Fair points, there is far less spent fuel than most people think, but there are other types of radioactive waste and engaging in too much hyperbole about how little there is probably isn't a great idea.
That said, there are a couple of other points in response. Regarding low-level radioactive waste, a lot of that depends on local regulations and is often a matter of being overly cautious rather than sensible safety considerations. For example, I'm not in the nuclear industry but we do have to deal with radioactivity, and sustainability is a big consideration these days. That means figuring out how to re-use or recycle various bits of lab equipment and similar. Here in the UK, it's not too difficult - measure how radioactive something is, and if has become activated maybe leave it for a while before it can be sent somewhere else. Usually not even as long as a year. On the other hand, some French colleagues get very frustrated because French regulations essentially say that nothing that has been in an environment where any radiation is present can ever be moved off site ever again. Even if something is less radioactive than the ground outside, once it's entered a controlled radiation area and has to be measured, the limits are so low that it's pretty much impossible for it to ever stop being considered low-level waste. So the fact that there can be a lot of waste that is considered low level waste does not necessarily mean that's a sensible way to treat it. The leftovers after enriching uranium are, obviously, less radioactive than the ore you started with. But you can't just bury it in the same hole it came out of because now it's dangerous radioactive waste that must be disposed of safely.
Secondly, it's important to remember that historical waste is not necessarily the same as new waste. A lot of the problems with contaminated ground exist because all kinds of crap was just dumped with no thought of consequences. A single barrel of water poured on the ground can contaminate thousands of tons of soil. The site I work at is currently dealing with a legacy of nuclear research. One part is practically a quarry where huge amounts of soil are being dug up and removed, not because it's all radioactive, but because no-one is even sure exactly what was dumped there in the '50s and '60s so some of it might be (and also potentially full of toxic chemicals and heavy metals). The Hanford site is likely similar. It doesn't really have 710k m3 of radioactive waste, it just has a huge amount of potentially contaminated crap from actual waste leaking out of inadequate tanks and similar.
So sure, as I said nuclear waste is an issue and needs to be dealt with properly. But there is hopefully a middle ground somewhere between dumping it on the ground and pretending it's not there, and treating everything that's ever heard the word "nuclear" as high level waste that must be safely contained for millions of years. We've created a lot of radioactive waste in the past by our poor choices, not because it's inherent to nuclear power. And we continue to create a lot of radioactive waste because we choose to call it that, not necessarily because it actually is.
And of course, the main point remains - fossil fuels are so polluting at every stage of their production and use that we really could just dump all our nuclear waste willy-nilly and still end up far better off than the current situation.