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.

After being rejected by Texas and Utah, the federal government has now picked New Mexico to house the nation's spent nuclear fuel, but the governor said the state will not be a "dumping ground."

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced last week it intends to issue a license to Holtec International, to locate a toxic waste storage facility in Lea County. Holtec has proposed to transport high-level nuclear waste from the East Coast across the country via rail lines to a facility slated for the state's southeast corner.

Don Hancock, nuclear waste program director at the Southwest Research and Information Center, objected to the decision.

"This is a very bad idea," Hancock asserted. "These kinds of waste facilities proposed in Texas and New Mexico and previously Utah, and historically it has been bipartisan Republican and Democratic opposition."

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham accused the NRC of putting profit over public interest. A bill to prohibit such a facility was introduced in the New Mexico Legislature last year, but failed to move forward. A similar bill passed in Texas. In a statement, Grisham said new legislation would have her full support.

Holtec said the New Mexico operation for nuclear waste would be temporary, but nonetheless seeks a 40-year license with the opportunity for renewal. New Mexico does not have a nuclear power plant within its borders, and Hancock argued the state should not have to solve the nation's nuclear waste problem.

"None of this waste we're talking about is in New Mexico," Hancock emphasized. "If it actually were a good thing, if it were safe, Holtec or anybody else wouldn't be thinking about trying to find someplace else."

Used nuclear fuel is currently housed at more than 75 U.S. locations. Holtec argued consolidation would better secure the radioactive waste from threats. Multiple New Mexico groups including tribal leaders oppose the operations. The NRC's final environmental assessment stated it would have minimal impacts on land, oil and gas, livestock operations and public health.

New, smaller designs for nuclear reactors have been touted as vital for the clean energy future, but new research found they could generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants.

The study from Stanford University and the University of British Columbia said small reactors could produce two to 30 times the amount of waste in need of management and disposal compared with typical reactors.

NuScale Power plans to build a small modular reactor near Idaho Falls.

Don Safer, co-chair of the Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign, said it is one of the first investigations into waste problems for the new designs.

"You can find a lot of information about all the wonderful things that they're supposed to do, but you can't find hardly any information about the waste they will create," Safer pointed out. "It's hard to get any of the technical details about the downsides of these reactors."

Nuclear reactors produce little carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. They provide about one-fifth of the country's energy.

Rodney Ewing, professor of nuclear security at Stanford University and one of the study's authors, said there should be a greater onus on the vendors developing and receiving federal support for advanced reactors to conduct open research on the nuclear waste issue.

Commercial plants in the U.S. have produced about 88,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, with the most radioactive waste to be stored underground for hundreds of thousands of years. However, the study's authors noted the U.S. does not have a program to develop its own underground repository.

Safer argued it is another major concern.

"It should be required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that before they license any of these designs, they have a full understanding of where this waste is going to go, how it's going to be stored and what the realities that we're going to be placing onto future generations are," Safer outlined.

Safer added the report should send a message to potential host communities of new reactor technologies, such as Idaho Falls and the nearby NuScale project.

"The takeaway is to ask questions about the fuel cycle, and what the waste will be and what the coolant will be, and how they're going to deal with the physical and chemical realities that those choices make," Safer concluded.

Radioactive soil in Australia is being excavated and shipped to a waste disposal facility in Idaho.

The soil was polluted from a carbolic acid plant and uranium refinery that operated a century ago and is located in a suburb of Sydney.

The low-level radioactive waste will go to US Ecology's Grand View site in southwest Idaho. The news has been a relief for Australian residents living on the soil, but has raised a concern among some in the Gem State.

Tami Thatcher is a nuclear safety consultant for Environmental Defense Institute and former nuclear safety analyst at Idaho National Laboratory.

"Whenever you become aware of how radioactive waste is shipped from around the country and from around the world to Idaho, it's kind of alarming," said Thatcher.

Excavation of the contaminated soil began in September and is expected to take 18 to 24 months. It totals about 1,900 tons.

A spokesperson for US Ecology says the soil and debris are contaminated with a very low level of naturally occurring radioactive material but fall well below the established criteria in the company's Idaho permit.

Thatcher said there have been concerns about US Ecology's Grand View operations. In 2018, an explosion at the site killed one person and injured three others.

"They've never admitted where the waste came from," said Thatcher. "What type of waste it was and why it is - when they mixed their magnesium oxide to neutralize the waste - it blew sky high."

An investigation into the explosion found there was "non-conforming waste" included in material that was not supposed to be part of the waste stream.

US Ecology is the only commercial hazardous waste landfill operating to Idaho. According to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the facility received nearly 110,000 tons of waste in 2020, 96% of which came from outside the state or country.