The far far bigger problem is continuing to use early reactor designs past their end of life!
Power plants are not cars, they are not maintained like a car and operational life span is not measured like a car.
Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant - 37 years
Glen Canyon Dam - 44 years
Hoover Dam - 74 years
We should have continued building and updating designs over the last 30 or 40 years, but anti-nuclear nuts have left us all pretty damn screwed.
New designs are in fact available but are irrelevant. The decision to close an older power generation facility falls to a business decision or regulation decision. A corporation is in business to profit, they will run a nuclear power plant into the ground if it is more profitable than investing in alternative power generation. And from my experience with machinery, investment and corporate planning in U.S. businesses they refuse to think long term, 3 year planning is an eternity for U.S. business planning let alone 3 decades.
And when you consider the length of time that radioactive contamination impacts mining areas, refinery areas, waste areas and the rare, but obviously not impossible, catastrophic power plant incident it is debatable who is the nut job, the people who are armed with reality and have an issue or those who ignore reality and continually pound their finger on their theoretical plans and designs.
But if it makes you feel better to ignore reality and blame everything on anti-nuclear nuts then knock yourself out. Like it or not these issues with old facilities are going to be a long term issue whether corporations build new facilities or not. And if they do not properly maintain and operate the uranium mining operations, the refineries, the waste facilities or the power generation facilities for the new facilities in the same way they have operated poorly in the past then this will continue to be an issue for any new designs when they have reached what in your opinion is their end of life but for the corporation it is still profitable.