Locals Win Victory in Fuel Debate

The final chapter of a town-gown saga came to a close this week, when Harvard officials agreed to use environmentally-friendly fuel in the on-site equipment at the construction project across the street from Mather House.

At Monday’s City Council meeting, Cambridge City Councillor Marjorie C. Decker announced the breakthrough as a “huge win-win for Harvard and residents.”

The University’s Director of Community Relations for Cambridge Thomas J. Lucey said using low-sulfur fuel fit into the University’s Green Campus Initiative, calling the University “predisposed” to adopt environmentally friendly practices.

But Harvard resisted the swap for months, pointing to special-order scrubbers and a filter Harvard had installed on the equipment as proof that they had already addressed the threat to the environment.

“While we think it is a good thing, we think we had already addressed it in a pretty good way,” said Lucey, characterizing the University’s initial approach as “a slightly different way to skin the cat.”

At weekly mitigation meetings, neighbors of the construction project fixated on getting Harvard to stop using high sulfur diesel in the site’s excavation crane, arguing that the exhaust spewing forth from the trucks and construction equipment posed a threat to the health of neighbors and students.

They maintained the swap was within the University’s power, despite protestations by Harvard that it was difficult to procure the fuel.

The nearest gas station that sells the low sulfur diesel is in Weymouth.

Both the city bus system and Harvard’s shuttles use the fuel, and a state law will go into effect in October requiring construction sites to use the low sulfur diesel.

“We’ve had multiple conversations with the construction companies about how feasible it is,” said Mitigation Manager Ed LeFlore, who has borne the brunt of residents’ anger in weekly meetings about construction concerns. “It’s not about how feasible it is. It’s really in the upper management of Harvard to decide how the projects are run and then I just coordinate it.”

Lucey said the swap would not have a significant financial impact.

The discussion, which devolved over the months into frustration and exasperation on both sides, appeared to be at a standstill until two weeks ago when Decker, who chairs the Health and Environment Committee and the University Relations Committee, devoted a public hearing to the issue.

“In terms of my interactions with the University, this is actually pretty good,” said Decker. “Harvard has people at the table who are willing to listen and willing to problem solve.”

“We’ll wait you out is traditionally the mentality,” she added.

Residents expressed satisfaction in the resolution of the issue.

“I’m really happy to see Harvard assuming the mantle of leadership in caring for the earth and its people. It was an excellent civic process and shows the benefits when town and gown work together,” said Carol Bankerd, a resident on Grant Street who has doggedly pursued the University for months.

Though the two groups were embroiled in negotiation over a small issue, participants in the tussle say it reflected broader discontent with the University’s construction practices.

Cambridge Public Health Director Sam Lipson, who reviews the University’s monthly environmental reports about the project, said he did not think the fuel change would make a significant difference if measured against a lifetime of exposure to pollution.

“I think one reason it became a central issue here because it was one thing that people felt could be improved upon where other aspects are sort of inherent to construction,” he said.

Lucey said it was unfair to use this episode as an example characteristic of the University’s interactions with Cambridge.

“This shouldn’t be used as a standard for what the town-gown relation is, given the scope of our work in the schools and a lot of different things,” Lucey said.

—Staff writer Natalie I. Sherman can be reached at nsherman@fas.harvard.edu.