I view myself as quite knowledgeable about nuclear energy and related topics such as uranium mining, radiation hazards to humans and other living things, and dealing with nuclear waste.  My position is:  In almost all cases, nuclear waste should remain at the power plant where it is produced, in the case of uranium mining, at the mine site where ore is produced, or at the site of laboratories or other scientific facilities where nucleat materials are tested.  I think there may be a very small number of cases in which nuclear waste must be moved due to impingeing human populations or a need to protect species of plants, animals or fish that cannot be otherwise protected.  Nuclear power plants immediately adjacent to residential, commercial, administraive or other proprties MAY offer no alternative, but I view these are very rare instances.

It is therefore my view that transporting nuclear waste to planned rural/remote sites should almost NEVER be allowed.

I believe Deep Geological Repositories (DGRs) cannot deal with the amount of radioactive material proposed for it, nor the intensity of radiation for the known life of radioactive materials proposed for that kind of material management.  I am aware of current cases such as the Hanford Site in Washington State, USA where storage of nuclear waste has proven unsatisfactory and unsustainable, and is, for me, a signal of the importance of making much better arrangements for storage of nuclear waste than is currently the case or currently planned.