Actinide burning reactors are IMHO a better path forward. There are various proposals and research reactors, some using alternate fuel cycles.

The bottom line is the nastiest stuff in spent nuclear fuel are the actinides. They're all naturally radioactive and most of the stuff with long (10,000+ year) half lives that requires long-term storage. You need Yucca Mountain mostly for the actinides. If instead you smash them with fast neutrons you can get them to fission, releasing some energy (though sub-critical) and transmuting them into either much more stable isotopes (little radioactive decay) or really unstable ones (nasty but they decay so fast you only need to hold onto them for a few days/months/years).

The short version is besides reprocessing spent fuel we should be putting the nasty stuff through the sausage grinder again to turn it into much less nasty stuff instead of fighting over where to keep the nasty stuff safe for 100,000 years.

There aren't technical problems, only political ones.

Yucca mountain has been designated as the long term storage site since 1987 by Congress. Every change of party majority since then has either stopped or restarted work on it.

Hanford has been consuming roughly 10% of the deparment of energy's annual budget for many years and is projected to continue to do so for decades. and the cleanup effort has been fraught with scary mishaps.

Personally, I think Yucca mountain is a great place to store it in the USA but that will likely never be politically viable. And I'm not sure what solutions exist for nations outside of North America.

I'm also personally still concerned about transportation accidents resulting in permanently contaminated areas.