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.

The Hanford Nuclear Site on the Columbia River in central Washington has left a complex legacy for the region.

An interactive story map imagines what a water droplet would see if it passed through the site to help young people understand how Hanford affects the environment.

Lisa Muñoz, outreach coordinator for Columbia Riverkeeper, the group behind the story map, called Hanford the "most contaminated place in the Western Hemisphere," and a threat to the waters of the Columbia. Muñoz noted the content about Hanford hazards is most often in English, although the nearby Tri-Cities area has a large Spanish-speaking population.

"So if we want everyone to have an equal opportunity to engage with the cleanup of Hanford, we really have to have clearly written materials that are accessible in their preferred language," Muñoz explained.

The Hanford Nuclear Site is decommissioned, but cleanup of the area will take generations to complete. Columbia Riverkeeper's story map, called "Water's Walk Through Hanford," is designed for middle and high school-age students.

Ivonne Romero translated the story into Spanish and said it is designed to be accessible not only to young people, but their families as well. She noted the story has stuck with her.

"I finished the translation over a month ago, but I cannot stop thinking about the importance of preserving our habitat," Romero remarked. "But also the pressing need for developing energy and creating energy in ways that are probably less deleterious to humankind."

Muñoz added it is important for young people to know about Washington's nuclear site because they are part of the river communities facing continued risks from nuclear waste.

"Hanford is a multigenerational cleanup. It's going to be there in a hundred years," Muñoz stressed. "The future of Hanford will ultimately depend on the next generation advocating for cleanup that is thorough and just."

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.