute director Philip Teakle says of the plan. "You wouldn't site Australia's national radioactive store in an area where you've got a probability of a big bomb hitting it.

"It's asking for trouble. Either the store will get hit or range activities will have to be curtailed. "

Last July a Japanese rocket weighing more than 5 tonnes veered off course, crash landing just 8km from McGauran's preferred location.

Site 52a is 3km from the centre of the Range E Target Area -- a small parcel of land about 500km north of Adelaide, used for military and commercial missile testing.

Range E Target Area is a favourite with the RAAF's Aircraft Research and Development Unit, which has dropped ballistic weapons weighing up to 910kg.

But the Government's draft EIS says there is a low impact risk, despite the potential for 42 weapons penetrating the protective cover of the repository each year: "A risk assessment undertaken as part of the draft EIS found that the risk of the repository being hit is `remote' and, if it were hit, the environmental consequences would be minimal."

ASRI, Defence and BAE Systems, the company contracted by Defence to provide support services to the nearby Woomera village, argue that any chance, however minimal, is just not good enough.

They believe 52a is "illogical and dangerous" and fraught with unnecessary hazards that have been "ignored", "undermined" and "miscalculated" by the EIS.

They say two alternative sites, 40a and 45a, located east of the Woomera Protected Area and in the same geologically favourable conditions as site 52a , have not been properly researched by the Government.

There are suspicions these alternative locations have been overlooked, with the Government tipped to save millions of dollars in road, water and electricity services already established at 52a.

"It's a cheap option," says one Defence source. "Sacrificing the long-term wealth of the WPA for the short-term savings is incredibly short-sighted for any government. "

Another source says political motivations are the only explanation for selecting site 52a: "The three sites are almost identical hydrologically. Site 52a is so similar to the other sites that there must be some political motive. "

Hill admits there are issues with 52a being constructed inside the WPA; however, he says he does not oppose the need for a national repository.

Environment Minister David Kemp will make his decision on the repository next month. The final decision is McGauran's, although Kemp has the power to override it under federal legislation.

Opposition environment spokesman Kelvin Thomson says site 52a is now inevitable. "You wouldn't have the Howard Government being prepared to spend up to $300,000 of taxpayers' money promoting the waste dump if they didn't have their heart set on it," he says.

McGauran says a scientific process with extensive consultation has been conducted, leading scientists to select 52a as the "best and safest" option in Australia. "I'm confident the case has been made out for the Woomera site, but I can't be certain because Kemp still has to assess it," McGauran told the media when unveiling the final EIS.

"This was not a site chosen by bureaucrats and politicians, but by scientists."

DEFENCE Department officials are "violently" opposed to construction of a radioactive waste dump bordering a military weapons target range near Woomera in the South Australian desert.

The Australian understands the officials are concerned that the risk assessment used by the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) underestimates the likelihood of a missile hitting the proposed low-level radioactive waste repository, which could be built as early as next year.

Science Minister Peter McGauran has recommended the repository be located at site 52a in the Woomera Prohibited Area ? a 127,800sq km weapons testing and development range in South Australia's far north.

The minister, who released an environmental impact statement two weeks ago, said the risks associated with the project were "acceptably low".

The repository would store almost 6 million litres of waste buried in a buffer zone less than 1km from the Range E Target Area, where missiles and weapons are routinely dropped for testing by Defence and by commercial space companies.

The EIS process is in its last stages and Environment Minister David Kemp is expected to make a final decision in late March.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said he had received advice from Defence officials late last year relating to site 52a and the testing range.

It is understood Defence officials have warned Senator Hill the EIS drafted by DEST was misleading, failed to adequately consult Defence and misjudged missile impact risks and radiation exposures.

Defence officials advised the repository would threaten the safety of testing because it sat beneath safety templates ? areas set aside to enable the safe crash-landing of a projectile that is off-course. Sources say the officials are "violently opposed to 52a" and made a " scathing attack on the people who did the (EIS) assessment".

"Defence won't take the risk of firing on those high probabilities," a source said.

Senator Hill said the Defence views had been discussed with Mr McGauran and passed on to Dr Kemp for consideration in determining the best location. "There are obviously issues related to the fact that site 52a is within the experimental range," he said.

A Defence spokeswoman said the department's views had "been fed into the government process" and would remain confidential for "security reasons".

The official response has raised concerns within Defence that its views are not being considered ahead of Dr Kemp's decision.

Submissions to the draft EIS by BAE Systems, the company contracted by Defence to provide commercial support to Woomera village, echo serious concerns about the site.

BAE refused to comment, directing all enquiries to Defence, however its submission states: "Calculations concerning the likelihood of an accidental missile/bomb impact . . . are seriously flawed and significantly undermine conclusions drawn concerning the risks associated with site 52a.

"The real possibility of a catastrophic event was demonstrated when a (Japanese) NEXST-1 launch resulted in the explosive impact of the burning rocket booster . . . after launch."

The Japanese rocket last year crashed spectacularly just 8km from site 52a.

MARK COLVIN: And staying with Woomera for a different reason, would you put a nuclear waste dump next to a missile range? That's the question that's arisen over the possible siting of Australia's low-level radioactive waste repository inside the Woomera Prohibited Area. The site of concern, titled "52-A", appears to be the preferred choice of the Science Minister Peter McGauran. But it was revealed today that the Defence Department is opposed to the Site, which is just a kilometre from a missile testing target area. Nance Haxton reports from Adelaide.

NANCE HAXTON: While the Defence Department will not release details of its submission to the Federal Government, regarding its concerns about the possible location of the low-level radioactive waste dump, the Defence Minister Robert Hill has confirmed the Department has issues, related to the fact the serge is located within the experimental range. Weapons and rocket testing have been conducted at the Woomera prohibited area for more than 50 years. South Australian Premier Mike Raan says if there are concerns that the Federal Government has underestimated the possibility of a missile going astray, and hitting the radioactive waste, they should be made public.

MIKE RANN: It is totally stupid and dangerous to locate a radioactive waste stump next to a rocket range. I mean, just in recent times we've seen what happen went that Japanese launch went wrong and the rocket crashed. Well just imagine what would happen if something went wrong and it crashed into six million litres of radioactive waste. This is an appalling state of affairs, it is appalling that Mr McGauran didn't tell this to the people of South Australia, two weeks ago when he was here, and I want all of those reports released publicly.

NANCE HAXTON: Federal Science Minister Peter McGauran issued a statement today, stating the Department had completed an extensive risk assessment regarding defence activities, and that 52A was the preferred site for the facility. However, it is not only the Defence Department that is expressing concern. The privately run Australian Space Research Institute made an extensive submission to the Government Environmental Impact Statement process, stating that it was illogical and dangerous to site a radioactive waste repository near the launch and target area of a rocket range. The submission says Government analysis, evaluating the possibility of a rocket impact on the dump, is flawed, and that the location of the repository at 52A, will adversely affect the future development of Australian space science technology. The Northern Regional Development Board also made a submission to the EIS. Chief Executive Andrew Eastick says it is representing the concerns of organisations in the region, that the dump should not be sited within the Woomera prohibited area.

ANDREW EASTICK: We were aware that the Defence Department have long expressed that point of view, and it's also a point of view that's very strongly shared by BA Systems, which is a private company that has a leasing, or a contractual arrangement with the Defence Department to maximise the use of the Woomera prohibited area, and they also have expressed very strong concerns about the site that is on the prohibited area.

NANCE HAXTON: A spokeswoman for Federal Environment Minister David Kemp says the Minister will make a decision on the environmental assessment of the three sites by the end of March, and will consider the concerns presented within the submission as part of that process. If site 52A is given the environmental go-ahead, then the battle will be on to see whether Minister McGauran's will can be overcome by the might of the Defence Department.

Revelations today that the Defence Department opposes plans to construct a nuclear waste dump bordering a military weapons target range near Woomera has exposed the Howard Government's contempt for the health and safety of South Australians.

Defence officials have reportedly warned Senator Hill the EIS was misleading, failed to adequately consult Defence, and misjudged missile impact risks and radiation exposures.

Defence Department officials believe the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) has underestimated the likelihood of a missile hitting the proposed nuclear waste repository.

Minister McGuaran has consistently brushed aside concerns about the safety of the waste dump and maintains "risk from the repository from defence activities are low and within acceptable operational parameters".

Yet late last year, a model Japanese rocket launched from Woomera crashed eight kilometres from the range, highlighting the dangers of a projectile landing in the dump.

Clearly Minister McGuaran refuses to acknowledge what are obvious safety issues and is prepared to put South Australians in the firing line.

Dr. Kemp must not to take this cavalier approach when considering his decision on the nuclear waste dump's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) in the weeks ahead.

I call on the Howard Government to make public the Defence Department's concerns to ensure Australians, in particular South Australians, are fully aware of the risks.

The "security reasons" cited as justification for keeping this report confidential must not be used to keep South Australians in the dark.

Premier Mike Rann says the Federal Science Minister Peter McGauran cannot turn his back on dire warnings that the Australia’s space science and technology industry ? largely centred around Woomera - would be jeopardised by the presence of a national radioactive waste dump.

“As Science Minister, Mr McGauran has a clear duty to ensure the continuation and growth of Australia’s space science industry.

“I doubt Mr McGauran would want to go down in history as the person who ruined a multi-million dollar industry for the sake of a radioactive waste dump.

“The space research industry is worth many millions of dollars to the South Australian economy. As a growing industry that is gathering greater investment, it is an integral party of our economic future.

“On the other hand, a national radioactive dump will cost the State’s economy millions if we lose our clean green image and become known “the nuclear dump state”.

“The choice is stark.

“The Australian Space Research Institute (ASRI) and BAE Systems have both warned the Federal Government that a national radioactive waste dump in the Woomera Prohibited Area would be disastrous for the future of our space industry.

“ASRI warns in its submission to the dump’s draft Environmental Impact Statement that there were critical flaws in the EIS risk analysis of the probability of a stray rocket penetrating a radioactive waste dump in the Woomera Prohibited Area.

“It says that a consequence of the radioactive dump could mean “many future trials would not be permitted or would have to be adversely modified, trials insurance would either become more expensive or unavailable and potential users.. would seek alternative sites, probably overseas…”

“It also makes the point that the Woomera Prohibited Area has attracted more than $2 billion in investment in the past 50 years and is now considered one of the safest sites on earth to conduct trial rocket and weapons activities.

“According to the ASRI,  a range of new rockets are set to be trailed at Woomera this year.

“The ASRI submission says that during initial flight testing of these and other rockets in the future, “the reliability of these rockets will be unknown and they might well pose a threat to the repository in the event of a mishap.”

“It says that to site a radioactive waste dump near the launch and target areas of a rocket range is “illogical and dangerous” and that it would adversely affect the “future development of Australian space science and technology”.

“BAE Systems says that the Woomera Prohibited Area has the opportunity to capitalise on its unique characteristics by undertaking space research programs that are increasingly difficult or impossible at overseas ranges due to airspace and urban encroachment.

“It says in its submission to the draft EIS that: “The desire by Defence to attract commercial revenue to offset the costs of operating and maintaining the Woomera Prohibited Area as an essential asset for supporting national security needs.”

“It warns that the proposed siting of the dump would “undoubtedly have a serious impact on future commercial activities in the Woomera Prohibited Area…[and is] ..clearly incompatible..”.

“Yesterday I wrote to Mr McGauran asking him to release all documents outlining the Defence Department’s concerns about the siting of the proposed national radioactive waste dump at Woomera.

“The Department’s warnings, along with those of ASRI and BAE Systems, cannot be ignored.

“The South Australian Government is totally opposed to the proposed low level and medium level radioactive waste dumps being located in our State.

“The Government has been encouraging our space science industry at Woomera because of its huge potential to the State’s economy.

“The importance of the space industry to Australia and especially our State must surely rule out the siting of the radioactive waste dump in our State.

“South Australians can only hope that the Federal Science Minister is more committed to the space science industry than to dumps,” Mr Rann said.

SCIENTIFIC advice backed a nuclear waste dump being built near a military target range in South Australia's north, federal Science Minister Peter McGauran has said.

Mr McGauran said the Government considered Defence Department activities when proposing the site for a low level radioactive waste repository at Woomera.

The preferred location was a 52 hectare site in the Commonwealth-managed Woomera Prohibited Area (WPA), about one kilometre from the Range E Target Area, where defence and commercial companies frequently test missiles.

According to a newspaper report today, the Defence Department was opposed to the dump being established at the site.

But Mr McGauran said all defence issues were examined in the process to select a preferred site.

"An extensive risk assessment was undertaken with respect to defence activities and the possible siting of the repository on the WPA," he said.

"All issues relating to defence use of the WPA have been fully examined by independent scientific consultants, who found that the national repository could be located on the WPA and could be accommodated along with defence use of Woomera."

Mr McGauran said an Environmental Impact Statement had concluded the "risk from the repository from defence activities (was) low and within acceptable operational parameters".

The preferred site held advantages for the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, he said.

"We have looked at the facts, engaged expert consultants to undertake the relevant assessments and are convinced that site is the preferred site for the facility."

SA Premier Mike Rann today asked the Federal Government to release the Defence Department report raising concerns about the site.

He said Mr McGauran made no mention of the department concerns when announcing the dump would proceed two weeks ago.

- AAP

Federal Science Minister, Peter McGauran today stated that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the national repository had fully examined all issues relating to the possible siting of the facility on the Woomera Prohibited Area (WPA).

"An extensive risk assessment was undertaken with respect to Defence activities and the possible siting of the repository on the WPA," Mr McGauran said.

"All issues relating to Defence use of the WPA have been fully examined by independent scientific consultants, who found that the national repository could be located on the WPA and could be accommodated along with Defence use of Woomera."

"The EIS concluded that the risk to the repository from Defence activities is low, and within acceptable operational parameters."

"Three sites have been fully examined as possible sites for the national repository: the preferred site, Site 52a, is located on the WPA, and two other sites are also located near Woomera. Issues concerning all three sites have been thoroughly examined in the EIS."

Radioactive waste, moved to South Australia by the former Federal Labor Government, has been safely stored in two locations on the WPA close to Site 52a, since 1994/95.

The WPA also provides advantages for the storage and disposal of radioactive waste in terms of security.

"We have looked at the facts, engaged expert consultants to undertake the relevant assessments, and are convinced that Site 52a is the preferred site for the facility. We also have two other sites which are highly suitable for the facility," Mr McGauran said.

"We have presented the evidence to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage who will make his decision on the proposal."

Woomera Instrumented Range (WIR) / Woomera Prohibited Area (WPA)

Following notes drawn from submissions on Draft EIS, plus governments response in the Supplement to the EIS. Judging from the article in The Australian (in this file), the Supplement has not lessened the opposition to a dump in the WPA.

The Australian Space Research Institute (ASRI), BAE Systems and the Northern Regional Development Board all oppose the
use of site 52A within the WIR/WPA but do not object to sites 40a or 45a (outside WIR/WPA).

ASRI and BAE Systems contest the government’s risk assessment on several counts (e.g. probability of a strike on dump,
capability of the repository to withstand a strike, consequences for future WIR/WPA activities if a strike occurs).

Concern that future operations (and potential expansion of activities) will be jeopardised by the dump, e.g. ASRI plans to trial
larger rockets in the WIR.

ASRI submission
ASRI claims that the Draft EIS overstates the security advantages of siting the dump within the WPA, especially since
activities will be jeopardised by dump.
- Concern from ASRI that insurance would be unaffordable or unobtainable if the dump is located in the WIR/WPA.
- ASRI wants to waste stored at two sites relatively close to Site 52a to be moved and BAE Systems says the sites have had a
detrimental effect on the use of the WIR area.
- ASRI conclusion: ASRI believes that the proposal to site a radioactive waste repository near the launch and target areas of a
rocket range is illogical and dangerous. ASRI considers the WIR/WPA vital to the advancement of Australian space science
and technology. ASRI is convinced that a national radioactive waste repository at Site 52a will adversely affect the useability
of the WIR/WPA and, consequently the future development of Australian space science and technology. ASRI urges the
selection of sites more distant from the test range.

BAE Systems submission
- BAE Systems has a corporate commitment to the marketing and increased commercial use of the WPA for a range of
aerospace programs
- dump incompatible with ongoing and expanding weapons testing and commercial trials (in the past year, WIR used for
missile firings, drone launches, sounding rocket launches and Japanese National Experimental Supersonic Transportlaunches
(NEXST-1).
- particularly concerned that site 52a is located well within the designated hazardous areas for most weapons trials including
those in Range E and the adjacent Range E target area and notes that the NEXST-1 launch resulted in the explosive impact of
the burning rocket booster 15 minutes after launch.
- Draft EIS risk assessment on likelihood of an accidental missile/bomb impact is seriously flawed
- dump at site 52a will have a profound effect on future trials proposed in the WIR and WPA and hence future business for
the Defence department.
- it would increase liability concerns and ead to increased insurance premiums for clients, rejection of trials and the forcing of
non-optimum flight paths, which will seriously affect the competitive advantages offered by the WPA.
- ‘perceived risk’ of radiation exposure has prevented use of specific areas in the WPA by the German Space Agency, the
Japanese National Space Development Agency and NASA.
- site 52a has unique characteristics ideally suited to safe landing for test vehicles, so dump would preclude future deliberate
landings of test vehicles in the optimum recovery region
- government preference for site 52a based on perceived better security of the site, but the single continuously manned
security checkpoint for the entire WPA/WIR is located 45 km away and personnel can readily gain access to the WIR via
station tracks from the Stuart Highway and Roxby Downs Road.
- all three sites require additional independent security provisions to prevent entry by determined groups such as protestors or
terrorists.

Northern Regional Development Board submission:
- supports concerns raised by BAE systems, the Department of Defence, and others about site 52a.
- the NRDB has identified Defence and Aerospace as an important opportunity to attract additional investment into northern
SA, dump would substantially diminish the efforts of BAE systems and others to achieve that investment.

Comments by DEST in Supplement EIS on above submissions:
- Site 52a is superior to Sites 40a and 45a in terms of access, security, biology and hydrology, however both 40a and 45a are
acceptable alternative sites. While the main disadvantage of Site 52a compared to the other two sites is its potential impact on
the activities within the WPA, the environmental impact and risk assessment indicates that there is a low risk of any such
impacts, and the risks can be managed by good practice.
- The risk assessment described in Section 10.7.5 of the Draft EIS uses the Department of Defence endorsed methodology to
assess the risk of the repository being struck by a projectile with sufficient energy to result in a release of radioactive material.
This assessment indicates that the risk is low and within acceptable operational parameters. On this basis, the presence of the
repository at Site 52a is not considered an ‘adverse encumbrance’ on commercial use of the WPA.
- New business in the WPA has continued despite the radioactive waste currently stored at two sites in the WPA.
- It is not possible to predict with accuracy the likely nature of weapons trials and space launch activities over an extended
period. However, the past 50 years have seen substantial improvements in weapon and space vehicle design, as well as the
development of sophisticated computer-based design and simulation tools. These tools have meant that the behaviour of
weapons and space vehicles has become far more reliable over time.
- For radioactivity to be released into the biosphere, a breach of at least 5 m of cap material and consolidated fill, plus the
containment structure of the waste would be needed.
- In regard to safe landing of test vehicles: the NEXST-1 landing area (which is assumed to include an appropriate safety
template) does not overlap either Site 52a or the Range E Target Area.
- The [BAE Systems] submission gives examples of a number of recent range activities: ASRAAM is the AIM-132 Air-to-Air Missile. In studies for the Draft EIS this weapon was identified as not being a weapon that has the potential to penetrate the
repository. Kalkara is not a missile but an unmanned aerial vehicle. It flies like an aircraft under guidance and is then landed
by parachute. HyShot is the University of Queensland scramjet trial. The trial vehicle is designed to fly some 130 km
down-range and does not impact in the vicinity of Site 52a.
- The German Space Agency considered the possible placement of a temporary radar tracking station at Maralinga, not
Woomera, in the 1990s. The full reasons for the German Space Agency decision to not proceed are not known; however it is
not reasonable to extrapolate that the same decision would have been made in the case of the repository, as the issues are very
different.
- It is not known what factors were relevant to the elimination of Evatts Field as an acceptable site for the Japanese National
Space Development Agency ALFLEX spaceplane landing trials, in the 1990s. In any case, the situation at Evatts Field at the
time related to waste being temporarily stored above-ground in a non-purpose built building (a hangar) located relatively
close to the runway centreline. The national repository would be an engineered, monitored, below-ground low level waste
repository located some distance from the Range E target area. NASA is not proceeding with the X-38 proposal for reasons
unrelated to the national repository.
- The risk of the repository being hit by a missile has been calculated using US Department of Defense methodology (see
Section 10.7 of the Draft EIS). The mishap probability is ‘remote’, the mishap severity is ‘marginal’, and the risk category is
‘medium’ which is the second lowest risk category presented by the relevant standard. Risk mitigation measures would
statistically reduce the risk to a risk category of ‘low’.
- A very conservative risk assessment was presented in Section 10.7 of the Draft EIS. The Australian Department of Defence
advised that there were on average 60 weapons firings per year that could potentially strike the repository. Defence advise that of the 60 weapon releases, 42 have the potential to penetrate to a depth of 5 m.
- The repository cover would not be loose bulldozed earth. Soil fill over the repository contents would be compacted and
covered with a compacted clay and other layers. Some further soil consolidation may be expected to occur. In addition any
radioactive sources determined to be of higher activity would be contained in the repository within a conditioned concrete
matrix.
- No information was sighted during the preparation of the Draft EIS to indicate that Site 52a lies within the safety templates
of proposed space launches or that the probability of impact per launch exceeds 10-7. The risk assessment described in
Section 10.7.5 of the Draft EIS indicates that the risks associated with Defence weapons trials (which are much more
common in the WPA than space launches) lie within acceptable risk parameters, based on military risk standards.
- Investigations undertaken for the Draft EIS, including extensive consultation with the Department of Defence, were unable
to identify any case where trials or activities did not go ahead because of the presence of radioactive waste. The WIR has
continued to function with two radioactive waste stores located on it.
- The failure and crash of the NEXST-1 launch vehicle occurred within 500 m of the launch point and not within the landing
area template shown in the attachment to the [BAE Systems] submission. This was some 8 km from Site 52a. It is also
understood that, although visually spectacular, the impact of the launch vehicle resulted in little if any cratering and would
not have been sufficient to breach 5 m of cover. While the launch vehicle was destroyed, the trial vehicle was recovered
largely intact.
- The [ASRI] submission appears to have misunderstood the nature of the risk calculations discussed in Section 10.7.5. The
method of calculating the probability of a weapon impacting on the repository is based on the safety template areas and uses
Defence’s own advice regarding the varying probability of impact within the safety template. The safety templates used by
Defence are based on the probability of impact from an individual weapon release of 1 x 10-6 at the template boundary,
increasing to approach unity at the target point. The information provided by Defence indicates that the repository lies
towards the template boundary i.e. in an area where the risk is 1 x 10-6. The methodology using the total area of the WPA is
an alternative method used to demonstrate that other methods of calculating probability of impact produce a less conservative
probability of impact than the use of the template probabilities.
- An annual impact probability of 4.2 x 10-5 means that an impact can be expected to occur once every 23,809 years, a period 95 times the lifetime of the repository. This can reasonably be considered a Remote possibility. Multiplying the annual impact probability by 250 means that there is a probability of impact of 1.05 x 10-2 per 250 year period, which still equates to an expected occurrence of once every 23,809 years.
- The Draft EIS does not base its estimate of probability on the relative areas of the repository and the WPA. It presents this
methodology in Section 10.7 only as an alternative demonstration. The methodology used in the Draft EIS to calculate
probability of impact uses the fundamental principal inherent in the concept of safety templates. The weapons being trialled
on the WPA are intended to deliver a payload accurately and consistently at a defined target point. However, to account for
weapon fault or error during trials, a safety template is applied. The size and shape of the safety template is based on the
criterion that the probability of the weapon falling outside the template is to be no greater that 1 x 10-6. The probability of
the weapon striking a chosen point within the template is therefore not uniform across the template. The probability of impact is close to 1 at the target (i.e. the template centre) and decreases with distance from the target, approaching 1 x 10-6 at the
template boundary.