Boston Edison Contests Power Plant

The environmental impact statement on the proposed Medical School area power plant "grossly understates" environmental problems and does not examine all the alternatives to the power plant, an official of the Boston Edison Company charged yesterday.

John J. Murphy, assistant manager in Boston Edison's electric and steam sales department, said he will attempt to refute the statement's conclusions on both environmental impact and necessity of the plant at a public hearing on the draft statement to be held at the Medical School's Countway Library next Wednesday.

Little Negative Impact

The draft environmental impact study on the plant, released two weeks ago, concluded that the $48 million power plant, designed to supply power for the Medical School and nearby facilities in the Brookline. Huntington area would have little negative impact on surrounding areas.

Murphy said Harvard and the affiliated medical institutions involved in the $48 million project are making "a very, very serious mistake" if they build the plant because Boston Edison can supply the power with less environmental disturbance and duplication.

Donald C. Moulton, assistant vice president for community affairs and Harvard coordinator of the project, yesterday called the impact statement, drawn up by the Environmental Research Technology Corporation, "fair and complete."

He said the energy power plant, which would provide electricity, steam, chilled water and refuse incineration to the institutions involved, will "use less fuel and cost less money" and will cause less pollution than the existing power plant.

The power plant Harvard now employs for steam and chilled water is scheduled to be demolished if the proposed plant receives the go-ahead from the Office of Environmental Affairs and the Boston Redevelopment Authority, which is holding the Wednesday hearing.

Murphy said Boston Edison wants to supply the energy to the medical institutions because "we don't want to lose the money."

"But more importantly," he said, "the project may be a disaster" because it could not supply the energy with the same reliability that Boston Edison could.

Moulton said the plant's "total energy concept" of providing all energy needs from one central plan equipped with back-up generators and the ability of the affected institutions "to borrow money at a better rate than Boston Edison," will make the power plant "much less expensive" and more reliable than employing Boston Edison.

Murphy said the institutions would save money by building the plant and not using Boston Edison, but only if they received tax exempt status from the City of Boston for the plant.

Murphy said the power plant should not be tax exempt, as is now planned, but should pay taxes commensurate to what Boston Edison would pay on the services rendered to the hospital.

Moulton said that the in-lieu of tax proposal that the institutions involved are trying to work out with the city "will be acceptable to all parties" once agreed upon regardless of the plant's proposed tax exempt status