Orange County Rep. Loretta Sanchez on Thursday condemned the burial of millions of pounds of nuclear waste on a San Onofre beach bluff and faulted her opponent in the race for the U.S. Senate for not fighting the controversial project.

“Kamala Harris’ failure to lead on this issue makes her the wrong choice for California’s senator,” Sanchez said. “California needs a senator who doesn’t bury problems in the sand.”

Sanchez also said Harris, California’s attorney general, has dragged her feet on a state probe of the California Public Utilities Commission in connection with its decision to have ratepayers fund $3.3 billion in costs associated with the premature shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Harris has been ahead in the polls, and her campaign dismissed Thursday’s attack as the latest sign of Sanchez’s troubles.

“Representative Sanchez today is embarking on a deeply dishonest and negative campaign, falsely attacking and politicizing an ongoing criminal investigation,” Harris campaign spokesman Nathan Click said in an email. “It’s what Californians have come to expect from Sanchez, who has been repeatedly criticized for her divisive attacks against Muslims, Native Americans and even President Obama.”

David Beltran, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said the investigation of PUC actions related to San Onofre is continuing.

Sanchez’s attack comes as her campaign struggles to gain traction.

She trailed Harris in the June primary, with the attorney general receiving 40 percent of the vote to Sanchez’s 19 percent. A July survey by the Public Policy Institute found the congresswoman lagging with 20 percent voter support to Harris’ 38 percent.

Targeting the state attorney general for the handling of San Onofre nuclear waste is a twist in a long-running public debate, in part because the federal government is contractually obligated to dispose of the radioactive material. Because no federal repository exists, there’s no place for the waste to go – and it can’t be moved from the mothballed power plant without federal approval. State officials have little say in what happens to the waste.

As a congresswoman for 20 years, Sanchez was positioned to push for solutions from the federal government. Both of California’s U.S. senators – Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer – have introduced bills over the years to try to address nuclear waste disposal, but neither has gotten far.

Sanchez spokesman Luis Vizcaino said the congresswoman has dealt with the issue in connection with her work on the House Armed Services Committee, mainly dealing with nuclear waste from the military.

A new federal push to license temporary waste storage sites – while the Department of Energy works out the prickly permanent-repository question – has local officials hopeful that San Onofre’s waste might be moved in the next decade or so.

Sanchez launched her attack at a news conference alongside Mike Aguirre, a utility reform activist and former San Diego city attorney, and attorney and consumer advocate Maria Severson. Aguirre has filed a lawsuit challenging the Coastal Commission’s approval of expanded temporary waste storage at San Onofre, which is now under construction. As the state’s attorney, Harris’ duties include defending the Coastal Commission and other agencies from lawsuits such as Aguirre’s.

Aguirre criticized Harris, noting that Gov. Jerry Brown, when he served as attorney general, refused to defend Proposition 8, the initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage in California. Harris could have, and should have, done the same in connection with the coastal panel’s San Onofre actions, Aguirre said.

“What she should have said is, ‘I’m sorry, that’s a violation, I can’t defend this; I don’t legally think you can do it,’” Aguirre said. “Here she’s on board 100 percent.”

Harris’ actions will cost California’s businesses and residents billions over the next decade, Aguirre said.

Harris’ investigation was prompted by undisclosed meetings between PUC executives and Southern California Edison, San Onofre’s operator. Of particular interest was an exchange at a conference at the Hotel Bristol Warsaw in Poland in March 2013 involving PUC President Michael Peevey and Edison’s then-Executive Vice President Stephen Pickett. There, on hotel stationery, Pickett scribbled the framework of “a possible resolution” to San Onofre shutdown costs that is very similar to the one ultimately adopted.

That agreement places the bulk of the costs – $3.3 billion – on ratepayers. Edison’s shareholders will shoulder $1.4 billion.

Consumer groups that agreed to the deal pulled out after the Warsaw meeting was disclosed.

The PUC has reopened those proceedings, which could result in Edison shareholders picking up more of the shutdown costs.

Contact the writer: tsforza@scng.commwisckol@scng.com