I interpret this as a general sentiment against creating long-term (as in, millions of years) nuclear waste that is "simply" thrown away somewhere -- despite substantial and expensive assurances that a good somewhere has been found. And I agree.
So deal with the waste, or don't produce such things in the first place -- though a bit late for that one. Sooner or later we have to deal with the consequences of making all this stuff, like reprocessing it while keeping bomb-grade material out of the hands of bad guys. Live and learn.
In other words, a better model is needed for the entire uranium (etc) life cycle. What's failing is handling it piecemeal, along with the concept that there's an "away", as in garbage throw-away, which is already far too ingrained in our consumer mentality. No wonder there's controversy as we slowly and painfully and expensively learn that this concept doesn't apply to nuclear waste.