Boxer Alleges Cover-Up of Nuclear Dump’s Perils : Waste: Senator questions studies assuring that water supplies near Ward Valley site will not be contaminated. Operator says safety concerns have been rebutted by government officials.

Accusing state and federal officials of covering up the dangers of the proposed Ward Valley nuclear dump, Sen. Barbara Boxer on Monday cited two studies that cast doubt on official assurances that vital water supplies would be safe from contamination.

The California Democrat described the response by Sacramento and Washington to the findings as scandalous, saying Gov. Pete Wilson and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt were relying heavily on the company that wants to operate the dump--and which she said, stands to make “billions” from it--to determine whether the project is safe.

Boxer also charged that a hearing on safety issues that is supposed to be held before the dump can be built will be a “sham” if it is conducted in the manner state and federal officials have in mind.

“Project opponents will not be allowed legal discovery rights to uncover information that has been suppressed,” she said. That, Boxer said, will make it virtually impossible to examine the findings she believes have been covered up: reports by government geologists and the Metropolitan Water District that contend that radioactive waste water could make its way to the Colorado River.

“The safety of generations to come rests on avoiding irreversible mistakes now,” Boxer said at a news conference at the Federal Building on the Westside. “The wastes planned for the unlined trenches of Ward Valley include extraordinarily toxic and very long-lived radioactive materials.”

Spokesmen for US Ecology, the firm licensed to operate the dump, disputed Boxer’s claims, saying the concerns she raised are old hat and have been rebutted by scientists working for the government and not US Ecology. With government offices closed for the Columbus Day holiday, state and federal officials could not be reached for comment.

The Ward Valley site, south of Needles in the eastern Mojave Desert about 20 miles from the Colorado River, has been the subject of debate for almost a decade. The waste deposited there would come mostly from nuclear power plants.

Last month, Babbitt released an environmental impact report, addressing safety issues raised over the years and discounting some of the concerns cited by Boxer in her news conference. About the same time, the state Department of Health Services issued operating licenses for the dump, after dismissing other concerns Boxer now wants readdressed.

At issue is a memo from three geologists employed by the U.S. Geological Survey, a branch of the Interior Department, and a report by an MWD consulting firm. Conducted independently, both dispute the environmental impact statement in two important areas. Each contends that water working its way into the dump could leach radioactive materials and transport them to ground water. Moreover, the studies say the surrounding geology would allow such contaminated water to get into the Colorado River by one of several pathways.

Boxer said that in dismissing the arguments of the three geologists, the Interior Department relied on information provided by US Ecology.

“No one at the department ever even tried to find out if the geologists’ concerns were justified. . . . In fact, the department submitted the USGS memo to US Ecology to prepare a rebuttal and never gave the geologists a chance to respond to US Ecology.”

Boxer said the department muzzled the geologists after she asked them to reply to the US Ecology response to their memo.

“USGS officials in Washington prohibited these geologists from responding to my request in their official capacity,” Boxer said. “While they will be permitted to respond as private citizens, they will not be allowed access to government property or other government experts to help answer the US Ecology rebuttal.”

Howard Wilshire, one of the geologists, said Monday that he and his colleagues prepared their memo at the invitation of Babbitt’s office.

“When Babbitt indicated he was going to review the matter, we saw no input from USGS. The three of us decided we should inform Babbitt that we had material and experience with Ward Valley,” Wilshire said. “Babbitt’s office replied that they were interested.”

In a July letter to the director of the USGS, a engineering consultant to US Ecology accused the three geologists of bias, saying their “memo is an unfortunate example of the ability of advocacy groups to use the good name of the (USGS) for such political purposes.”

The MWD study was undertaken, board member Dell Scott said, because of the agency’s worries that the Colorado River, a water source for 17 million people in Southern California, might be threatened by contamination if the dump were built.

But state health officials told MWD officials in September that their report was “seriously flawed” and that it relied on old, discredited arguments prepared by Ward Valley opponents.

Steve Romano, US Ecology’s vice president for California operations, reacted similarly to the geologists’ memo and the MWD report.

“It’s the same shopworn nonsense under a different cover that has been raised over and over,” Romano said.

Romano also scolded Boxer for not doing her homework when she argued that government officials were relying on US Ecology to make safety determinations about the project.

“What she said is false. It points to (the) fact that she hasn’t taken the time to review the scientific evidence that exists on the project. . . . The issues have been looked at by credentialed people who have independence, people other than US Ecology, and the consensus is that the project poses no danger to public health.”