I know you're making that out like it's a bad thing, but I actually think it's a good strategy to hold out as long as you can, because the more time passes, the more likely technology will catch up and make clean up slightly less difficult.
That is a huge ass assumption.
You realize thinking like this is exactly why we have the environmental issues we do today? No one wanting to make the tough choices (back when the problems were first discovered), let's keep going as we are and in the future I'm sure we'll come up with a solution. ("of course, if we haven't I'll be pushing up daisies anyway," they were thinking back then).
Back in the '60s folks through by the turn of the millennium we'd all be driving flying cars and living on other planets. That didn't happen, not even close. A hopeful dream by futurists and sci-fi writers. Staking the future of the environment on things that haven't been developed isn't any better. The companies that run the plants could have been putting money away, into a trust fund-like arrangement to pay the plant's decommissioning and demolition costs, but that would cut into the profits every quarter. Better to leave it all for "the next management team" to deal with. Bonus points if you can make it a God-awful mess and force the federal government to come in and take over the whole thing! Then the tax payers get to pay for the cleanup while we keep all the profits from over the decades!