THE space industry and Defence Department have triumphed over Science with the banning of a low-level radioactive waste dump beside the Woomera missile testing range.

The multi-million-dollar dump "must not" be built at the South Australian site known as 52a, Environment Minister David Kemp orders in a letter revealed to The Australian yesterday.

The letter tells Science Minister Peter McGauran to build the project at one of two sites, known as 45a and 40a, in the state's far north.

In January, Mr McGauran identified his "preferred" site as 52a but now must choose between the two alternatives despite an environmental impact statement by his department sidelining both locations.

Sites 40a and 45a are on pastoral land owned by mining giant WMC and a grazier family about 40km east of the Woomera Prohibited Area and 500km north of Adelaide.

The EIS nominated site 52a, within 1km of the Range E Target Area in the WPA, after a $5 million inquiry.

Dr Kemp's directive is contained in a letter sent earlier this month to relevant ministers. The letter, obtained by the Australian Conservation Foundation, places 11 fresh demands on the Department of Science after information requested by Dr Kemp failed to appear in detail in the EIS.

The demands include detailing all the environmental standards to handle and dispose of radioactive waste, conducting field investigations of ground-water flow and the design of the proposed dump. They also require Mr McGauran's department to detail measures to protect the environment.

Dr Kemp says he must sign off on the response to each of these demands before construction of the dump begins.

Dr Kemp's letter was attached to an assessment completed by his department which said the main objection to site 52a was public concern over, and the economic effects of, the perceived risk of a missile hitting the dump.

Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman David Noonan said Dr Kemp's refusal to back the "preferred" site and his demands for more detailed criteria was acknowledgment of the "inadequacies" of the EIS.

"We think Dr Kemp should reject the whole proposal," he said. "Given that Mr McGauran has failed to do any credible risk assessment, why should he be left to decide on any nuclear waste dump site.

"The fact that they (the Science Department) have failed to do detailed ground-water studies shows how negligent they have been on environmental issues throughout the whole project."

Mr Noonan said the EIS discounted environmental worries over radioactive waste burial and unnecessary transport of waste as easily as it ignored space industry and Defence Department concerns over proximity to the bombing site.

The South Australian Government said Dr Kemp must equally consider the economic effects of a radioactive dump on the green image of the state's agriculture industry.

Responding to claims made in The Australian today, Federal Science Minister Peter McGauran, repeated that all three sites proposed for the national repository have been fully investigated by the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

"The geology, ground water, animals, plants, land use and cultural heritage issues were given full consideration for all three sites," Mr McGauran said.

"The Environment Department has assessed that there are no environmental, economic or social reasons, including, safety, health or risk to the environment, to prevent the national repository from being sited in central-north South Australia.

"Given the concerns raised by the aerospace industry regarding site 52a, and the equal suitability of sites 40a and 45a, I am more than willing to accept the recommendation that the repository be constructed at either of these sites.

"However, the process is still underway, and no decision has yet been made.

"The Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, will make his final decision on the environmental assessment based on all the evidence ­ the EIS, which includes responses to public submissions on the proposal, the Environment Department’s assessment report, and consultations with Ministers.

"If Dr Kemp gives environmental approval for more than one site I will make a final decision on which site will be chosen for the facility," Mr McGauran said.

For further information contact Gemma Allman (Minister McGauran’s office) 02 6277 7440

Federal science minister Peter McGauran is resorting to humbug and obfuscation in relation to the plan for a national nuclear waste dump near Woomera in South Australia.

Now that his preferred dump site next to the missile testing range on the Woomera Prohibited Area has been rejected by environment minister David Kemp, Mr McGauran is pretending that the two non-preferred sites east of Woomera are of “equal suitability” (media release, 15/4/03). Yet the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Mr McGauran’s own department said that those two sites are inferior in terms of “access, security, biology and hydrology”.

I’m reminded of Mr McGauran’s dissembling in relation to the so-called ‘clean-up’ of the Maralinga nuclear test site. There, vitrification of plutonium-contaminated debris was described as “world’s best practice”, then when vitrification was abandoned as a cost-cutting measure, shallow burial of this long-lived waste became world’s best practice. Both cannot be true.

On the strength of his linguistic creativity, perhaps Mr McGauran would be better suited to the Arts portfolio he once held? Or the information ministry?