State officials are applauding a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision requiring the federal government to remove all transuranic nuclear waste from the Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, but they warn the issue could be far from resolved.

"We're pleased, obviously, with the decision," said Jon Hanian, press secretary for Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter. "But who is to say if this is the end of it or not?"

Last week's opinion from the three-judge panel affirms an earlier federal district court decision related to a 1995 agreement between the state and federal government, under which the state agreed to provide temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel. In return, the feds agreed to remove high-level nuclear waste stored at the area during the Cold War.

The feds questioned the deal after the agreement, saying they'd agreed to remove above-ground waste at the site, but not all the buried waste -- barrels, boxes and equipment dumped into unlined trenches.

The state sued, saying the feds were backing out of the deal.

Meanwhile, the federal government began to develop waste-removal plans under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, a law aimed at cleaning up environmental hazards.

In December, the U.S. Department of Energy unveiled its proposal for cleanup at the site -- plans that did not include removing all the transuranic waste. At the time, the state wasn't commenting on the proposal, saying it wanted to hear the appeals court decision before taking a position.

This week, Curt Fransen, deputy director of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, said the state could meet soon with the feds to discuss moving forward on the CERCLA proposal.

But some nuclear activists, including Twin Falls' Peter Rickards, question the state's sincerity on its "all means all" position.

If the state genuinely wanted all the transuranic waste removed, it should have taken a position on the CERCLA proposal before now, Rickards said.

"It's slow-motion theater of the absurd," he said. "The state is afraid to demand a full cleanup because they're afraid of losing jobs. If they can get away with pretending to want a cleanup (by pursuing a lawsuit) ... they'll do it. We're being sold a cleanup that is not clean."

The federal government's waste-removal proposal is estimated to cost about $1 billion. Removing all the waste could cost as much as $13 billion. Activists say if the DOE is forced to pay for a full cleanup, it will cut other programs at the site, which threatens jobs valuable to the state.

The feds have already removed about 700 cubic meters of waste from the site -- just a fraction of the 36,800 cubic meters stored there. Under its proposal, it would remove about 6,200 cubic meters.

Waste, mostly from nuclear weapons programs, was dumped at the site from 1954 until 1970, often haphazardly rolled into shallow, unlined pits off the backs of trucks. In 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission determined storage methods like the ones used at INL weren't appropriate, and the government stopped burying waste.

Federal officials had estimated it would take tens of thousands of years for contamination to reach the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, a Vermont-sized underground water source for hundreds of thousands of southern Idaho residents that flows beneath the site. In 1995, they changed that prediction to 30 years.

Five years later, water samples taken from wells at the site tested positive for plutonium contamination.

All the more reason to speed resolution in the waste-removal matter, state officials say. Idaho's federal lawmakers also want resolution.

"I support and encourageC"b,"continued cooperation between the state and DOE on resolving in a practical and timelyC"b,"mannerC"b,"of theC"b,"issue ofC"b,"buried waste retrieval and disposal at the INL," said Sen. Larry Craig in a statement.

Craig, who has been instrumental in securing federal funding for the INL, said it's important the groups move forward in line with the original 1995 agreement that required full waste removal.

The federal government can ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to again review the case, or it can appeal to the Supreme Court, though neither court are obligated to hear the appeal.