I wouldn't know, the media here write more about US politics than EU and hardly anything about what's going on in other European countries. You're lucky if they cover an election in a neighbouring country. So you basically have to try and read their national news if you want to keep up with what's happening there. Getting waaay of topic again..
Here's what Finland is doing to store nuclear waste.
...
Actually, I think that video is just more scaremongering. All that talk about warning messages and thorny fields and what not.
If the nuclear accidents themselves doesn't turn out to be so bad, then you can always invent a new bogeyman by saying the waste is a problem.
Nuclear waste is not a big technical problem, it's mainly a political problem. People are more afraid of radiation than other kind of dangerous materials because it's something they have no intuition for. It would be better to deposit the material in an even less accessible area than they do in Finland, preferably a subduction zone, but due to the political opposition to all things nuclear that's not possible. But I'm confident that it's still more than good enough location.
The US have been talking about putting waste in Yucca Mountain. I don't know how geologically stable Yucca Mountain is so I can't say if it's a good location, but I'm sure there are other good spots in the US as well.
The "risk" that some hypothetical future post apocalyptic civilisation will have forgotten all about ionising radiation, while still managing to dig a km down through solid bedrock and get in contact with nuclear waste, seems sort of ridiculously unlikely. But even if they did it's an acceptable risk. In that unlikely scenario maybe a few people would get sick, maybe even die. But even if you factor that into the equation, overall, nuclear is still one of the safest and cleanest methods for generating electricity that exists today and it is madness to not use it to replace fossil fuels (and burning in general).