I REFER to "Nuclear claims unconvincing", Warwick Daily News, January 27, 2016.

The question of "why aren't you looking at sites next to major cities if it really is so safe?" is one that has been asked regularly.

There are several reasons why this is the case.

Firstly, it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to build a long-lived industrial facility somewhere where it is likely to be rapidly encroached on by an expanding population.

The facility should be located far enough from suburban areas to ensure there won't be a competing use for the land in the future.

However, the facility also needs to be located close enough to a community to provide the economic and social support it needs.

This includes a stable workforce, homes and a community for its employees and their families, and ready access to a range of businesses that can service its day to day requirements.

In return the facility will provide a long-lasting economic and social boost for the host community.

A single, national facility is in line with international best practice, and would bring together waste currently held in more than 100 locations around Australia.

No matter where the facility is eventually located, the material in it will be so well protected that you can stand next to the facility and receive no higher radiation dose than you would get standing anywhere else in Australia.

Further, this extraordinarily safe, purpose-built facility will have no impacts on air, water or ground quality, and will be overseen by a strong, independent nuclear regulator.

To back this up statement, we will publicly release all environmental and safety data to make sure full transparency around the operation of the site is maintained.

This safety is a fact that will be proven by, measured by and monitored through science.

- Bruce Wilson, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science