UCLA Power Plant Plan Is Assailed : Development: Activists fear the environmental impact of the plant. University officials say the new plant will cause less pollution.

A group of Westside activists on Tuesday accused UCLA of rushing a proposed campus power plant through the approval process to avoid an impending tightening of regional air quality standards. University representatives insist they are only trying to avoid bureaucratic red tape.

The allegation about UCLA’s motives is one of dozens of disputes over the proposed new power plant, called a chiller-cogenerator, that would generate the electricity to heat, cool and light the Westwood campus.

Cogeneration is the simultaneous on-site generation of both electric energy and steam or heat from the same plant. The new facility would supply air conditioning for the South Campus, as well as most of the electricity for the campus.

Some community members and environmental groups view the project with alarm because they insist the university is downplaying the environmental impacts of the plant to present it in its most flattering light.

For example, said community leader Laura Lake, the university measures its pollutants at the Veterans Administration west of campus, where emissions are likely to be lower than downwind east of campus.

The proposed Chiller-Cogeneration plant, billed as “state of the art” by university officials, would feature three 125-foot smokestacks and cost more than $170 million. University officials say it is sorely needed to meet the needs of the campus, including the UCLA Medical Center and will replace antiquated equipment.

Opponents say the plant is potentially dangerous in such a populous area. They also view it as the force that churns the university’s massive long-range development plan, which they also oppose. Aesthetics is another concern.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District must approve the plans, as do the regents of the University of California, who are set to vote on it in September in Los Angeles.

Community members announced their opposition at a press conference Tuesday morning where the current generator stands, a few blocks north of Westwood Village. Among the groups represented were UCLA Watch, Brentwood Homeowners Assn., Friends of Westwood and the Clean Air Coalition.

“This is a case where we could take preventive action instead of waiting until the damage is done and having to clean it up,” said Carol Miller, representing the Beverly Hills Democratic Club and the Safe World Task Force of the National League of Jewish Women.

Some opponents continued to voice their objections Tuesday night at a public hearing on the environmental impact report, with UCLA representatives discounting their dire predictions of belching smokestacks and environmental disaster as not based in reality.

Speaking for UCLA, Allen Solomon, assistant vice chancellor for administration, said the new facility would cause less pollution than the old one. It would also cause less pollution than replacing the old cooling systems one by one, he said. That would “simply be perpetuating an energy inefficient system.”

Solomon said the project has been in the planning stages since 1984, with application for permits filed a year ago with the air quality management district. He said there is no effort to avoid stricter standards, since “we think we will qualify under both sets of rules.”

But when the standards change in late September, the agency must adopt the mechanics of a new approval process that could be cumbersome and hold up the project for as much as six months, Solomon said.

Solomon also disputed a community contention that the project is owned by a private firm, Parsons Municipal Services Inc., which is building and may operate the facility in a joint-venture with UCLA.

If Parsons is the legal owner, the project would be subject to city approval process, which would allow more scrutiny. As a state agency, UCLA is not subject to local government’s regulations, but it must pass muster with the AQMD.

Attached to the environmental reporter is a letter from the AQMD asking UCLA to assess the risk from the power plant to “sensitive receptors” such as schoolchildren and hospital patients, including cancer risk and other health impacts.

The California Energy Commission also questioned the “amount of thought and analysis” given to the effect of the plant on public safety, particularly as to “anhydrous ammonia” an “acutely hazardous material.”

Community members say they fear the accidental release of ammonia could portend disaster, while university officials say they have safeguards to prevent accidents.

“Cogeneration is not an ugly animal,” said Solomon. “It is, in fact, an environmentally responsible source of energy.”

But UCLA Watch leader Alvin Milder rejected information from the university that any dangerous emission would smell, thus alerting citizens to its presence. According to people he has consulted, “once you smell it, you’ve had it.”