Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Changes Needed to Ensure DOE Is Not Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Large Projects | U.S. GAO
Skip to main content
GAO-26-108193
Published: Jul 02, 2026. Publicly Released: Jul 02, 2026.
Jump To:
Elder Abuse
Services for Older Adults
State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends
State and Local Fiscal Projections
Federal Borrowing
Managing the Debt
Summary of Funding Provisions
Summary of FYs 2022-2024 Funds
Status of FYs 2022-2024 Funds
Implementation of FYs 2022-2023 Projects
Previous Tracking the Funds Reports
Auditing the Government's Books
Unpacking the Financial Report
Highlights
Recommendations
Background
About This Work
About This Work
Topics
Trends
About the Center
Why It's High Risk
What Remains To Be Done
Key Reports
Newest COVID-Related Reports
AI Use Cases
Flood Insurance
Past Pandemic-Related Reports
CARES Act Oversight Reports
All COVID-19 Reports
Report Suspected Fraud
Subjects
How to Get Notified
Past Reports
Public Health Threats
Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds
Status of FY22 Projects
Lessons Learned
Agency Reports
Recent Reports
Recommendations
Supplemental Material
Full Report
Additional Data
View Decision
Downloads
Previously Identified Actions
Related Pages
Associated Agencies
Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead
Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas
Retirement Security Key Areas
Current List
About The High Risk List
Area Ratings
Previous High Risk Products
Search Federal Vacancies
Past Federal Vacancies
Violation Letters
About the Yellow Book
Related Resources
Comment Letters
Related Publications
Contacts and Resources
Types of Changes
Listing of Key Changes
Major Issues Facing the Nation
Meeting Strategic Challenges
Additional Resources
About the Green Book
Resources
Advisory Council
Mission Teams
Operations and Staff Offices
Organization Chart
Why a Career at GAO?
Am I Qualified?
Company Culture
Reasonable Accommodations
Video Gallery
Paid Internships
Student Volunteers
Professional Development Program
Advancement
Executive Candidate Program
Summer Associates
Externships
Benefits
Contacts
Priority Open Recommendation Letters
Key Resources
Major Issues
Downloadable Resources
How Could Federal Debt Affect You?
GAO Contacts
Drivers
Interest
Sustainability
What Needs to Be Done?
Technology Assessments
Science & Tech Spotlights
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Related Reports
Performance Audits
Blogs
Multimedia
Podcasts
Videos
Career Highlights
Tribute Videos & Statements
Testimonies
Presentations
Forums & Roundtables
Fast Facts
To clean up nuclear waste, the Department of Energy spends billions of taxpayer dollars on large projects, like waste treatment facilities.
When planning these projects, DOE should identify a need without having a particular solution already in mind. This allows for openness to a range of solutions. But legal and regulatory constraints and contractor involvement in this stage have sometimes led to a less optimal solution.
We recommended DOE include independent experts before approving a solution. This can help provide an impartial view of whether the department is considering all viable, cost-saving options.
A yellow hard hat and blueprints on a desk
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
What GAO Found
GAO has previously found that the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) has not followed its standards for defining mission need for some large projects. A mission need statement documents DOE’s identification of a mission-related need and, according to DOE standards, should not identify a particular solution. This ensures that DOE does not limit potential solutions at the project initiation stage. However, the majority of mission need statements that GAO reviewed for EM’s large projects identify a particular solution. For example, the mission need statement for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility project at the Oak Ridge Reservation proposed “a new mercury treatment facility.” EM officials said they did not see an issue with identifying a solution at the mission need stage because other solutions are explored in later planning stages. However, GAO found instances where EM did not consider or pursue potential cost-saving options as project planning continued because a preferred solution was identified in the mission need stage.
Rendering of the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility, a Large Capital Asset Project at the Oak Ridge Reservation
Legal and regulatory constraints are one factor that has limited what solutions EM has considered for some large projects. For example, experts in GAO’s discussion groups said that EM did not pursue a cheaper yet technically sound treatment for one type of radioactive waste at the Idaho National Laboratory due to an existing agreement with regulators. Instead, EM spent taxpayer money over many years...