MATEP Case Heard in High Court

The state's highest court heard arguments yesterday that it should reverse a state environmental agency's decision to license Harvard's Medical Area Total Energy Plant (MATEP).

Foes of the $350 million facility argued that it should not be allowed to operate because pollutants from its diesel engines could potentially lead to an increased mortality rate among the plant's neighboring population.

A decision by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to uphold the licensing would remove the final obstacle in Harvard's 12-year struggle to bring the plant into full operation.

The debate has been highly emotional, and the charged atmosphere did not change in the rarefied air of the wood-panelled Boston courtroom.

"I am one of those walking potential victims of cancer," Michael Lambert, who said he lives 1200 feet from the plant, told the court. Lambert then produced four test tubes of acid soot from his jacket pocket as an illustration of the potential threat from the power plant.

The MATEP project, which was initiated in 1974, was constructed over a seven-year period and cost more than nine times the original estimates. Its purpose is to provide cheap, reliable energy to the medical area. Harvard officials call it the most efficient diesel-powered energy plant in the world.

Yesterday's hearing was the second time the SJC has reviewed the legality of the plant. In 1984 it decided that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) had not investigated possible effects from carcinogens and ordered new hearings to review the problem. That DEQE review is what is now in question.

The opponents of MATEP argued that it should not be permitted to operate because the state environmental agencydetermined that four extra deaths due to lungcancer could result over the projected 40 yearlife of the plant.

An assistant state attorney general, JanetO'Kay, defended the decision by the Department ofEnvironmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) tolicense the diesel engines. O'Kay said it was theDEQE's mandate to determine the significance ofhealth risks.

"With specific respect to air quality, it isbest left to the DEQE to determine and assess on acase by case basis" what plants should open, O'Kaytold the justices, saying that the risk was notthat great.

The attorney representing MATEP, Vernon Vance,echoed the state's arguments. He added that thefour deaths are not necessarily likely nor verysignificant considering current pollution levels.The DEQE made a proper "risk assessment," Vancesaid.

But Thomas Bracken, special counsel to the townof Brookline, argued that the DEQE decision wasfaulty because it dismissed the threat to airquality as insignificant mainly on the groundsthat the air in the Boston/Brookline area isalready polluted.

"It is inappropriate, inconsistent andunlawful" for the DEQE to make a decision bycomparing the MATEP emissions to pollution fromother existing sources, disregarding the addedthreat to human life, Bracken said