That involves either creating more waste, or a sizable particle accelerator though. It's not too difficult, but it's quite expensive on a large scale to say the least.
France does this still actually, but we do not. Too toxic an issue. (no pun intended.)
I've always been perplexed though at the 10,000 year requirement of the repository, as if envisioning all progress stopped for that period of time. Would this not be considered an interim step if, one hundred years from now, we found an economically sound alternative not available earlier?
I am not suggesting for a moment that this become a "kick the can" solution, but rather, the issue of nuclear waste is an ongoing project of management, not simply "stick in the ground for 10,000 years." If it turns out that in 200 years, we still do not have a better way of dealing with it, then take it out of the vault and put it in a better one.