BOISE, Idaho - Saturday is the 41st anniversary of the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Experts say there are lessons in the incident, including for Idaho, where waste from the plant eventually ended up.

Associate Professor of English and Sustainability at Stony Brook University Heidi Hutner is the director of the documentary "Accidents Can Happen: The Women of Three Mile Island," which features four women left in the dark about the accident, inspiring them to join the anti-nuclear movement.

Hutner sees a lot of parallels between 1979 and now. She hopes Three Mile Island can be instructive.

"Because we still have many nuclear power plants operating and there's talk about building new nuclear power plants, I think it's essential that we look back at how that was handled - before, during and after - and be sure we don't replicate those errors," says Hutner.

At the Idaho National Laboratory, a first-of-its-kind nuclear power plant project - involving 12 small, modular reactors submerged in a single pool of water - has been proposed and is awaiting federal approval.

Executive Director of the Snake River Alliance Holly Harris says the proposed project from Oregon-based company NuScale would mostly provide power out of state.

She says the project comes with a lot of risks since it sits above the Snake River aquifer, which provides drinking water for about 300,000 Idahoans, and the nuclear industry has yet to come up with a long-term storage solution for nuclear waste.

Harris adds that renewable energy is less expensive, cleaner and more reliable than nuclear, and that she believes NuScale is experimenting with the Gem State.

"Idahoans are expected to bear this burden just as they were asked to do it or forced to do it 40 years ago," says Harris.

Hutner says another parallel with Three Mile Island is that the public still often is left out of the loop. She says it's time to start listening to affected communities.

"Who gets to decide what kind of energy we use?" asks Hutner. "Who makes the decisions? Is it the local people who will be impacted or is it a larger industry that stands to make a lot of money?"

BOISE, Idaho -- Hundreds of groups have signed a letter opposing nuclear subsidies in Congress's infrastructure and budget reconciliation bills.

The letter pointed to more than $50 billion in investments in nuclear power, including propping up aging plants.

Leigh Ford, executive director of the Snake River Alliance in Boise, said it would take away from movements toward climate, economic and environmental justice.

"Our concern is the amount of money that goes to nuclear research, development and old reactors when a lot of that money could go to renewable," Ford argued. "It's faster and cheaper, and bailing out old corrupt industries is not in our best interest right now."

Ford said subsidies are only predicted to go toward eight companies in as many states. Part of the money for research will likely go to small reactor technology being studied at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Supporters say nuclear power is an emissions-free technology integral to the transition toward cleaner energy sources.

Ford countered money for nuclear energy would be better spent on the installation of renewables such as solar.

"Solar is really fast, as opposed to nuclear," Ford contended. "It takes decades for nuclear. And another bad thing about nuclear is that one generation can use the power, while several generations have to guard and store and treat the waste."

Some of the more than 240 organizations that signed the letter include Food and Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, the League of Women Voters and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

BOISE, Idaho -- The U.S. Senate has passed a massive infrastructure bill, and buried within the package is $12 billion for the nuclear industry, but critics said the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Half of the money is reserved for nuclear facilities under threat of shutting down due to economic factors. The other half is for research and development, such as on the small modular nuclear reactor model being built in Idaho.

Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said the industry as a whole is struggling, with even the Idaho project being scaled back.

"By propping up the existing reactors and preventing them from being replaced with renewable energy, the nuclear industry's essentially trying to keep sort of a foothold in the energy system until they can try to ram some of these new reactor projects like the one in Idaho through, if it ever happens," Judson asserted.

He hopes the U.S. House makes changes to the investments in nuclear. The industry and some environmental groups have touted nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels as the country moves toward clean energy sources.

Judson noted it is a big deal many nuclear power plants need a bailout, adding it is as if nuclear companies are holding cities and states hostage.

"It's been this kind of perpetual process of a power plant's closure being announced, the company demanding a bailout, the state not knowing what else to do, so it gives the bailout," Judson recounted. "And this federal subsidy is going to be the same thing. There's no planning procedure included in this legislation."

He argued there needs to be more consideration about what to do with old power plants and aging infrastructure.

Judson pointed out another bill in Congress could provide up to $50 billion in subsidies for the industry over the next decade.

According to his organization's research, it will not mean any new jobs and the money would be more beneficially spent on electricity projects such as renewables, transmission systems and battery storage.

"If you spent that $50 billion on those things, it would create more than 60,000 new jobs," Judson emphasized. "And that's more than four times the number of workers that are employed at these nuclear plants that would get bailed out."

BOISE, Idaho -- As the U.S. aims to push past fossil fuel dependency, nuclear power is part of the conversation, but non-proliferation watchdogs hope a method for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to retrieve plutonium doesn't make a comeback.

Dr. Frank von Hippel, senior research physicist and professor of public and international affairs emeritus at Princeton University, said in reprocessing, spent reactor fuel is dissolved and plutonium or enriched uranium is separated out of the material.

"Originally, it was developed to separate plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons," von Hippel explained. "Now, some countries use it to separate out plutonium as well for use in nuclear fuel."

Reprocessing was banned in the 1970s after India's first nuclear detonation was tied to U.S. reprocessing technology.

The nuclear industry wants the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to loosen rules. In a 2020 letter to the NRC, the American Nuclear Society said reprocessing would get the most out of nuclear fuel and reduce waste.

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist for the group Beyond Nuclear, said there is high-level waste from the U.S. nuclear weapons program at the Idaho National Laboratory, although most of it is dried and stored.

He noted reprocessing operations from civilian companies do not have a good environmental track record in the U.S.

"We see high-level radioactive waste, irradiated nuclear fuel, as just that, it's a forever deadly waste that needs to be isolated from the environment," Kamps asserted. "Reprocessing does the opposite of that. It releases a part of it into the environment, inevitably."

The Idaho National Laboratory said it does reprocessing research on small quantities of spent nuclear fuel. It's part of research into the development of advanced reactor concepts.

Von Hippel believes there is renewed interest in the technology. In late May, he and other non-proliferation experts raised concerns in an open letter to Canada's prime minister about the country's financial support for a company that has proposed reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

Von Hippel also hopes to convince the Biden administration that there is no need to revisit the technology.

"There's no good economic or environmental reason for civilian plutonium separation," Von Hippel argued. "So I, and many colleagues, say that no country should separate plutonium for nominally civilian purposes. It is a weapons-usable material."