A couple of points are relevant here.
Firstly it is incorrect to assume that other industrial plants bear their full risks.
Any insurance policy has wide exclusions, which come under the heading of sovereign risk.
For instance, a gas tanker has massive amounts of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, and is a much softer target than a nuclear reactor.
It could easily take out a city it attacked.
Insurance does not cover this risk. In fact, insurance does not effectively cover anything which is large enough to exceed the solvency of the insurance industry.
The coal industry would already be bankrupt if it paid for the damage done be it's emissions in health terms alone, let alone carbon emissions, so that what is being asked for is suddenly perfection, which as I argue above is an unrealistic target in the very difficult energy environment we live in.
Secondly, a lot of what you are saying is largely related to America. the litigatious environment in America is one which is in danger of crippling many industries, not just the nuclear industry, and even a trivial leak which would damage no-ones health might result in massive and punitive claims.
In my view we ought to be focussing on how to make a variety of energy options work, not finding new obstacles to prevent them.