‘Nuclear waste here? Why not?’

As reported shortly before Christmas, scientists at Sandia National Laboratories have produced a handful of studies into geologic formations that might replace the scuttled Yucca Mountain site for disposal of highly radioactive wastes.

A 114-page report issued in August, for instance, has revived discussion about possibly burying nuclear waste in granite deposits that are prevalent along the eastern seaboard and the upper Midwest.

Former Gov. Madeleine Kunin of Vermont told the Associated Press her state was not interested the last time the government looked at granite for nuclear waste storage, and she doubted Vermont would be any more welcoming now.

But in an editorial published today, the Duluth (Minn.) News Tribune said Minnesota and Wisconsin should keep an open mind.

The headline: "Nuclear waste here?  Actually, why not?"

"If the Northland and the Great Lakes region really does have ideally solid granite, if our geologic stability is equally as ideal, and if the waste can be stored safely, then, well — well, let’s not say no just yet," the paper said.

"With open minds unpolluted by propaganda, by bad information or by catchy, curbside rallying cries, let’s consider what the scientists have to say. Then let’s talk about charging astronomical rents to store the stuff. Let’s weigh the potential economic boon vs. any risks."

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future is expected to release its final report at the end of the month recommending one or more nuclear waste disposal sites as the Obama administration seeks replacements for Nevada.

While the blue ribbon commission is not expected to specify any locations,  its report is expected to form the basis for the next chapter in the government's effort to manage stockpiles of highly radioactive used nuclear fuel and other poisonous wastes.