It's not as simple as that. The reason Nevada was chosen was specifically because it is so remote and ideal for housing nuclear waste for the next 10,000 years. It's not just the location, but the foundation in which has to be considered. Investing in two additional sites would essentially add another ten billion a piece, assuming that they each cost the same and the Yucca Mountain facility opened at 10 billion as it is. All things considered, the total quantity of waste produced by all American reactors is rather small when you get down to it. Compared to a single gigawatt coal plant, which generates about 200,000 tons of waste ash a year, the sum of about a hundred reactors over the course of sixty years is quite small. That 59,000 tons of radioactive waste is really that enormous. It makes the most sense to confine it all to a single location.