I'm one of those proponents.

Like many proponents, I'm not claiming the problem does not exist. I do think it is minor, although not insignificant. But I think you (and in general nuclear opponents) claim that the problem is not only significant, it is a deal breaker.

Decommissioning a gigawatt scale nuclear reactor costs an average of $1 BN in the US. Holtec International specializes in this work [1].

So, I did Step 0 in your list: admitting there is a problem.

Would you mind proceeding to Step 1: admitting there is a solution?

[1] https://holtecinternational.com/company/divisions/hdi/

This headline/article is about cleaning up sites from the early years of nuclear experimentation/research and from nuclear weapons production.

There were various accidents and a great deal of improper (at least by modern standards) handling of materials and wastes. The cleanup being talked about here is about cleaning up that contamination.

There's no dispute from anyone on any side that I am aware of that these places are heavily contaminated, need to be cleaned up, and are complicated to clean up.

-------

This headline and the findings have absolutely nothing to do with handling nuclear waste from commercial power production or commercial nuclear reactor sites.