There is probably other ways of doing it, but saying there is no method ready is wrong. I would prefer to burn it again in a breeder and get 500yr waste instead of 50k yr waste. But if we're going to bury it, this will keep the stuff safe for the time needed.
In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel:
"...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amounts generated are manageable and in a relatively short amount of time we can use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.
You might change your mind on that after a bit of reflection; it doesn't make sense. We produce a bunch of things that are going to be hazardous forever - I always point to lead when nuclear comes up. The only reason anyone talks about nuclear waste is because 1 football field is small enough that we could contain it forever. Most industrial processes produce too much hazardous waste for that to be feasible.
This is actually a particularly apt comparison, because Uranium is a toxic heavy metal that affects the body much like lead. Nuclear waste is toxic forever - but it was toxic before it was used as nuclear fuel, too.
I portray it this way: buried in the ground there's toxic uranium in unknown locations. We're taking all this toxic material and putting it in a known location where we can monitor it. And in between we use it to generate carbon free energy.
The coal industry's astroturfed anti-nuclear campaign in the 1960s and 1970s has warped thinking on this for generations.
The only problem is the political problem of choosing the sites.