The Commonwealth Government’s investment in sovereign Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) capability, valued at up to $21 billion, is not just about acquiring weapons systems. Building modern, safe and scalable facilities to make, store, distribute and, when necessary, deploy those systems across Defence is key to supporting the Government’s investment.
The existing Defence network of EO facilities will need to grow substantially to meet the requirements of this level of investment. The requirement for expansion will apply to multiple sites across Australia and presents significant challenges, including:
- site spatial and licencing constraints
- differing operational and functional priorities, and
- the need to allow for future system capabilities and industry demand beyond the immediate needs.
The potential requirement for interoperable EO facilities in partnership with allied nations should also be recognised. Interoperable facilities may need to accommodate Australian, United States of America, United Kingdom, and other allied nation partners’ weapons, data and processes. They may have heightened security requirements and follow different technical storage facility regulations and approaches to managing risk and safety. The potential to integrate national and allied partner EO capabilities for the growing EO facilities and operations within Australia will not be achieved by aligning to a single set of regulations and standards. What is needed to make this happen are experienced individuals to harmonise and apply policies and standards across the new and existing EO precincts for project delivery and success.
Defence EO Standards
Australia's explosives storage and handling framework is governed by Defence Explosive Ordnance Publication 101 (eDEOP 101), a comprehensive regulation that covers siting, safety distances, hazardous‑area classification, storage types, and operational licensing. eDEOP101 is founded on the practices of the UK Ministry of Defence’s Explosive Storage and Transport Committee, which are modified from NATO’s AASTP-1 system. While every Defence-licenced facility within Australia is required to comply with eDEOP101, complexities arise when implementing NATO’s AASTP-1 in its native, non-modified form.
The complexity deepens when other allied standards are factored in, for example, the US Department of Defense (DoD). Infrastructure planned and designed solely to meet Australian Defence standards could result in operational and capability limitations. Without the interpretation and integration of the multiple EO standards, particularly for interoperable facilities, there is a risk of failing to meet industry demands for the local supply, storage, and export of Australian-developed and manufactured EO.
For new Defence EO sites and infrastructure, current international best-practice explosives safety guidance should be proactively implemented to reduce the risk to existing and future EO storage and processing projects, operations and facilities.
AECOM has experience planning facilities in accordance with the guidance provided by eDEOP, AASTP and US DoD policies. A comprehensive understanding of these guidelines is crucial to planning and future-proofing across and beyond the Defence estate.
The challenges of non-standardised interoperable designs
In practice, interoperable EO facilities will demand a different, standardised design approach, one that transparently harmonises eDEOP 101 with NATO and US standards and safety guidance up front so that standards aren’t interpreted differently across projects. Without this, the following challenges can arise:
- Bespoke electrical designs: While every site will have its own bespoke connection to the wider site infrastructure (which can’t be avoided) the electrical requirements associated with EO storage facilities are quite complex. Using standardised, validated and verified designs minimises the risk of re-work during construction.
- Licensing constraints: Many Defence EO facilities carry licence conditions that limit storage types, quantities and activities (for example, only allowing storage rather than also assembly and testing). Expanding or uplifting these facilities under current eDEOP 101 standards often reveals that earlier interpretations no longer hold, triggering building upgrades.
- Siting constraints: Siting (the positioning of facilities to meet safety and regulatory requirements) constraints are often encountered, particularly on existing facilities with less clear space available for large volumes of EO storage. When standard layouts and separation distances are no longer available, Defence can turn to more advanced design solutions to safely increase storage within the existing site. Tailored options must be custom-designed with detailed risk-based assessments, making them more costly to deliver. As a result, specialist teams are required, and any proposal must be carefully tested against cost, safety and capability benefits.
- Specialist workforce and construction quality: EO storage facilities are not ‘business‑as‑usual’ construction and demand an experienced workforce. From surveyors to trades, even small errors can have major safety and capacity impacts. Fittings and equipment also have strict eDEOP 101 requirements. These details can be overlooked by contractors unfamiliar with EO facilities, raising the risk of re‑work, delays and safety noncompliance if the right specialists are not engaged early.
Integrating policy across Australian EO facilities
Although new interoperable EO facilities will demand a different design approach, one that transparently harmonises eDEOP 101 with NATO and US standards up front, there is a need for this approach to be implemented across new and existing Australian Defence EO storage and processing facilities also. By following an integrated policy process for new EO projects, gaps and conflicts between standards can be clearly identified, and layouts can be built that support multiple nations' requirements without compromising on safety, function, capability or security. Without proactively applying this process of integrating multiple policies, Defence and industry’s operational and capability demands could be at risk.
That application, from policy to standardised practice, is not routine design work. It requires specialists who:
- Have a comprehensive understanding of and experience in applying eDEOP 101, AASTP and US DoD standards.
- Can undertake gap analyses and understand bilateral agreements between nations.
- Can translate policy differences into workable facility designs, engaging stakeholders along the way.
AECOM has worked as design consultants on some of Australia’s most complex EO inventory management tasks. We’ve addressed ageing facilities and storage shortfalls while ensuring compliance with safety and operational standards to enhance network resilience, scalability, and surge capacity. Working with all stakeholders, particularly the regulator, was key to the success of these projects. Workshops, where transparent information was shared and decisions were made together, built trust, ensured compliance and prevented costly re-work.
Making the case for integrated policy specialism
EO planning is a specialised skill set that goes beyond dangerous goods handling and management. It requires a deep understanding of eDEOP 101, NATO and US standards and bilateral policy agreements, and the practical experience translating those policy differences into estate‑level designs.
An EO planning strategy that follows international best practice standards and meets Australian industry needs would provide these key benefits:
- Safety and compliance
- Operational efficiency
- Delivery pace and cost efficiencies
- Future-proofing for further scale
AECOM, through its global defence practice, has highly experienced explosives safety practitioners in Australia, Europe and the US. Its combined experience across global Defence environments and commitment to sharing insights, where allowed, strengthen its global capability to understand and harmonise eDEOP 101, NATO AASTP, and US DoD standards. AECOM, across its globally connected team of specialists in offices in Australia, the US and the UK, has demonstrated experience translating those frameworks into practical designs for EO infrastructure.
Those with embedded integrated policy expertise can apply eDEOP 101, NATO and US standards to create coherent, standardised facility layouts. This expertise could inform both individual projects and estate master planning for EO.
Done early and transparently, this policy integration becomes the foundation for predictable, faster delivery and operational efficiency. It also future-proofs Australian Defence EO facilities and operations as they grow to support the sovereign capability objective.