For over one hundred and fifty years, American cities and towns lit their homes, factories and boulevards with manufactured gas. Replaced by natural gas, manufactured gas was phased out by the mid-twentieth century and American utility companies, municipalities and private property owners now face the challenge of reusing sites across the country that formerly housed manufactured gas plants. While questions of liability, remediation and development potential create many questions, cooperation among property owners, utilities, regulatory bodies and developers points to promising futures for many of these sites. In addition, because many of these plants are in the midst of prime real estate, they have great potential as economically viable brownfield developments.

Manufactured gas plants were first developed in Great Britain, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, in the early 1800s and the technology quickly spread to the Unites States—the first manufactured gas plant (MGP) in the United States was built in Baltimore in 1816 and by the late 1850s there were approximately 300 companies operating across the country. This technology took hold because it provided much brighter light than tallow or oil lamps and was later even preferred to kerosene lighting.

Very often located in the heart of communities, MGPs, also called “town gas” plants, were a sign of progress for American towns and cities. According to Bruce Rasher, of Consumers Renaissance Development Corp., “Any self-respecting town across America wanted to have gas lights along its boulevards. That was progress. It was a sign of sophistication and of a thriving community.”

This circa 1919 photo of Racine, Wisconsin's gas plant shows some of the aspects of the process. At rear is the smokestack from the heating process and to its right are the coal storage and transfer facilities. The storage tanks at the right were designed to expand or collapse as they were filled and emptied. The tank in the foreground is only partly filled.

Manufactured gas plants were found in a variety of locations: in the middle of cities; next to large industrial operations; and sometimes in low-density rural areas. Access to transportation was a crucial factor for their placement.

Overwhelmingly, the plants were found along rail lines or near waterways because of their need for large amounts of raw materials, especially coal. By the early ’40s, an estimated 1,500 communities had MGPs and in some cases, a community had more than one to serve its population. It is currently estimated that there are over 2,000 dormant plant sites across the country. This does not include similar sites for the storage of manufactured gas, or smaller private gas production operations.

The plants used several similar techniques to manufacture the gas, and each involved heating, but not burning, coal. Often heated in an underground vessel, the heated coal emitted a gas, which when mixed with air and steam and injected with oil, resulted in a rich energy source. A variety of structures were required for manufacturing the gas: a retort house for heating the coal; gas holding tanks; gas purifiers; oil tanks and coal storage areas [see photo above]. Manufactured gas reached streetlights, homes and businesses through a system of underground pipes. Manufactured gas was replaced by more affordable and cleaner natural gas starting in the 1930s and town gas technology was effectively phased out by the late 1950s.

Manufacturing gas resulted in a variety of useable by-products including coke and coal tar. Coke was an integral part of steel manufacturing and distilled coal tar was the basis for a variety of then new products including roofing tar, motor fuel, pitch, creosote, heavy, medium and light-weight oils, waterproofing agents, pharmaceuticals, plastics, dyestuffs, soaps and even shampoos. According to Bruce Rasher, the marketability of manufactured gas byproducts led to local government intervention on gas pricing. This local regulation and the profitability of byproducts helped make gas affordable for many urban residents and businesses.

The production of manufactured gas was not a “clean” process, nor did all production residues find new uses. The results are contaminated soils that today require careful assessment and remediation. MGP operators often dumped unmarketable byproducts in nonengineered landfills that often resulted in groundwater and soil impacts. Spills, leaks and handling practices related to operations also resulted in soil and groundwater contamination. For the most part, the residual chemicals from the plant’s production remain underground.

By the end of the manufactured gas plant era in the 1950s, most plants were razed and the sites converted to other uses. Now many of the sites can contain chemicals or chemical compounds that can cause health hazards if the property is not remediated properly. Residual chemicals and chemical compounds include polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons such as napthalene, volatile organic compounds such as benzene, inorganic nitrogen, complex cyanides and trace metals including iron and aluminum.

However, no two manufactured gas plant sites are exactly alike. Tremendous variation exists in terms of the presence of residual chemicals and the remediation required to reuse these sites. Utilities, private owners, developers, and regulators have had to address each site on a case-by-case basis. The central issues are the environmental condition of the property, the marketability, and trailing liabilities. The key question is “Can cleanup be sufficient and cost-effective enough for safe and profitable redevelopment with a clear definition of liable parties?” There are significant incentives for all parties to evaluate the long-term uses for former MGP sites. These properties are potentially tremendous assets to urban centers as more communities across the country try to avoid greenfield development. Further complicating the question is that in many states, the level of remediation required can increase based on the planned future use of the site.

At the highest level, the federal government, through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulate manufactured gas plant site remediation. CERCLA oversees the cleaning up of environmental contamination at abandoned and historic sites.

CERCLA usually funds the cleanup of sites where no known party is found responsible for the contamination or the party is insolvent. The removal of contaminated soils or sludges or groundwater remediation (when necessary) requires compliance with RCRA, the federal program that manages hazardous and solid wastes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or EPA-authorized state agencies oversees this program.

State and local regulatory bodies also play an important role in the remediation process. Some states have a single cleanup criterion, which sets up the same guidelines without regard to future use. However, in several states including Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire and Maine, remediation levels for manufactured gas plant sites are determined by future use plans.

In 1995 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) started a Site Remediation Program (SRP) that addresses the remediation of MGP sites as well as other industrial properties. According to Stan Black, of the IEPA, the objectives of this voluntary program are to protect utility workers at industrial sites, the public in commercial sites and children and families at residential development sites.

Participants in the Illinois program include utilities, private owners and interested third parties. The applicant does not need to be a property owner but must have the signed approval of the property owner for the site to be included in the program. The applicant agrees to pay the oversight costs for soil and water tests and submit work plans and required reports to the agency.

The first step in the SRP is to determine how the site will be used in the future. Cleanup objectives are set by how much contact people will have with the land. These objectives are clearly defined in the Tiered Approach to Cleanup Objectives (“TACO”) document. If the manufactured gas plant’s remediation plan meets the objectives relative to the predetermined use set for the property, the owner can receive a No Further Remediation letter, which states that the potential contamination has been addressed in light of future use. To avoid further liability, the property title must reflect any usage restrictions. According to Peter McCauley, the Environmental Project Manager at ComEd, a Chicago-based electric utility company, programs like the IEPA Site Remediation Program are very reasonable in terms of “realistic expectations,” and have proven to be “non-antagonistic and mutually beneficial.” ComEd either owns or has a liability connection to 44 sites in Illinois, of which 20 are currently being investigated or are undergoing remediation.

Today the most common owners of manufactured gas plant sites are electric and gas companies. Often these companies inherited the sites through mergers and acquisitions, which means that American utility corporations are faced with examining their property holdings, identifying end-use strategies, conducting remediation plans, reducing costs and limiting liabilities. The utility industry spends between $100 and 200 million a year on these pursuits with the research and development support of the Electric Power Research Institute and the Gas Research Institute.

How sites are cleaned and how much they cost can vary widely. Utilities have faced costs of up to three million dollars an acre for cleanup. Insurance for this liability is an option.

Some sites require excavation, and in places where coal tar is present in soil it can be sent to utility plants to be co-burned with coal.

Other sites are treated with an engineered barrier. For example, a play- ground in Ottawa, Illinois was built on a former manufactured gas site after the site was remediated and then a three–foot soil cap was placed on top of the site. Asphalt can also be an effective barrier after a site is cleaned up to the appropriate standard.

The public’s interest in redevelopment of MGP sites can be important to their success. Residents concerned about the environment and the health and safety of their community often become part of the remediation and reuse equation. Open lines of communication, and clear explanations regarding the remediation process and the future plans for the site can allay fears and build positive relationships between developers and their new neighbors. In some cases, older neighborhood residents can contribute to the investigative process through recollections and personal documents that help reconstruct the site for investigators. Conflicts over liability and fear of contaminants can result in misunderstandings as in the case of a city park, once an MGP site in Oak Park, Illinois (see p.18).

Gaslight Pointe in Racine, WI.

Municipalities determined to revitalize their downtown areas play an important role in the redevelopment of MGP sites. Gas Works Park in Seattle shines as an excellent example. This 20-acre park at the point of Lake Union was the site of a manufactured gas plant from the early 1900s to the 1950s. Seattle acquired the land in 1962 and developed a park on it in 1975. The boiler house has been converted to a picnic shelter and the former exhauster-compressor building is now a children’s play facility.

Redevelopment plans are currently underway for a former manufactured gas plant site in Elkhart, Indiana. This piece of property, located in Elkhart’s revitalizing downtown, was the site of a gas plant between 1871 and 1926. The property was a parking lot until 1975 and most recently it housed a hotel. The hotel became an eyesore and the city purchased and razed it as part of larger redevelopment efforts. The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO, subsidiary of NiSource) had a remedial liability plan for the property and has cleaned it up along guidelines set according to future use. In this case the property will be restricted and have a “covenant not to sue” and will never have a well or be used for residential development, according to Dale Helmer, manager of the land section for NIPSCO.

One of the most ambitious redevelopment projects on a former manufactured gas plant site is found in Racine, a community on Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan shoreline. Gaslight Pointe, a 12-acre site developed by the Wispark Corporation, the non-regulated, non-utility real estate development subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy, is home to a Radisson Hotel and Chancery restaurant, a condominium development, a boat mooring facility and an office building. The 67 condominiums at Gaslight Pointe, priced between $90,000 and $400,000 are all sold and the Chancery restaurant is the highest grossing dining establishment in Racine. Construction is currently underway for a 46,000 square foot office building at the site.

According to Jerry Franke of the development office of Wispark, and John Bartell, a spokesman for Wisconsin Electric, this project has been a tremendous success because of the corporation’s close working relationship with the city of Racine. As part of a larger revitalization of Racine’s lakefront and downtown, the land was included in a TIF (tax increment financing) to help make this project viable. The site underwent extensive remediation, and storm water collection systems, a venting system, and a safety system for any residual gas leaks were all put into place. No gas has ever been detected on the site and the land was capped with six feet of clay. A sea wall, public streets, a public lakefront walkway and a public parking structure were all built to serve the new development.

The success of Gaslight Pointe has encouraged other southeastern Wisconsin communities to investigate the redevelopment of MGP sites. Currently Wisconsin Electric is working with the cities of Kenosha and Burlington under the guidance of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and local environmental groups to cleanup sites that will in turn make way for the continued downtown redevelopment in these communities.

Manufactured gas plant sites in America’s urban centers offer a new opportunity for brownfield development. The sites, located in downtown locations, often have excellent transportation accessibility and in some instances beautiful views. The consensus is that these former industrial sites can play an important role in the revitalization of urban centers and the cooperation of utilities, regulatory agencies, community groups, and municipalities is leading to exciting new public, commercial and residential uses for manufactured gas plant sites.

Liesl Orenic is a professor of history in Chicago